Player Discussion Victor Mete (D) - Claimed off waivers from Montreal

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Beauchemin, Greene, Russell, Daley, Ference, Greene, Grzelcyk, Goligoski all managed just fine and I wouldn't say any of them were top 10 skaters with amazing hockey IQ. There's more than one way to be effective at hockey. Mete makes up for his size with tenacity, quick thinking, and non-stop motor. I'd argue he's an elite skater too, though I don't know about top 10.

Lotta people talking about Girard being exposed during the Vegas series, and that is true, but it's because he is bad at defence, not because he's small. Graves looked just as bad as him (he basically singlehandedly lost Game 5) and he's their biggest blueliner. Has nothing to do with their sizes, has everything to do with their skillsets and the strength of Vegas' team.

Thing is, you might be able to "bend the rules" and get away with one undersized defenseman....but not two. We have two right now.

That's why it's important to be really careful what kind of contract Mete gets (mostly contract length here). And we also have to decide who we want long-term...Mete or Brann.

 

[Masked]

Does no one remember Erik Karlsson? He was the best player in the entire playoffs for the Sens / best player on any team that post season.

And he's a tiny d-man.

He's 6' 190 lbs. That's not tiny. He was tiny when he first got to the NHL but he's become bigger.

 

[NeedlessSeals]

Thing is, you might be able to "bend the rules" and get away with one undersized defenseman....but not two. We have two right now.

That's why it's important to be really careful what kind of contract Mete gets (mostly contract length here). And we also have to decide who we want long-term...Mete or Brann.

There's no such thing as "rules", just shit that hasn't happened yet

100% chance if you had asked someone 10 years ago whether it was possible to win a Cup with no centre over 6 feet and 3 centres below 5'11" they would have said no. I'm sure before Rafalski won everything it would've been "against the rules" to have a defenceman his size on the team too. I remember hearing a lot about it being impossible to win the Stanley Cup without a good power play before Boston won in 2010-2011. "Jump shooting teams can't win an NBA final", etc.

In any case, Boston was one game away from the cup in 2018-2019 with Krug (5'9"), McAvoy(6'0"), Clifton(5'11"), and Grzelcyk (5'9") all playing. Detroit has won in the past with multiple smaller guys on the blueline.

We should not toss good players from the team just because they don't meet arbitrary height requirements.

 

[PlayOn]

There's no such thing as "rules", just shit that hasn't happened yet

100% chance if you had asked someone 10 years ago whether it was possible to win a Cup with no centre over 6 feet and 3 centres below 5'11" they would have said no. I'm sure before Rafalski won everything it would've been "against the rules" to have a defenceman his size on the team too. I remember hearing a lot about it being impossible to win the Stanley Cup without a good power play before Boston won in 2010-2011. "Jump shooting teams can't win an NBA final", etc.

In any case, Boston was one game away from the cup in 2018-2019 with Krug (5'9"), McAvoy(6'0"), Clifton(5'11"), and Grzelcyk (5'9") all playing. Detroit has won in the past with multiple smaller guys on the blueline.

We should not toss good players from the team just because they don't meet arbitrary height requirements.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting we should toss good players.

How many times did Brann get hit in the regular season? Now let’s increase physicality by about 5x and you can only imagine how he’ll fare. Perhaps he will fix this issue and learn to better evade hits but it’s a real concern.

Everyone knows it’s harder to score in the playoffs and you have to go to the dirty areas. This doesn’t exactly favour smaller defenders. You might be an excellent puck mover but when you have to try to box out other players size matters. Imagine Brannstrom or Mete in front of the net trying to defend someone like Brady?

We are going to need to make trades to improve our team regardless so we’re going to lose players. Understanding the value of size on the backend can help the team identify who is expendable for the right price and who is not. No one will be tossed for the sake of being tossed.

 

[NeedlessSeals]

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting we should toss good players.

How many times did Brann get hit in the regular season? Now let’s increase physicality by about 5x and you can only imagine how he’ll fare. Perhaps he will fix this issue and learn to better evade hits but it’s a real concern.

Everyone knows it’s harder to score in the playoffs and you have to go to the dirty areas. This doesn’t exactly favour smaller defenders. You might be an excellent puck mover but when you have to try to box out other players size matters. Imagine Brannstrom or Mete in front of the net trying to defend someone like Brady?

We are going to need to make trades to improve our team regardless so we’re going to lose players. Understanding the value of size on the backend can help the team identify who is expendable for the right price and who is not. No one will be tossed for the sake of being tossed.

