Why would Team X trading for him not be able to sign him to the same contract as the Habs? I can't recall a RFA being signed and traded right away, it's usually the other way around.
I guess I'd flip it around and ask why a team would give up asset(s) (picks or players) without knowing how much it's going to cost to sign a player? It's not like any other team can approach an RFA for negotiations; all they can do is make an offer sheet (and likely ruffle feathers in the process). Once a player is signed, his "value" or "worth" is defined, and it's much easier for any interested team to take that and assess what they're willing to give up in return, and they're not left with the uncertainty of how their own negotiations will go afterwards. And, of course, signing him ensures retention of that asset in the mean time.
It's not exactly rocket science, but I'm not saying it points to him being traded, either. It just gives PG more flexibility in his options if that's the road he decides to take. Besides, you'll likely never see anyone willing to give up assets for rights to a bottom-tier player; you only see that kind of thing when things like negotiation rights to players like Sundin are involved.
Trotter definately is leaving Dinamo for NA. He had clause in his two-year deal, that allowed him to leave if he gets offered one-way deal from NHL team. Official site of Dinamo states, that Trotter asked for a permission to leave and club granted it even though they could of refused as the Habs contract offer is two-way.
I don't know who Steven Hindle is, but he probably doesn't know anything about this signing. How can Trotter use NHL as a negotiating tool, when he was under written contract for another year?