Edmonton takes that and runs, pretty sure this gets Hughes fired.

No

He's saying that + a prospect, but maybe you're saying that regardless, but considering that the Oilers are retaining 1M, I don't think it's that bad for MTL especially if they get someone like Holloway with some potential.

This. The trade is missing an additional piece. The debate is on the quality of the missing piece. Is adding Holloway enough? Too much?

The issue I have with a Campbell length contract, is it interfering down the line while we have bad cap elsewhere and impeding our ability to spend to the cap while trying to contend.
Now if we were able to arrange a Gallagher trade I'm interested. Maybe Anderson.
Not a good idea to move short term bad contracts for longer term unless it's really worth it, and there's no singular piece I want from Edmonton so we're talking multiple picks and or prospects.

Personally, I think if EDM is retaining they won't want to give up what Hughes would want. I like the thinking though, but it probably requires a more useful player who is making more than they should. Maybe Josh Anderson with retention and Campbell unretained. The only problem though for MTL is that Anderson has the same term as Campbell so they probably don't want to have those overlapping the entire time especially if they choose to buy out Campbell. I think Allen (without retention) is a better fit because it also addresses a need for the Oilers.

Moving Campbell means $5M x 3, historically you want a 1st round pick or similar asset for each season, removing a million for each season might make that closer to a 1st, 2nd, Holloway.

However, Edmonton won't retain if possible, a buyout means 7 years in a salary-retained spot for both teams.

From the Canadiens point of view, buying a bad contract once you have refilled your cupboards to be competitive is a weird move. Holloway doesn't exactly make them a competitor, so what is their logic here? They have plenty of prospects, they are close to competing for a playoff spot within the next few seasons.

So adding one of Holloway or Bourgault wouldn't sway you?

Idk, in 2 years Allen will be long gone, Montembeault too maybe. And with the cap going up. A decent back up will probably be around $4mil aav anyways. The issues becomes if they still have to bury him. but at that point buying out his last 2 years wouldn't be that bad (and with EDM retaining, the buyout cost would be less for MTL).

The habs aren't going to trade Primeau because they're trying to rebuild their team, And Primeau is the goalie the habs are relying on to progress well

This is a great counter argument. The same could be said for Armia for MTL however. Just to a lesser extent. EDM retaining on Campbell and swapping with Armia is almost equal in cap movement. So it ends up being only the last 2 seasons at $4mil aav that MTL needs to be compensated on.

and as I've mentioned in another reply, a decent back up in 2025-26 might cost around $4mil anyway. So from MTLs perspective here, they have to gauge the risk of Campbell being a decent back up in 2 years to the upside in the prospect they are getting as a return.

I disagree. The only reason I think MTL are holding onto Primeau is as a backup plan if they can't re-sign Montembeault.

I'd bet you money that if Montreal re-sign Montembeault mid season. Primeau gets moved for something worth very little, or they finally waive him.

The only impending definitive needs I see, are a legitimate starting goaltender and a top 6 forward. That's assuming Slafkovsky and one other prospect (Roy?) reach top 6 status.
We have more than enough "maybes" but lack for more certainty in our forward prospect pool.
The only certainty is that we have enough top 9 potential. Now we need to start aiming higher.

If we can't fill those gaps from within in a reasonable time frame, we have to turn to free agency, which is when that cap space will come back to bite us. The cap going up is almost immaterial when you have to go to UFA for your needs, as UFA demands rise as well. The protection against that is moving from within and locking in RFA years.
So my strategy would be more future cap must mean more future potential in the system. I don't think Bourgault or Holloway increase that potential enough to compensate for the cap involved.
Now if Edmonton could manage more picks, we can leverage those into packages to move some median potential for higher potential or perhaps draft some, but prospects tend to lose their luster when moved multiple times, so we won't get as much currency out of Holloway or Bourgault over raw picks.

Armia is just a one-year problem after this season while Campbell is a more expensive and three-year problem after this season. I think if Montreal agreed to not buyout Campbell for the duration of his contract then the Oilers would be very interested, but I just don't see the logic for a team who is leaving their rebuild in Montreal.

Montreal has proven to have a competent goalie scouting department, so I would let them keep doing their thing and not bring outside failing goalies. I think Montreal will most likely sell one of their 3 goalies for the strongest return to Edmonton and stay pat in bringing in bad long-term contracts. The other snag to this is Campbell still has a NMC, and might just stop the trade and only go to a team who is willing to start him at the NHL level.

this trade is not "missing a piece" its missing logic

Let's ignore the return for now.

Campbell's buyout costs 1.1M, 2.3M, 2.6M, then 1.5M for 3 more years against the cap. Armia has a 3.4M cap hit next year but then after that, he's off the books so not really worth it if it's him. I did just say that moving a retained Anderson or Gallagher would probably cause them more problems but maybe not if we look at it closer.

Anderson's buyout would be 222K, 2.22, 3.72, then 1.72m for 3 years which is slightly worse than Campbell's, not that he would be someone that MTL would want to buy out since they probably think they could eventually get a return for him with retention.

Gallagher's buyout would be 333K cap credit, then 2.16...M against the cap, 4.6...m, then 2.16M... for 3 years which is worse than Campbell's buyout.

If they trade Gallagher at 50%, then they turn 6.5Mx3, to 4.35m, 5.55M, 5.85M, 1.5M, 1.5M, 1.5m, so basically they save 2.2M y1, 0.95M y2, 0.65m y3, and then take additional 1.5Mx3 for 3-years after. Y1-Y3 is when their RFAs do need contracts but obviously, 2.2M in savings is pretty good but then after that it's not really worth it. It is worth considering though that with the cap going up they would need less savings and those extra years where the 1.5M hit occurs will be less significant even if they are in their contention window. Edmonton probably would want nothing to do with him even at 50% though.

Maybe something with Anderson could work though where MTL isn't really accruing extra cap hit other than the 1.5Mx3. The benefit would depend on getting an overall decent return on Anderson + through dumping Campbell. They could probably incorporate Allen at 50% as well.

Maybe Campbell for Anderson at 3.075M (2.425M retention) + Allen at 50% (1.925M) could be a start, the Oilers turn Campbell's 5M into a roster forward and a goalie. Maybe MTL could get away with retaining 750K-900K less since some prospect/NHLer would need to be moved but let's just look at how it would look like for MTL at 2.425M retention and buying out Campbell.

Before: 9.35M 5.5M 5.5M
After: 5.775M 4.725M 5.025M 1.5M 1.5M 1.5M

I think the Oilers would be more keen on paying up for Anderson at 2.75M and Allen at 1.925M instead of having to straight-up dump Campbell, then maybe MTL can get two 1sts or the equivalent of that. Maybe 2024 1st (top-10 protected), Holloway/Bourgault/Savoie + a conditional 2026 2nd (if the Oilers miss the playoffs in 2024, it becomes a 3rd or 4th, and if they win the cup in 2024 or 2025, MTL receives their 2025 1st instead with the conditions being tied to Allen's performance in those runs).

Good assessment.

Change the 2nd round pick for a 1st and add one of Bourgeault/Holloway/Broberg and maybe

Debatable, but ok.