I'm speaking more about Mete than Brännström. I like Brännström a lot but I do share some of the concerns people have around him. However, if he does develop into the player he was projected to be, and Mete's play this past season wasn't a flash in the pan, they'll both manage in the playoffs the same way any of the other smaller defencemen have: by being good at hockey.

And there are definitely people who think we need to get rid of Brännström and/or Mete solely because of their size. The person I was replying to literally said you can't win while having two undersized defencemen. It's kinda implicit in that statement that we need to move on from one or both, regardless of how good they are, because they're too small.

My main point here isn't that we absolutely need to keep one or the other, it's just that we shouldn't be rushing to move on from them out of some fear that having 2 undersized defencemen on your blueline guarantees failure in the playoffs.

 

[BondraTime]

Mete is just a dime a dozen bottom pairing guy regardless, very easy to move on from him when we need too, especially considering his size.

Perfect stop gap for us while we’re not competing, he’s not a guy to keep for a competing future team, which I’d be willing to bet is the prevailing thought by management.

Not as though there is ample room on the left side, and there certainly isn’t room for 2 guys 5’9 on the left side when we have Sanderson and Chabot stapled there in the top 4 in a year.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

There's no such thing as "rules", just shit that hasn't happened yet

100% chance if you had asked someone 10 years ago whether it was possible to win a Cup with no centre over 6 feet and 3 centres below 5'11" they would have said no. I'm sure before Rafalski won everything it would've been "against the rules" to have a defenceman his size on the team too. I remember hearing a lot about it being impossible to win the Stanley Cup without a good power play before Boston won in 2010-2011. "Jump shooting teams can't win an NBA final", etc.

In any case, Boston was one game away from the cup in 2018-2019 with Krug (5'9"), McAvoy(6'0"), Clifton(5'11"), and Grzelcyk (5'9") all playing. Detroit has won in the past with multiple smaller guys on the blueline.

We should not toss good players from the team just because they don't meet arbitrary height requirements.

I'm not saying that we just toss anyone who isn't XX height.

But there easier, and harder, ways to win a Cup. It's a lot harder when you have a lot of smaller guys. It's about playing the odds. We're already in a difficult spot being a budget team in a market that isn't attractive to UFAs. Giving ourselves another hurtle by downsizing when we don't necessarily have to just doesn't seem smart in the long run. You can have small guys...but they have to be really good players, not career journeymen.

Besides, in another 3 years, Sanderson and JBD will likely be on the roster and doing well, and we'll need top push out someone to make room anyways.

 

[Samsquanch]

Thing is, you might be able to "bend the rules" and get away with one undersized defenseman....but not two. We have two right now.

That's why it's important to be really careful what kind of contract Mete gets (mostly contract length here). And we also have to decide who we want long-term...Mete or Brann.

Size has nothing at all to do with it if the player is a great one and solid defensively.

Yes ideally your Dmen are all 6'2 210lbs or more. But ill still take the smaller Dman whos more effective defensively than the much larger and stronger player (like Mete >>> Gudbranson for example). And its not like Makar and Girad are whats wrong with Colorado.

And any trade involving Brannstrom will be a net loss for us because no GM is trading a bigger dman thats better defensively than him (unless they have zero offensive abilities).

Mete is a bit of an oddball because hes more defensive minded and doesnt bring much offense for a small guy, so finding him the right partner could prove to be a bit more difficult. But until the day comes where hes earned a long term commitment and/or weve seem them wither in the playoffs, hes a positive addition to the team (regardless of Brannstrom also playing).

They are both extremely gifted skaters and smart defensively, and battle hard despite their size (and will take a hit to make a play).


Chabot-Zub
Sanderson-Brannstrom
Mete-Thompson/JBD
Kleven (insert as need be if the extra size is needed)

If they all develop properly over the next 2-3 seasons, that group isnt getting bullied in the playoffs imo. Its defensive acumen that we need to worry about/hope for growth from the players in. And size absolutely does not automatically = good defensive play, or the ability to win in the playoffs.

 

[NeedlessSeals]

I'm not saying that we just toss anyone who isn't XX height.

But there easier, and harder, ways to win a Cup. It's a lot harder when you have a lot of smaller guys. It's about playing the odds. We're already in a difficult spot being a budget team in a market that isn't attractive to UFAs. Giving ourselves another hurtle by downsizing when we don't necessarily have to just doesn't seem smart in the long run. You can have small guys...but they have to be really good players, not career journeymen.

