Player Discussion Mike Matheson

[Tyson]

Good I've watched all of them and he's clearly the teams best defender and a top ~30 in the NHL. Let alone "a decent top 4".

Listen man we can have differing opinions....I am not going to argue with someone who is never wrong. Move on

 

[Mrb1p]

Listen man we can have differing opinions....I am not going to argue with someone who is never wrong. Move on

I'm wrong plenty and we can have different opinions.

Having the opinion that Kaiden Guhle isn't a top 4 defender is just straight lunacy. Expect to get called out when you have ridiculous opinions.

 

[Tyson]

I'm wrong plenty and we can have different opinions.

Having the opinion that Kaiden Guhle isn't a top 4 defender is just straight lunacy. Expect to get called out when you have ridiculous opinions.

I said he isn't a top pairing guy currently and may end up a top 4 guy. That's my opinion. I don't give a f*** if you call me out. I don't feel the need to ignore you because you are entertaining and not much else.

 

[Mrb1p]

I said he isn't a top pairing guy currently and may end up a top 4 guy. That's my opinion. I don't give a f*** if you call me out. I don't feel the need to ignore you because you are entertaining and not much else.

"May end up a top 4 guy" directly means he is not one right now, which means you called him a bottom pair D.

That's what you said.

 

[Tyson]

"May end up a top 4 guy" directly means he is not one right now, which means you called him a bottom pair D.

That's what you said.

You misunderstood then because most think he is a top pairing guy and I said he may end up being a top 4 guy. I never said he was a bottom pairing Dman. He is playing top pairing minutes but imo isn't a top pairing guy. He may become one..

 

[Miller Time]

You misunderstood then because most think he is a top pairing guy and I said he may end up being a top 4 guy. I never said he was a bottom pairing Dman. He is playing top pairing minutes but imo isn't a top pairing guy. He may become one..

What's your criteria or standard for "top pairing"?

I'd argue that Guhle would play top pairing minutes on at least 1/3 of NHL teams right now, so I'd agree with @Mrb1p , there's little case to be made that he isn't "top pairing" caliber right now, even if not yet (or not ever) a legit #1 dman or in the "elite" or "all-star" caliber of top pair dmen.

 

[Tyson]

What's your criteria or standard for "top pairing"?

I'd argue that Guhle would play top pairing minutes on at least 1/3 of NHL teams right now, so I'd agree with @Mrb1p , there's little case to be made that he isn't "top pairing" caliber right now, even if not yet (or not ever) a legit #1 dman or in the "elite" or "all-star" caliber of top pair dmen.

I see a young Dman with good potential who could become a top pairing guy on a playoff team. I don't see a top pairing guy based on his play this season. He has the upside but he isn't there yet. This is an opinion that shouldn't be this controversial.

 

[Miller Time]

I see a young Dman with good potential who could become a top pairing guy on a playoff team. I don't see a top pairing guy based on his play this season. He has the upside but he isn't there yet. This is an opinion that shouldn't be this controversial.

Meh, he's playing better than several dmen that played top pairing minutes in last year's playoffs.

But that wasn't my question... Do you have an actual criteria or basis for what you consider a "top pairing dman"?

& Yes, certainly It's fine to have an opinion based solely on emotion/without any actual criteria, just doesn't make for a particularly good argument.

Shouldn't be "controversial" to have that pointed out

 

[Tyson]

Meh, he's playing better than several dmen that played top pairing minutes in last year's playoffs.

But that wasn't my question... Do you have an actual criteria or basis for what you consider a "top pairing dman"?

& Yes, certainly It's fine to have an opinion based solely on emotion/without any actual criteria, just doesn't make for a particularly good argument.

Shouldn't be "controversial" to have that pointed out

Criteria? I just watch the games, have been for over 50 years and I have my criteria of whether a player is top pairing material. A top pairing guy should be able to play 22+ minutes against top players, kill penalties, play on the PP and used in the last minute of games effectively. Just because he is playing on the top pair in Montreal currently doesn't make him a top pairing guy. Kaiden Guhle based on the many years of watching hockey looks to me to be a solid 2nd pairing guy. He also needs to learn how to take a hit and better protect himself.

The word emotion is not something used to describe me when I post on this forum. I post here for fun. Life throws too many challenges in one's path to get emotional on a hockey chat forum.

 

[Miller Time]

Criteria?
I just watch the games, have been for over 50 years and I have my criteria of whether a player is top pairing material. A top pairing guy should be able to play 22+ minutes against top players,

Sure... Matheson played 25+ last year vs top players...

I'd offer that usage and effectiveness are two distinct criteria.

kill penalties, play on the PP and used in the last minute of games effectively.
Just because he is playing on the top pair in Montreal currently doesn't make him a top pairing guy.

Agree with the last part... Though I'm legit curious how many teams you think Guhle would not get top pairing roles/minutes?

I put it at about 1/3 that he'd be an upgrade on their current #2.

Kaiden Guhle based on the many years of watching hockey looks to me to be a solid 2nd pairing guy. He also needs to learn how to take a hit and better protect himself.

Sure, but I think it important to consider these things relative to the rest of the league.

 

[Tyson]

Sure... Matheson played 25+ last year vs top players...

I'd offer that usage and effectiveness are two distinct criteria.



Agree with the last part... Though I'm legit curious how many teams you think Guhle would not get top pairing roles/minutes?

I put it at about 1/3 that he'd be an upgrade on their current #2.




Sure, but I think it important to consider these things relative to the rest of the league.

"I put it at about 1/3 that he'd be an upgrade on their current #2." I don't rate him as high.

 

[HuGort]

Moves Puck well with Hutson. If it becomes a thing, he could have value. Still bad defensively but that pairing should create offense

 

[JianYang]

If Guhle's play tonight is any indicator, this player is no number 1 defenceman. He iced the puck multiple times, he made numerous turnovers, he fumbled the puck at the offensive blueline that led to a 2 on 1 against that Matheson had to bail him out off, he wasn't particularly physical and he provided very little offensive push. Even Struble was more active than Guhle. Maybe it was just a bad game, but from what I saw, he's got to do a lot of growing to be even considered as a potential number 1.

The general projection for guhle has been as a #2/3

 

[Tyson]

The general projection for guhle has been as a #2/3

I am happy with a mid 1st round pick becoming a #2/3 Dman.

 

[HuGort]

Matheson/Hutson pairing created a lot of scoring chances last game. Small sample size but could be onto something

 

[salbutera]

Why are we not practicing

A S S E T M A N A G E M E N T

During a tank rebuild?

Head scratching to not sell this guy at his highest value imo.

Some will say it's not EA sports but this is a management that received 2 first for monahan in some shrewd asset management so it's not like this is an unknown concept to hughes and co

Is it personal favoritism? Hometown guy ? Good vet in the locker room? Probably a bit of it all.

Because the owner of the team said this years goal is to be “in da mix”, to which HuGo then followed up by repeating the same catch phrase.