Unpopular opinion

[admiralcadillac]

Are people forgetting Matheson had the 3rd most minutes played per game this season? He was absolutely doing all he could in that role. He would be a luxury at the 4 spot for us there is no reason to get rid of him now.

 

[Scriptor]

The kids are ready, thats the problem.

What are you smoking? North kids aren't ready yet. Rushing them and -- worse -- projecting production levels as though they had actually done so at the NHL level is naïve, at best.

Unless we can get a lot more for Matheson with two years left on his contract than we can for Matheson as a rental, you don't trade him until the final year of his contract.

That said, no player is beyond trading if the return is right. I don't think you should trade any player at all cost and just agree to what the best return is for that player.

If the cost was Matheson + Roy + the WIN 1st round pick for Kyrou, would you do that trade?

If it was Matheson + Beck + the WIN 1st round pick?

Matheson +both the WIN 1st round pick in 2024 and the CAL 1st round pick (likely FLA's) in 2025?

If not Kyrou, who for that price tag?

 

[JianYang]

You overrate Savard, he is also a 5-6-7 guy on a Cup contender. In fact he was, on TB I believe.
Think value my friend, value, and then do what I do pretend Kovacevic can speak french, it helps.

Savard's days are numbered in Montreal.
Remember, this started with should we trade Matheson, and I said, not yet, deal Savard, and move on....

So, we will agree to disagree.

I agree that he's a pretty good 3rd pair option. #7 D is pushing it.

That lightning team was not just a contender, it was a super team.

 

[Doc McKenna]

Kovacevic is 27, Harris has 150 games of experience, etc. There's no reason to move Savard, he's cheap, effective and he's a RD.

The main draw to moving Matheson is that he's a LD and his value is at its all time high.


Guhle had more points than Matheson at 5v5 this year. He could very well pile up 40-50 with PP time.

Hutson is defacto a top 10 PP QB in the league, he could pile up 20-30 points on the PP alone.

This is the right answer imo. We know this is his peak, and he won't be a consistent 60 point dman in his 30s.
Friend at work asked if we would like Petry back because he is garrrtbage.

No thank you

This is exactly opposite of Markov when we traded away a replacement. We have so many prospects for D and LD in particular. It's our strongest place. Get help where we need it or for a pick and prospect that replaces him in a few years when we have to move a different dman because of cap. Or other youngster looking for a huge payday.

I don't ever want to be stuck in cap hell because we have no prospect, no picks, and still have a full cap piece of crap team. It felt like that for most of Bergen in era. Rarely made the smart trade. Resign of pleks twice was a mistake and then repeats it with other players.

 

[ReHabs]

From the outside, this argument always seems legit... But for those who know, it reflects a lack of understanding what cultures of excellence are really about.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it specious.

Really no different than what the team, and some fans, recognized in Slaf, but so many others missed completely.

Just because something isn't easily measured or quantified, doesn't mean it isn't significant.

Fortunately, we finally have a management group that knows, and has thick enough skin to ignore the peanut gallery & all it's ill informed ramblings

You should read my comment again, and more carefully, before you spout off. I never said intangibles aren’t real or relevant.

 

[Miller Time]

You should re-read my comment before making an ass of yourself again. I didn’t say ‘intangibles’ don’t exist.

Your post didn't offer anything of value, I just quoted and responded to one of of the several specious arguments you offered up.

Par for the course when one spouts of on things they clearly don't understand.

That you don't understand intangibles or the role group dynamics play in culture building is a you problem, not, fortunately, a problem with our current management.

Bad is a bad take, no need to get personal.

 

[schwang26]

The kids are ready, thats the problem.

Didn’t they have one of the worst goals against in the league? (Yes, I know Matheson was part of that)They aren’t ready.

You can’t run with 6 guys in their early 20’s. and not one of them will hit the 60 point mark next year. Even Hutson.

 

[ReHabs]

Your post didn't offer anything of value, I just quoted and responded to one of of the several specious arguments you offered up.

Par for the course when one spouts of on things they clearly don't understand.

That you don't understand intangibles or the role group dynamics play in culture building is a you problem, not, fortunately, a problem with our current management.

Bad is a bad take, no need to get personal.

You're tilting against windmills.

I never said intangibles aren't significant. I recommend you read the post again.

 

[Mrb1p]

Didn’t they have one of the worst goals against in the league? (Yes, I know Matheson was part of that)They aren’t ready.

You can’t run with 6 guys in their early 20’s. and not one of them will hit the 60 point mark next year. Even Hutson.