Besides, in another 3 years, Sanderson and JBD will likely be on the roster and doing well, and we'll need top push out someone to make room anyways.

The discourse in this thread recently and especially surrounding Simmer's tweets definitely is focused on size and basically nothing else. I've seen the sentiment here and elsewhere that we need to get rid of one of EB or VM because we can't have two small guys and it's that idea that I disagree with most.

My main fear is that we move one to make room for a guy that is clearly worse for the sake of size or grit alone. If we can find a 6'2" player who skates like Mete, is as active in the offensive zone, and plays as hard in the defensive zone sure by all means we should go out and grab them, but guys like that are very, very hard to come by. If we replace him with another Brown or Gudbranson type we will be doing ourselves no favours, playoffs or not. And before we move him or EB for the sake of fitting JBD in the line-up we should probably be sure the JBD is a player. No use counting our chickens before they hatch.

I also wouldn't call Mete a career journeyman, he's younger than Batherson and on his second team. Likely not yet in his prime.

 

[Sweatred]

A nice little acquisition for PD after moving Wolanin and opening a spot for Mete.

 

[OgieO]

I think it's a factor of something far more important, but size alone is missing the point. I think the important quality in a great D group is the ability to transition the puck from D to O and exit your zone with control. Size is absolutely helpful in that skill. Especially the first part of separating the puck from the opponent and then recovering the puck. But if your size can allow you to separate but you don't skate well enough to recover, size doesn't matter much. If you can separate the opponent from the puck, recover it but cannot effectively move it (passing or carrying) then you aren't really helping much either (see Gudbranson, Erik). Clearly, Karlsson was the exception in that while he did not have the size, his other attributes were so good that it didn't matter. He was able to recover pucks, and exit the zone with control better than just about anyone from his era.

But size obviously plays a big part in the equation. I just think its incomplete or short sighted to only focus on size itself as "what matters". What matters is getting the puck and getting out with control. Build a D group that can do that above all else.

 

[Sweatred]

What matters is getting the puck and getting out with control. Build a D group that can do that above all else.

What matters is not allowing high leveraged scoring chances ... If you don't have the puck your fancy zone exits are useless unless you can get possession of the puck.

Getting the puck out of the zone with control is better than dumping the puck off the glass ... but not being able to separate opposing forwards and/or limiting scoring chances is a death wish.

 

[Sens72]

Maybe I’m remembering things different but I found Mete to be pretty good defending off big hits and shoves from bigger players. He is pretty elusive and shifty on his feet and that allows him to evade himself from dangerous positions to be rocked off the puck.

I know not everyone is a fancy stats guy but he was really good at creating high danger chances and decent at limiting them, giving him the best high danger scoring chances percentage on the team.

We need guys who can help exit our own zone. Most big and tough 6’4”+ defenseman cannot do that. I’m all for getting guys who can be shutdown defensemen and physical but getting another Gudbranson type guy will set us back.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Mete is just a dime a dozen bottom pairing guy regardless, very easy to move on from him when we need too, especially considering his size.

Perfect stop gap for us while we’re not competing, he’s not a guy to keep for a competing future team, which I’d be willing to bet is the prevailing thought by management.

Not as though there is ample room on the left side, and there certainly isn’t room for 2 guys 5’9 on the left side when we have Sanderson and Chabot stapled there in the top 4 in a year.

Yeah, been saying it from Day 1, although I like Mete he will not be a regular on this team beyond this season (at the latest). It's why I advocate protecting J. Brown and signing & exposing Mete as a bit of a honey pot.

 

[Sweatred]

Yeah, been saying it from Day 1, although I like Mete he will not be a regular on this team beyond this season (at the latest). It's why I advocate protecting J. Brown and signing & exposing Mete as a bit of a honey pot.

Totally agree - this D group needs Brown more than Mete.

Mete should be trolled out for expansion or used if we sell high on Brann.

Mete doesn’t run a PP and I can’t see an expansion team going with an undersized piece on defense. Maybe if Seattle is to clunky on D they see some value.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Totally agree - this D group needs Brown more than Mete.

Mete should be trolled out for expansion or used if we sell high on Brann.

Mete doesn’t run a PP and I can’t see an expansion team going with an undersized piece on defense. Maybe if Seattle is to clunky on D they see some value.

That's not really what I'm saying.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Thing is, you might be able to "bend the rules" and get away with one undersized defenseman....but not two. We have two right now.

That's why it's important to be really careful what kind of contract Mete gets (mostly contract length here). And we also have to decide who we want long-term...Mete or Brann.

