The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
Why are so afraid of losing him or moving on lol there's like 20 teams in the league better than us and they don't have Matheson on it. It's gonna be ok
Player Discussion Mike Matheson
- Thread starter KevSkillz4
- Start date
StCaufield
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2022
- 2,153
- 2,777
Considering his offensive numbers dropped off significantly I think they can get him for what he’s already been making
His offensive numbers only dropped off once Hutson was given his offensive minutes (pp mostly), and he can point at Guhle and ask for his money considering his usage on the team.
That rational makes zero sense.
Matheson would be a net upgrade to just about any NHL LD depth chart in the league.
We shouldn't be "afraid" to lose any player, that's not a reason to ignore or dismiss the actual value of the assets we have
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
No he cant point to Guhle.
Guhle:
Faces tougher competition.
Has tougher deployment.
Produces more at 5v5.
Brings a physical presence.
Has better defensive metrics.
Has better offensive metrics.
Is only getting better.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Matheson is not a problem at D, so why this 'Must Get Rid Of Matheson' narrative.
Played the right role on D, Matheson is a net plus.
I do, however share the position that, if we had a Matheson equivalent (like Petry, who we traded for Matheson), at the same 31 years age as Matheson today, or younger, we'd have a much better D-Corps, overall.
I'm in no rush to move Matheson today, as I believe that an extended Matheson, on a sweetheart, hometown deal, will have as much, or better, value in a couple of years, once more of the roster is set and the final needs to compete for a Cup are better defined.
In the meantime (couple of seasons), while we still aren't ready to compete tor a Cup, Matheson can continue to do the dirty work and eat the more difficult minutes against the opponents' best alongside Carrier, on a top line next year, even if that means being overused. Afterwards, once Reinbacher, and maybe Mailloux are ready for a top-4 role, Matheson - Carrier can play similar shutdown role, but on the third line instead, being less vulnerable and not overused.
Of course, if Matheson can immediately bring back an equivalent, similarly aged, or younger equivalent, either in a direct trade, or through the assets received for Matheson in a different trade, you do that now.
If you can't that RHD a little younger than Matheson (27 or 28, let's say) for Mailloux and Pittsburgh's 41st OA this year, you don that as well.
Keeping Hutson on his natural side is always better idea.
Guhle - Carrier
Hutson - XXX
Xhekaj - Reinbacher/ (Mailloux, if not traded for the upgrade on RD?)
Struble
Eventually, Reinbacher replaces Carrier, who can be extended as a 30-yr-old in two years, to play as your 3rd pairing veteran and your eventual 7th D for four or five more seasons.
You try to select Fiddler at this year's draft by moving up in the early teens with your remaining 2nd round picked a prospect.
By the time the RHD upgrade you got to play with Hutson is toast, Fiddler should have been groomed as a replacement.
That's an ideal scenario, but it's unclear whether the right upgrade candidate is currently available, or if the pieces we carport with tickle a potential trading partner's fancy?
Played the right role on D, Matheson is a net plus.
I do, however share the position that, if we had a Matheson equivalent (like Petry, who we traded for Matheson), at the same 31 years age as Matheson today, or younger, we'd have a much better D-Corps, overall.
I'm in no rush to move Matheson today, as I believe that an extended Matheson, on a sweetheart, hometown deal, will have as much, or better, value in a couple of years, once more of the roster is set and the final needs to compete for a Cup are better defined.
In the meantime (couple of seasons), while we still aren't ready to compete tor a Cup, Matheson can continue to do the dirty work and eat the more difficult minutes against the opponents' best alongside Carrier, on a top line next year, even if that means being overused. Afterwards, once Reinbacher, and maybe Mailloux are ready for a top-4 role, Matheson - Carrier can play similar shutdown role, but on the third line instead, being less vulnerable and not overused.
Of course, if Matheson can immediately bring back an equivalent, similarly aged, or younger equivalent, either in a direct trade, or through the assets received for Matheson in a different trade, you do that now.
If you can't that RHD a little younger than Matheson (27 or 28, let's say) for Mailloux and Pittsburgh's 41st OA this year, you don that as well.
Keeping Hutson on his natural side is always better idea.
Guhle - Carrier
Hutson - XXX
Xhekaj - Reinbacher/ (Mailloux, if not traded for the upgrade on RD?)
