Chairot is truly that bad, yes petersen was really bad this year and the year before. Durzi is a pretty high upside type of guy still at this point and jared really is not. DET is already locked in on Husso's contract for better or worse and will eventually look to bring Cossa into action.

I can't tell if that's an endorsement or a criticism.

I just think LAK has more risk here and it is not overly practical for DET to be paying two goalies who are shaky a lot of money

So some upside and downside for both teams. Sounds perfect, no?

I still don't know how 2 GM's were fooled so heavily by Chariot in a 6month time frame with Florida trading a 1st + for him at the deadline and then Yzerman handing out that albatross of a contract to him in free agency.

Clever. Both teams trying to fix an L signing they made. Just gotta think DET will value Chiarot higher due to him being an actual NHL player over Petersen who is more of an AHL goalie at this time.

Sure, but Detroit can just bury Petersen in the AHL for the cap savings if they want, and at least they get out of the bad deal one year earlier.

True, plus they'll benefit immediately from having Durzi in the lineup. I think they should take it.

Petersen ia pure cap dump that would normally cost two 2nds to offload. Durzi is worth about two 2nds.

A fair price would be Petersen and Durzi for future considerations but since we have no room for McIsaac you can have him to sweeten the deal.

Asking for Chiarot who actually fills a spot on the team and also a 2nd round pick on top of that is a definite no from Detroit.

The 2nd round pick and McIssac are for Durzi. You can take both of those assets and Durzi out of the deal if you want. Chiarot for Petersen is a 1-for-1 swap of negative value assets. The benefit for Detroit is they get out from under the bad contract a year earlier.

Edit: There, I split up the trades so it's more clear.

We'll keep Chiarot, he fills a spot on the roster and allows us to introduce our kids on defense without rushing them.

A 2nd and McIsaac for Durzi is a fair offer and will be accepted if it's the #43 overall.

The Kings can't trade Durzi if they're not getting back a NHL-ready LHD, because he currently fills that roster spot. With Petersen's contract on the books, the Kings can't afford anyone more expensive than Durzi. This trade solves both of those issues.

Durzi isn't available unless Detroit sends back Chiarot. The Kings can't afford Chiarot unless Detroit takes Petersen.

How about this? Detroit can keep their 2nd if they retain $1.75M on Chiarot's contract.

Why can't the Kings sign a LD in free agency? That's what Detroit would have to do if they traded Chiarot.

Chiarot is not a negative in Detroit, Peterson is. There's no way that trade is being done.

Peterson is an AHL goalie that we have no use for. Chiarot is a NHL defender that we still need.

We'll take Durzi as payment for taking Peterson off your hands and you sign a LD in free agency. That gives you 6.7 millions in cap and you should be able to find a good LD for that money in free agency.

I thought Detroit had like 15 LHD in their pipeline all looking for ice time. Between Walman, Maatta, Edvinsson, and Wallinder, I figured you guys would have LHD covered. Not sure why Detroit would need a free agent.

Chiarot is a negative value asset, regardless of where he plays.

Durzi is the biggest trade chip the Kings have. They're not going to use it simply as an add-on asset for a cap dump. If they can kill two birds with one stone (dump Petersen, add bodyguard for Spence & Clarke) then they might consider it. If not, they'll look elsewhere.

No he's not. Chiarot is a neutral asset at worst, coming off his first season in a new system. He actually played a lot better down the stretch and just needs a steady partner to thrive. He'll be fine and Detroit has zero reason to pay to move him.

They're not paying to move him. They'd be trading him for an equally bad asset with a contract that ends a year earlier.

Taking a bad asset IS paying to move him. Peterson is a significant negative asset whereas Chiarot is neutral at worst. The two are not comparable or equal in value in any way.

I can't imagine anyone else actually believes that Chiarot is a neutral valued asset. You really think there's a team out there that would take his full contract for future considerations?

Detroit have no reason to get rid of him.

We don't need the cap. We do need a 7th defender. We have a lot of young inexperienced kids on LD and bringing two of them up to the NHL only for one of them to do nothing but sit in the press box the entire year is not an option.

Having Chiarot around to be a 7th defender that can play both sides is very beneficial to the team. That he's overpaid for that job is utterly irrelevant due to us having plenty of room under the cap. Chiarot is also a very good injury insurance that allows the kids to maximise their icetime in Grand Rapids instead of being called up to play 10 minutes or sit in the press box every time someone gets a stubbed toe.

In short - Chiarot is useful, Petersen isn't.

I'm convinced he has blackmail on the league or something. No way multiple competent GMs like Yzerman and Zito look at that guy and see the kind of value that they give up for him

To be fair, one of Chiarot's only qualities was his grittiness (something this team lacks desperately). Obviously something like that doesn't deserve 5x5, but I can kinda see why he wanted him.

To be fair, he only got 4x4.75, that's still 1 year less and 1m less in real money.


He's making 2nd pair dollars and is realistically a 3rd pair defender, play him in that role and he's fine.

I liked the idea of the trade but Chiarot is still needed as mentioned above. Me personally I wouldn't mind trading him, with retention, next year but he has some qualities we need even though I think he's a pylon.

Forgot the exact terms, but point still stands.