Player Discussion Victor Mete: Part II

[DangerDave]

No way on God's green earth I'd give him that now.

You don't think he's better than someone like Gardiner? He's tracking for 28 pts without PP time, he's a +8 somehow, he can be used against top competition, good possession metrics and all this with a partner who's been struggling.

I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

 

[HockeyDBspecialist]

 

[Mrb1p]

Mete would never be a consideration for several of the teams you list, esp. certain western conference teams that will prioritize size. Even if he plays at a certain level doesn’t necessarily mean he’d have a spot on those teams so that would produce a whole other list on this basis.

Yeah i fear thats not even close to the truth. There is no difference in size when you compare the two conference and Mete ranks in the top 4 Ds of all of those on talent.

 

[Runner77]

Yeah i fear thats not even close to the truth. There is no difference in size when you compare the two conference and Mete ranks in the top 4 Ds of all of those on talent.

I remember certain western conference teams with no players under 6’. If I’m not mistaken, Kings have traditionally gone that route. There are others, too lazy to look it up. Again, not arguing “talent”, just how some teams build their D favouring size and evidently, Mete would not be as highly valued on those teams.

 

[Captain Mountain]

However, people will not stop suggesting that he shouldn’t be used as a first pairing D and that’s perfectly reasonable.

True.

He also averages around 18 minutes a night and is Montreal's 4th most used D-man at ES on average. That's up on previous seasons. He's never actually consistently been used as a 1st pairing D-man. In fact, this season Mete-Weber has clearly been the 2nd pairing on D.

 

[Mrb1p]

I remember certain western conference teams with no players under 6’. If I’m not mistaken, Kings have traditionally gone that route. There are others, too lazy to look it up. Again, not arguing “talent”, just how some teams build their D favouring size and evidently, Mete would not be as highly valued on those teams.

Yes well that was almost a decade ago. The western conference isnt "bigger" than the eastern conference. There is some big teams like STL who have no one under 6', but that has a lot more to do with the league height average than a philosophy.

Meanwhile theres guys like Hughes, Spurgeon, Makar, Ellis, Karlsson, Goligoski, Hunt, Girard, Bear, Ferraro, etc who are all having success in the western conference. Both the EC and the WC show 20 players that are under 5'11. Both conference used 50 players that were 6'2 and over, so theres no real difference in player deployment. Youd think there may be some difference in usgae but with the names listed above, Im not so sure it would be true.

 

[Runner77]

True.

He also averages around 18 minutes a night and is Montreal's 4th most used D-man at ES on average. That's up on previous seasons. He's never actually consistently been used as a 1st pairing D-man. In fact, this season Mete-Weber has clearly been the 2nd pairing on D.

I don’t know that whoever has been playing with Petry would make that player the first pairing D on the left side. I have not seen anyone make that argument as most here appear to agree that Mete is the Habs’s most talented option on the left side based on their NHL roster alone. If not Mete, then who?

So if Mete is your best on the left side and if he’s not a 1st pairing, just imagine how weak that left side D really is.

 

[Runner77]

Yes well that was almost a decade ago. The western conference isnt "bigger" than the eastern conference. There is some big teams like STL who have no one under 6', but that has a lot more to do with the league height average than a philosophy.

Meanwhile theres guys like Hughes, Spurgeon, Makar, Ellis, Karlsson, Goligoski, Hunt, Girard, Bear, Ferraro, etc who are all having success in the western conference. Both the EC and the WC show 20 players that are under 5'11. Both conference used 50 players that were 6'2 and over, so theres no real difference in player deployment. Youd think there may be some difference in usgae but with the names listed above, Im not so sure it would be true.

My argument was based on certain individual teams that happened to be in the western conference who hold a size bias in the way they build their D. Not every team.

 

[Mrb1p]

Smarter plan would be to bridge him. 3 years would be nice. By that point, we will know a lot more about Norlinder, Romanov, Harris as well. Mete would have one more RFA year so we would still control him.

If you sign Mete at top 4 dollars for a longer time youre basically paying fair value for his performance now and might be getting a discount later. Meanwhile by bridging him youll just pay more later. Mete is good enough now that you can just assume he settles in the 2 spot with Romanov, Norlinder, Struble, Harris fighting it out for the other two spots. Two better players than Mete arise ? That means you have three really good assets to move vs just two good assets to move.

Teams will pay more for fair value on a contract than they will for a RFA thats looking for a pay raise.

