Blatant error from Kent Hughes: Tony Marinaro believes that the contract given to goaltender Jake Allen is a detriment to the Canadiens

In fact, the error highlighted by Tony Marinaro is not related to the amount but to the duration of the contract. According to him, a two-year extension, especially when the team is in reconstruction, is too much. He adds that it becomes evident that the veteran is no longer part of the equation. The Canadiens need to play Primeau and Montembeault more often, but they cannot.

According to him, this contract is a hindrance to the development of the two young goalkeepers, and therefore, it hampers the Canadiens. We must give him credit, as Allen doesn't stand out more than the other two, who are also doing very well. However, it should be mentioned that Primeau and Montembeault were not as solid at the time Hughes signed Allen, justifying this contract.

This might be why a trade has not been completed yet. With similar statistics, other teams will likely prefer to trade for a young goalkeeper rather than acquire one in his thirties.

Finally, Marinaro mentions that he would be willing to retain 50% of Allen's salary to get rid of him. Do you agree with his statements?