Skip to content
The Canadiens are not looking to trade David Savard, says Kent Hughes
Credit: Capture d'écran / Screenshot

Now that Sean Monahan has been traded, what’s next for the Habs?

In an ideal world, a goalie would have to go. Perhaps Tanner Pearson or a Johnathan Kovacevic could also pack his bags in the next month.

But if not, one name to keep in mind is David Savard. The defenseman is tailor-made for the playoffs, and you’d think some teams would want him.

But will he leave? Is his $3.5 million salary for another year and a half a hindrance?

When asked about this by François Gagnon at today’s press conference, Kent Hughes stated that he had not had any discussions with David Savard on the sidelines of the deadline.

I haven’t yet. But my door is always open. – Kent Hughes

In concrete terms, the GM says he’s open to trading anyone. It just depends on which player is available in return.

And that’s when he added that, at the moment, he can’t say he’s looking to trade David Savard. So in the DG’s official words, the defenseman is not on the market.

Is the DG bluffing? Perhaps. Can the situation change between now and March 8? Perhaps. Could a club make him an offer that’s hard/impossible to refuse? Maybe.

So I’m not ready to conclude that he’s not worth trading.

Remember that, according to Stu Cowan, the Quebec defenseman should be traded by March 8. Will he be right? The answer in five big weeks at most.

Trading him would leave a hole on the blue line, but would make room for younger players.

If I had a $2 to put down, I’d say he’s more likely to leave this summer. I have a feeling that his contract will make him more tradeable this summer, when he’s only got one year left on his deal and the cap has gone up.

I think that to trade him this winter, we’d have to use salary retention… and that’s not optimal for the Habs.

In gossip

– Kyle Dubas is happy to see Theo Epstein with the Red Sox.

– He left his mark.

– Indeed.

– Gang rape case: will more names come out?[RC]

– Well done.

– Taking on an ugly contract has value.

More Content