Yes you can. And Matheson does nothing to prevent that, he's the worse defensive player on this team. It makes no sense to stick to age as a metric of nhl readiness. What if we trade Matheson for DeAngelo ? They're the same age, would that be adequate to "insulate" our players ? What if we went for Gustaffsson ? Matheson had the worse GF stats all over the board, so thats, rate, rel, totals, etc.

It's a ridiculous notion.


Matheson will not hit 60 either.

 

[Habnot]

Yes you can. And Matheson does nothing to prevent that, he's the worse defensive player on this team. It makes no sense to stick to age as a metric of nhl readiness. What if we trade Matheson for DeAngelo ? They're the same age, would that be adequate to "insulate" our players ? What if we went for Gustaffsson ? Matheson had the worse GF stats all over the board, so thats, rate, rel, totals, etc.

It's a ridiculous notion.


Matheson will not hit 60 either.

What's laughable is that you make statements as if they are facts...

Is their young D-Corp ready? You say they are but it's just not backed with evidence. Quite the contrary - Guhle is injury prone - Hutson, Mailloux Reinbacher haven't proven anything at the NHL level - they are basically rookies. The rest are 5-6 defensemen. You can't be serious that Matheson is expendable next year. And while you regurgitate all your fancy stats, Matheson's biggest value is his mentorship of the young D's.

DeAngelo or Gufstaffsson? You can't be serious - one is a locker room cancer and the other is a specialist on a good team. This is what you wish for this team? I would take your opinion with a grain of salt.

Listening to some on this board you would be happy being perpetually in a rebuild. Matheson is a foundation piece for the next 2-3 years. He is more valuable for that period that using him as a trade piece. He also doesn't get you what you need. The only way you get top end talent is by including one of your top prospects.

 

[Mrb1p]

What's laughable is that you make statements as if they are facts...

Is their young D-Corp ready? You say they are but it's just not backed with evidence. Quite the contrary - Guhle is injury prone - Hutson, Mailloux Reinbacher haven't proven anything at the NHL level - they are basically rookies. The rest are 5-6 defensemen. You can't be serious that Matheson is expendable next year. And while you regurgitate all your fancy stats, Matheson's biggest value is his mentorship of the young D's.

DeAngelo or Gufstaffsson? You can't be serious - one is a locker room cancer and the other is a specialist on a good team. This is what you wish for this team? I would take your opinion with a grain of salt.

Listening to some on this board you would be happy being perpetually in a rebuild. Matheson is a foundation piece for the next 2-3 years. He is more valuable for that period that using him as a trade piece. He also doesn't get you what you need. The only way you get top end talent is by including one of your top prospects.

Savard does that. Whens the last time you've seen Matheson talking to the kids ? Lol.

And no my example clearly went over your head, lol. The point was that "age" does not define ability. Matheson doesn't insulate anyone because he's god-awful at 5v5, just like these other two. If Gus, Gost or TDA were on this team, nobody would say " Nuuuuh, don't trade them the defense is too young!

What's your plan then ? Play Guhle on his offside for the entirety of next year ? Have your top pair be outproduced 57% of the time because Matheson is absolute ass on the ice at 5v5 ? Have Hutson see absolutely no PP time because Matheson requires the full 2 minutes to produce ? Have Guhle and Hutson see absolutely no offensive opportunities because we're feeding them to Matehson ? Who are we benching ? Guhle ? Hutson? Xhekaj ? Struble ? All these LD's should be playing next year, now we'll have either one playing his off-side or two on the bench watching Matheson go on his little adventures.

 

[Habnot]

You are clearly only relying on fancy stats to explain your position. Matheson is by far our best defenseman and the coaching staff clearly believes this. Excuse me for putting my faith in Marty over yours. So does the rest of the NHL who has praised Matheson's play this year.

Savard? As the season progressed he clearly demonstrated that he cannot follow the speed of play. He can't servive next year.

My plan? I can give my opinion but it's not worth squat - it's what Gorton, Hughes and Marty believe and I will put my trust in them. That being said, I would be very comfortable with Hutson, Reinbacher and Mailloux starting in the AHL and start the year with

Matheson - Guhle
Jackeye - Barron
Harris - Savard
Struble/Kovacevic as spare.

There is nothing to gain in expediting D's to the NHL.

 

[Mrb1p]

You are clearly only relying on fancy stats to explain your position. Matheson is by far our best defenseman and the coaching staff clearly believes this. Excuse me for putting my faith in Marty over yours. So does the rest of the NHL who has praised Matheson's play this year.