Yeah looking at the final four teams right now, there aren’t really any small d-men.

 

[Xspyrit]

Maybe I’m remembering things different but I found Mete to be pretty good defending off big hits and shoves from bigger players. He is pretty elusive and shifty on his feet and that allows him to evade himself from dangerous positions to be rocked off the puck.

I know not everyone is a fancy stats guy but he was really good at creating high danger chances and decent at limiting them, giving him the best high danger scoring chances percentage on the team.

We need guys who can help exit our own zone. Most big and tough 6’4”+ defenseman cannot do that. I’m all for getting guys who can be shutdown defensemen and physical but getting another Gudbranson type guy will set us back.

Or they cost a fortune (ex : Pietrangelo)

Good post. Yes advanced stats matter as long as one is not putting them all in one basket. Hockey is not a sport you can judge a player solely on those stats, too many "moving" factors (variables)

Mete was pretty decent with the Sens, as long as you define his role and don't expect him to be an offensive D-man, you're fine. Having another plus-skater is never a bad thing and another good thing about Mete is that he'll stay cheap for a while. No need to give him a lenghty expansion, re-sign him for 1 or 2 years then re-evaluate after.

So a good guy to have around for the 3rd pair, and eventually when he becomes your 7th, you're in good shape. He could be a good partner to ease JBD into the league too

Chabot-Zaitsev
Brannstrom-Zub
Mete-JBD
Brown

It would be nice to get a Hamilton, Cernak, Jones, etc but defense is starting to be decent like that

 

[Micklebot]

Yeah looking at the final four teams right now, there aren’t really any small d-men.

You can go back a few years and the trend continues, last final four team I can think of with small Dmen was Boston with Krug and Grzelcyk in 18-19.

Small D in general are relatively rare though, so it's probably less that you can't make it far with them and more that there just aren't enough good small D.

 

[Cosmix]

Thing is, you might be able to "bend the rules" and get away with one undersized defenseman....but not two. We have two right now.

That's why it's important to be really careful what kind of contract Mete gets (mostly contract length here). And we also have to decide who we want long-term...Mete or Brann.

Having 2 small D men means that the other 4 D will most likely have to handle the PK roles as the 2 small D men would be physically over-powered on the PK. At even strength I do not think size is as much of a factor in reg season but playoff hockey can be very physical.

 

[NB613]

Having 2 small D men means that the other 4 D will most likely have to handle the PK roles as the 2 small D men would be physically over-powered on the PK. At even strength I do not think size is as much of a factor in reg season but playoff hockey can be very physical.

As Brannstrom got more comfortable, the better he was at making subtle changes to his positioning to either avoid hits, or be able to bounce right off of hits. No reason to believe he and Mete wont continue to improve on this.

 

[Cosmix]

As Brannstrom got more comfortable, the better he was at making subtle changes to his positioning to either avoid hits, or be able to bounce right off of hits. No reason to believe he and Mete wont continue to improve on this.

Yes both could do that. However I do not think they will ever have the size, strength and leverage to block opposing forwards from driving to or standing in front of the net to screen the goaltender.

 

[NeedlessSeals]

Mete played 24 minutes on the penalty kill this year for Ottawa and we actually outscored opponents 2-0 in those minutes.

Small sample size obviously but not exactly the kind of results you'd expect from a shorty on the PK.

 

[OD99]

Having 2 small D men means that the other 4 D will most likely have to handle the PK roles as the 2 small D men would be physically over-powered on the PK. At even strength I do not think size is as much of a factor in reg season but playoff hockey can be very physical.

I think 5 on 5 would be more trouble as smaller D might have trouble ending a cycle and you don't see that on a PP.

Even screens aren't as important due to teams moving away from just blasting away from the point and trying more set plays down low so really the quickness of a D to get to a loose puck (and have the hands/ patience to make a clearing play) is a huge asset.

I think Bran and Mete were on the PK together a fair bit relative the time Mete was here and don't think they were scored on - small sample but they certainly never seemed overwhelmed.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Mete played 24 minutes on the penalty kill this year for Ottawa and we actually outscored opponents 2-0 in those minutes.

Small sample size obviously but not exactly the kind of results you'd expect from a shorty on the PK.

Meh, regular season vs post season is different animal. Girard was beast in regular season but overwhelmed af in playoffs. Mete is much more stockier though, I think Mete is not your conventional small defender, imo, he's quite stock and rapid at moving the puck along the boards but still.