Its a no brainer to sign him to Chiarot+ money, IMO.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I remember certain western conference teams with no players under 6’. If I’m not mistaken, Kings have traditionally gone that route. There are others, too lazy to look it up. Again, not arguing “talent”, just how some teams build their D favouring size and evidently, Mete would not be as highly valued on those teams.

If those Western teams have the same GM, you are 100% right. It's part of their strategy and Mete would not fit. I can understand that cause it's part of my personal strategy as well. But hey, we have Mete and he keeps surprising me. The kid is growing and we have to remember he is still 21. It's impressive and his resilience fits our team... we keep getting counted out and we bounce back. It's a trend

 

[Habs Halifax]

If you sign Mete at top 4 dollars for a longer time youre basically paying fair value for his performance now and might be getting a discount later. Meanwhile by bridging him youll just pay more later. Mete is good enough now that you can just assume he settles in the 2 spot with Romanov, Norlinder, Struble, Harris fighting it out for the other two spots. Two better players than Mete arise ? That means you have three really good assets to move vs just two good assets to move.

Teams will pay more for fair value on a contract than they will for a RFA thats looking for a pay raise.

Its a no brainer to sign him to Chiarot+ money, IMO.

Fair based on his production lately. What AAV do you offer for lets say 6 years? $4M? We have to remember though that he is still RFA for 4 more years so what is the fair AAV average for 6? Something tells me it's around $4M but not sure we should go higher than that. If he pushes for it, I'm going with the bridge deal cause I am not sure how much more he will grow? I expect some growth but does he turn into a 30+ D man? Possible I guess

 

[Baksfamous112]

I like him. But right now he’s probably a number three pairing guy and he’s our best on the left side. We shouldn’t be depending on him the way we are.

Is he really? He’s 21, excellent speed and stick work. Great analytic numbers, +- always in the positive and on pace for 30 points.

He passes the eye test and analytic test. He’s most definitely a top 4.

Also, since Chiarot found his rythme, he’s been amazing too. Those two D are flying under the radar

I remember certain western conference teams with no players under 6’. If I’m not mistaken, Kings have traditionally gone that route. There are others, too lazy to look it up. Again, not arguing “talent”, just how some teams build their D favouring size and evidently, Mete would not be as highly valued on those teams.

That was literally 8 years ago. Look how that turned out for LA and Anaheim who both placed all their eggs in the big/physical basket.

 

[Mrb1p]

My argument was based on certain individual teams that happened to be in the western conference who hold a size bias in the way they build their D. Not every team.

Yes, and I pretty much showed you it wasnt true. There is no team with such bias in 2019. STL is the only big team in the western conference, and it didnt stop then from using Dunn when he came in the league at 5'11, it didnt stop them from using Faulk whos 6' and soft as a ripe banana or Shattenkirk whos even smaller.

Anaheim is another team known for being big and they are using below average Ds in size like Mahura, Del Zotto and Vatanen.

Dallas is another of the "heavy" team and they have used small dmen like Kris Russel, Honka and Sekeraj.

Every team in the league would pick the 6'3 guy at equal talent, but these guys dont run the streets.

 

[HBDay]

If you sign Mete at top 4 dollars for a longer time youre basically paying fair value for his performance now and might be getting a discount later. Meanwhile by bridging him youll just pay more later. Mete is good enough now that you can just assume he settles in the 2 spot with Romanov, Norlinder, Struble, Harris fighting it out for the other two spots. Two better players than Mete arise ? That means you have three really good assets to move vs just two good assets to move.

Teams will pay more for fair value on a contract than they will for a RFA thats looking for a pay raise.

Its a no brainer to sign him to Chiarot+ money, IMO.

Mete is exactly the player you sign to a fair contract that reflects his play as of now, and you put some term on it, because you are right fair now will be a steal later and I can't find a way where he doesn't fit our team long term.

Mete also is primed to not be able to find a Significantly better contract anywhere else, the contract negotiations really should be an open and close book for us.

 

[Mrb1p]

Fair based on his production lately. What AAV do you offer for lets say 6 years? $4M? We have to remember though that he is still RFA for 4 more years so what is the fair AAV average for 6? Something tells me it's around $4M but not sure we should go higher than that. If he pushes for it, I'm going with the bridge deal cause I am not sure how much more he will grow? I expect some growth but does he turn into a 30+ D man? Possible I guess

I dont know whats fair and I dont think he needs to turn into a top 30 Dman to be paid in the 4-5 range.

I would look at what most 2nd pair D got and I would give him something like that for 6 or 7. Youre 100% sure to get a good return on your investment in the last three or two years of that contract

 

[Runner77]

That was literally 8 years ago. Look how that turned out for LA and Anaheim who both placed all their eggs in the big/physical basket.