Savard? As the season progressed he clearly demonstrated that he cannot follow the speed of play. He can't servive next year.

My plan? I can give my opinion but it's not worth squat - it's what Gorton, Hughes and Marty believe and I will put my trust in them. That being said, I would be very comfortable with Hutson, Reinbacher and Mailloux starting in the AHL and start the year with

Matheson - Guhle
Jackeye - Barron
Harris - Savard
Struble/Kovacevic as spare.

There is nothing to gain in expediting D's to the NHL.

What fancy stat ? Matheson gave up 11 more goals than he produced at 5v5. Is that good ?

Savard was a rock defensively all year ? What the hell?

So you see no issue in having Guhle, a guy that has never played RD, on the RD to catter to *checks notes* a 30 years old career-bottom pairing D ? Im sorry that sounds pretty dumb.

He was tried pretty "extensively" with 3 different Dmen on his right side and he's failed massively with all three of them. All three of Guhle, Kovacevic and Savard have had insanely better stats when AWAY from Matheson. There is no excuses for his play.

There's one constant between these two pairings.

 

[Habnot]

What fancy stat ? Matheson gave up 11 more goals than he produced at 5v5. Is that good ?

Savard was a rock defensively all year ? What the hell?

So you see no issue in having Guhle, a guy that has never played RD, on the RD to catter to *checks notes* a 30 years old career-bottom pairing D ? Im sorry that sounds pretty dumb.

View attachment 858436

He was tried pretty "extensively" with 3 different Dmen on his right side and he's failed massively with all three of them. All three of Guhle, Kovacevic and Savard have had insanely better stats when AWAY from Matheson. There is no excuses for his play.
View attachment 858437


There's one constant between these two pairings.

When you play on a team that finished 5th in goals conceded and a -53, -11 on 5x5 is not that bad given you play 25 minutes plus and you play on a crap team. Using plus/ minus is pretty marginal.

 

[Ezpz]

What fancy stat ? Matheson gave up 11 more goals than he produced at 5v5. Is that good ?

Savard was a rock defensively all year ? What the hell?

So you see no issue in having Guhle, a guy that has never played RD, on the RD to catter to *checks notes* a 30 years old career-bottom pairing D ? Im sorry that sounds pretty dumb.

View attachment 858436

He was tried pretty "extensively" with 3 different Dmen on his right side and he's failed massively with all three of them. All three of Guhle, Kovacevic and Savard have had insanely better stats when AWAY from Matheson. There is no excuses for his play.
View attachment 858437


There's one constant between these two pairings.

It's pretty obvious Matheson isn't a defensive stalwart. His offense is what brings him into the lineup, but aside from Guhle, the others aren't top pairing guys so obviously their metrics are better in lesser roles because Matheson is facing the best competition every game. Any time they're not with Matheson they'd getting second/third pairing duty. Guhle was also playing his off-side. If we had a real top pairing shutdown RD Matheson's fancy numbers would improve.

Not that I think Matheson as the top D is ideal long term. But if he had a Josh Manson instead of a David Savard he'd be a lot better.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Gotta love when people use fancy stats they can't even interpret correctly to make some terrible arguments as to why our biggest contributors need to be traded. We can't keep letting these people get away with these crimes.

 

[Mrb1p]

When you play on a team that finished 5th in goals conceded and a -53, -11 on 5x5 is not that bad given you play 25 minutes plus and you play on a crap team. Using plus/ minus is pretty marginal.

Why are all the other guys not absolute defensive liabilities then ? 25 minutes or not it doesn't matter, Savard, Guhle and Matheson all play the same at 5v5.

It's pretty obvious Matheson isn't a defensive stalwart. His offense is what brings him into the lineup, but aside from Guhle, the others aren't top pairing guys so obviously their metrics are better in lesser roles because Matheson is facing the best competition every game. Any time they're not with Matheson they'd getting second/third pairing duty. Guhle was also playing his off-side. If we had a real top pairing shutdown RD Matheson's fancy numbers would improve.

Not that I think Matheson as the top D is ideal long term. But if he had a Josh Manson instead of a David Savard he'd be a lot better.

His offense is overrated. Savard and Guhle both outproduced him this year at 5v5. Savard, Guhle and Math all play similar competitions, and similar ice-time at ES.

Gotta love when people use fancy stats they can't even interpret correctly to make some terrible arguments as to why our biggest contributors need to be traded. We can't keep letting these people get away with these crimes.

They're not even fancy stats they're just shot and goal rates lol.

I'm also a scientist, graduated with honors and employed, suck it if you think I can't interpret data as simple as hockey lmao.

 

[bsl]

Kovacevic is 27, Harris has 150 games of experience, etc. There's no reason to move Savard, he's cheap, effective and he's a RD.

The main draw to moving Matheson is that he's a LD and his value is at its all time high.


Guhle had more points than Matheson at 5v5 this year. He could very well pile up 40-50 with PP time.

Hutson is defacto a top 10 PP QB in the league, he could pile up 20-30 points on the PP alone.

I think everyone betting on Hutson playing more than 10 games next year with Habs is unrealistic. He’s great but must get used to a heavy schedule and much tougher pro players. Give the kid some time to put on mass and work on skating. NHL is not forgiving.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

It's pretty obvious Matheson isn't a defensive stalwart. His offense is what brings him into the lineup, but aside from Guhle, the others aren't top pairing guys so obviously their metrics are better in lesser roles because Matheson is facing the best competition every game. Any time they're not with Matheson they'd getting second/third pairing duty. Guhle was also playing his off-side. If we had a real top pairing shutdown RD Matheson's fancy numbers would improve.

Not that I think Matheson as the top D is ideal long term. But if he had a Josh Manson instead of a David Savard he'd be a lot better.

He is a very good defensive player who makes far more great defensive plays than he does bad ones. When he screws up it is often quite bad but try watching the game closely and watch how much better he is than any defender on the team at moving the puck out of the zone when he takes possession. The guy blocks shots and plays tough in the dirty areas and is one of the top PMD's in the world so the over the top consternation and hand wringing over his mistakes as though they even come close to negating his positives is ridiculous. It is also bizarre how all of the ravenous Hutson sycophants parrot ad nauseam that "as long as he produces offensively they can live with sub par defense" (paraphrasing lol) yet are entirely unwilling to do the same for Matheson who is a better defender than Lane will ever be.

The truth is that the real issue is that there is a large chunk of the fan base who primarily see Matheson as a road block for Hutson or at the very least a redundancy and neither position is true. Hutson will ascend to top PP minutes in due time and Matheson will gracefully concede. There is no need for this silly agenda to have started nor is there reason for it to continue. Matheson will continue to get busted sporadically and the mob will froth at the mouth while knowledgeable fans will acknowledge that the cost:benefit ratio is well into the positive and will grin and bear it when the dark side inevitably rears it's ugly head as the rewards easily out weight the cost.

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

He is a very good defensive player who makes far more great defensive plays than he does bad ones. When he screws up it is often quite bad but try watching the game closely and watch how much better he is than any defender on the team at moving the puck out of the zone when he takes possession. The guy blocks shots and plays tough in the dirty areas and is one of the top PMD's in the world so the over the top consternation and hand wringing over his mistakes as though they even come close to negating his positives is ridiculous. It is also bizarre how all of the ravenous Hutson sycophants parrot ad nauseam that "as long as he produces offensively they can live with sub par defense" (paraphrasing lol) yet are entirely unwilling to do the same for Matheson who is a better defender than Lane will ever be.

The truth is that the real issue is that there is a large chunk of the fan base who primarily see Matheson as a road block for Hutson or at the very least a redundancy and neither position is true. Hutson will ascend to top PP minutes in due time and Matheson will gracefully concede. There is no need for this silly agenda to have started nor is there reason for it to continue. Matheson will continue to get busted sporadically and the mob will froth at the mouth while knowledgeable fans will acknowledge that the cost:benefit ratio is well into the positive and will grin and bear it when the dark side inevitably rears it's ugly head as the rewards easily out weight the cost.

Its a very complex assessment. Like other PMD , Matheson is great at breakouts and when he does get the puck on his stick in the D zone, he is very effective at exits or exit support. But when it comes to defending against cycles, board battles without against opposition with puck possessions and overall positioning IQ that someone like Savard has in spades, he's obviously lacking. The problem is people only judge D zone effectiveness through one or two metrics instead of as it should be which is a complex diagnosis. Matheson isn't perfect but he does some things (that are sorely lacking from other defenders on the team) very well.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

I just don't see a successful playoff team that has Matheson, Hutson, Harris, Barron on the blueline, who's going to battle in the crease, intimidate the forecheck, defend the goalie? If you can trade him for a younger D with less offense and more snarl I do it.