What about the Blues? Seems to me they’re populated with giants and how did that turn out? Again, I didn’t check individual players, just going from what I remember.

 

[Mrb1p]

What about the Blues? Seems to me they’re populated with giants and how did that turn out? Again, I didn’t check individual players, just going from what I remember.

It turned out that their four best forwards were all under the NHL average and one of their three best D was 6'.

 

[Help]

Mete rules

Should have locked him up longterm when all the talk was about his goalless streak.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I don’t know that whoever has been playing with Petry would make that player the first pairing D on the left side. I have not seen anyone make that argument as most here appear to agree that Mete is the Habs’s most talented option on the left side based on their NHL roster alone. If not Mete, then who?

So if Mete is your best on the left side and if he’s not a 1st pairing, just imagine how weak that left side D really is.

Usage needs to be broken down by game-state. Weber and Petry are the only D that play real minutes on the PP and so they'll rather easily be the two most used D-men. Chiarot plays a lot on the PK, which bumps up his TOI, but he's also averaging more TOI at ES than any D but Petry. Chiarot is Montreal's top pair LHD. He plays more than any LHD and he's been the most common D partner to Montreal's most used/top pair RHD (Petry).

I also don't really buy that thinking that "if Mete is your best on the left side and if he’s not a 1st pairing, just imagine how weak that left side D really is", it seems like confirmation bias. Its only really rooted in reputation, not results. I don't disagree that Montreal needs a LHD boost, but I'd rather look at it from an on-ice play perspective than a player perspective. Weber needs to play better defensively too, the D needs to get bet as a group and Price needs to improve his shot tracking.

 

[Baksfamous112]

What about the Blues? Seems to me they’re populated with giants and how did that turn out? Again, I didn’t check individual players, just going from what I remember.

Falk, Dunn, Tarasenko, Steen, Perron Schwartz and Barbashev are all 6’’0 or under

Also, Montreal’s D (aside from Mete)

- Chiarot 6’’3
- Fleury 6’’1
- Folin 6’’4
- Kulak 6’’2
- Petry 6’’3
- Reilly 6’’1
- Weber 6’’4

It’s not like we truly are missing big, heavy D

 

[Runner77]

Usage needs to be broken down by game-state. Weber and Petry are the only D that play real minutes on the PP and so they'll rather easily be the two most used D-men. Chiarot plays a lot on the PK, which bumps up his TOI, but he's also averaging more TOI at ES than any D but Petry. Chiarot is Montreal's top pair LHD. He plays more than any LHD and he's been the most common D partner to Montreal's most used/top pair RHD (Petry).

I also don't really buy that thinking that "if Mete is your best on the left side and if he’s not a 1st pairing, just imagine how weak that left side D really is", it seems like confirmation bias. Its only really rooted in reputation, not results. I don't disagree that Montreal needs a LHD boost, but I'd rather look at it from an on-ice play perspective than a player perspective. Weber needs to play better defensively too, the D needs to get bet as a group and Price needs to improve his shot tracking.

If Chiarot is in fact your TOI leader on the left side, then he's playing out of his element. And that's not based on reputation -- he doesn't have the talent to be a first pairing D. Nor is Mete a first pairing D. So the Habs do not currently have a first pairing D on their roster is all.

 

[Captain Mountain]

If Chiarot is in fact your TOI leader on the left side, then he's playing out of his element. And that's not based on reputation -- he doesn't have the talent to be a first pairing D. Nor is Mete a first pairing D. So the Habs do not currently have a first pairing D on their roster is all.

I never disagreed with that, nor do I think Chiarot is in his element.

 

[HBDay]

I dont know whats fair and I dont think he needs to turn into a top 30 Dman to be paid in the 4-5 range.

I would look at what most 2nd pair D got and I would give him something like that for 6 or 7. Youre 100% sure to get a good return on your investment in the last three or two years of that contract

There in lies the beauty. In the last years of his contract he'll be between 25-30 also known as primetime Deion baby.

 

[HBDay]

Falk, Dunn, Tarasenko, Steen, Perron Schwartz and Barbashev are all 6’’0 or under

Also, Montreal’s D (aside from Mete)

- Chiarot 6’’3
- Fleury 6’’1
- Folin 6’’4
- Kulak 6’’2
- Petry 6’’3
- Reilly 6’’1
- Weber 6’’4

It’s not like we truly are missing big, heavy D

Dont care what you say our d is small.

 

[Baksfamous112]

Dont care what you say our d is small.

totally agree