 

[CHwest]

He is a very good defensive player who makes far more great defensive plays than he does bad ones. When he screws up it is often quite bad but try watching the game closely and watch how much better he is than any defender on the team at moving the puck out of the zone when he takes possession. The guy blocks shots and plays tough in the dirty areas and is one of the top PMD's in the world so the over the top consternation and hand wringing over his mistakes as though they even come close to negating his positives is ridiculous. It is also bizarre how all of the ravenous Hutson sycophants parrot ad nauseam that "as long as he produces offensively they can live with sub par defense" (paraphrasing lol) yet are entirely unwilling to do the same for Matheson who is a better defender than Lane will ever be.

The truth is that the real issue is that there is a large chunk of the fan base who primarily see Matheson as a road block for Hutson or at the very least a redundancy and neither position is true. Hutson will ascend to top PP minutes in due time and Matheson will gracefully concede. There is no need for this silly agenda to have started nor is there reason for it to continue. Matheson will continue to get busted sporadically and the mob will froth at the mouth while knowledgeable fans will acknowledge that the cost:benefit ratio is well into the positive and will grin and bear it when the dark side inevitably rears it's ugly head as the rewards easily out weight the cost.

There is also a cost to hanging on to a player to long. When the Hab's are really ready to compete he will be long gone. I would not trade him just to trade him, but for a really good return I would not hesitate.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

The only reason they won't do it is he's a West Island boy. Sa prend dé p'tits gâ d'ché nous icitte.

I personally agree 100% with the buy low sell high in his case. His value will never be higher, yet he's still MAB-level defensively.

Let's not make the same mistake we made with Anderson.

I don’t think you remember MAB very well. Matheson isn’t half as bad.

This is the right answer imo. We know this is his peak, and he won't be a consistent 60 point dman in his 30s.
Friend at work asked if we would like Petry back because he is garrrtbage.

No thank you

This is exactly opposite of Markov when we traded away a replacement. We have so many prospects for D and LD in particular. It's our strongest place. Get help where we need it or for a pick and prospect that replaces him in a few years when we have to move a different dman because of cap. Or other youngster looking for a huge payday.

I don't ever want to be stuck in cap hell because we have no prospect, no picks, and still have a full cap piece of crap team. It felt like that for most of Bergen in era. Rarely made the smart trade. Resign of pleks twice was a mistake and then repeats it with other players.

Guhle be lucky to get 50 points over two seasons.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

He is a very good defensive player who makes far more great defensive plays than he does bad ones. When he screws up it is often quite bad but try watching the game closely and watch how much better he is than any defender on the team at moving the puck out of the zone when he takes possession. The guy blocks shots and plays tough in the dirty areas and is one of the top PMD's in the world so the over the top consternation and hand wringing over his mistakes as though they even come close to negating his positives is ridiculous. It is also bizarre how all of the ravenous Hutson sycophants parrot ad nauseam that "as long as he produces offensively they can live with sub par defense" (paraphrasing lol) yet are entirely unwilling to do the same for Matheson who is a better defender than Lane will ever be.

The truth is that the real issue is that there is a large chunk of the fan base who primarily see Matheson as a road block for Hutson or at the very least a redundancy and neither position is true. Hutson will ascend to top PP minutes in due time and Matheson will gracefully concede. There is no need for this silly agenda to have started nor is there reason for it to continue. Matheson will continue to get busted sporadically and the mob will froth at the mouth while knowledgeable fans will acknowledge that the cost:benefit ratio is well into the positive and will grin and bear it when the dark side inevitably rears it's ugly head as the rewards easily out weight the cost.

This is the most truthful post on this subject. I mean ppl are making shit up and comparing him to MAB. I have no idea why posters would do this, but it’s 100% not even close to true. MAB was a 6th d with 2nd pp duty who was putrid outside of a 5-4 and a complete liability 5-5. Matheson is actually pretty good defensively.

Tbh, I don’t know what many of these posters are watching, I don’t think they are watching at all, just parroting what others are saying.

62 point dman and we think we’d be better served with Kaiden Guhle. Reminds me of when Poehling was ready to take Danault’s minutes. Haha.

 

[Miller Time]

I just don't see a successful playoff team that has Matheson, Hutson, Harris, Barron on the blueline, who's going to battle in the crease, intimidate the forecheck, defend the goalie? If you can trade him for a younger D with less offense and more snarl I do it.

Avs have Makar, Toews, Girard & Walker...

Remains to be seen if they are successful this year, but they won the cup with Byram instead of Walker).

Xhekaj, Guhle, Strubble, Reinbacher, Mailloux provide plenty of what you are concerned we will lack. What 6-7 of the bunch (not to mention any additions via trade/UFA) are there as we become a playoff team will have the mix of competencies required to succeed, no reason to doubt that at this stage