Struble
Eventually, Reinbacher replaces Carrier, who can be extended as a 30-yr-old in two years, to play as your 3rd pairing veteran and your eventual 7th D for four or five more seasons.
You try to select Fiddler at this year's draft by moving up in the early teens with your remaining 2nd round picked a prospect.
By the time the RHD upgrade you got to play with Hutson is toast, Fiddler should have been groomed as a replacement.
That's an ideal scenario, but it's unclear whether the right upgrade candidate is currently available, or if the pieces we carport with tickle a potential trading partner's fancy?
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
A competing team cant have Matheson on its roster. He doesnt bring enough offensively for the defensive shortcomings.
Hes also 32 and we have our two established top 4 LDs that are miles better. Why do we need him?
You can say stuff as if it's factual, but it isn't entirely so.
Matheson faces as tough competition as Guhle, sometimes tougher, depending on the given night.
What's the difference between faces tougher competition and has tougher deployment?
Does not produce more at even strength, or not significantly more once you project missed games last season as actually producing at the same ratio.
GUHLE DOES BRING A MORE PHYSICAL PRESENCE
Give us the actual breakdown for both offensive and defensive metrics to corroborate that.
GUHLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO GET BETTER, AS YOU SAY
Different players, useful in their own way. Not convinced either should be a 1st pairing D, but Guhle could eventually fit that role if your first pair on D is a shutdown pair (Guhle - Reinbacher, Guhle - Fiddler, maybe?).
An eventual third pair of Matheson - Carrier (once reinbacher is ready) would be much better than most third pairs in the league. They already did a more than decent shutdown job against the opponents' best players while Guhle was injured (but you obviously missed those games) and they would be even better against lesser competition in a 3rd pairing role, all the while not being vastly overmatched if caught against the opponents' best players on a bad line change.
I'm not clamouring to keep Matheson at all cost, as you can seen my other posts that agree with replacing Matheson with an equivalent RHD as the better situation going forward.
However your opinion that Matheson is some useless bunion that needs to be removed is clearly a reach. I'm just of the opinion that he can remain useful and, perhaps, be even more useful if we keep him and don't use him a role that will expose him the way we have so far, for lack of depth at D on the right side.
Matheson agreed to change his role with the team and, since he appears to want to stay in Montreal (life close to the extended family definitely has its benefits), I believe he will be willing to get paid according to the role he seems to have accepted with the team.
Following that logic, you could say the same about Nick Suzuki or any other player on the team.
Matheson shouldn't get in the low 5-Million range on a 4-year extension as a 32-yr-old. Nor do I think Hughes will give him that. If Matheson gets as much as 4 years, it won't be for more than 4M, I don't think. It could also be for less (3.75M?)
Don't forget that Matheson has the advantage of wanting to live here where 3.75M USD, or 4M USD full-time, goes a longer way than living elsewhere.
Last edited:
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
They are facts:
WRONG : Matheson faces as tough competition as Guhle, sometimes tougher, depending on the given night.:
Guhle faces tougher competition. This is REL too, which means it only gets worse if Kaiden doesn't injure himself (Matheson had to pick up the slack.)
Does not produce more at even strength, or not significantly more once you project missed games last season as actually producing at the same ratio. :
5V5 numbers:
Here, stop spreading lies now.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Nick Suzuki is a top 10 center in the NHL. This comparison is downright stupid.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,376
- 7,592
If there are 20 teams that are better then us why we're we the ones who made the playoffs?
It's not a comparison.
There's 20 teams better than us and they don't have a Suzuki, therefore the Habs shouldn't be afraid of losing him.
That's your argument and as you can see, it's absurd.
I'm not a fan of Matheson, and there are reasons to trade him, but that's not it.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Its not my argument and Suzuki IS the reason this team is good, Matheson is at best the reason why this team is bad.
Yes it is.
I'm not comparing the 2 players. I'm just applying your logic to Suzuki to show you how absurd it is.
Is it not true that there are 20 teams better than the Habs and they don't have Suzuki?
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,376
- 7,592
Given that Justin Barron is at/near the top of those stats I'm not sure how we are supposed to take them seriously.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,376
- 7,592
And Struble having a better EVD and EVO WAR compared to Guhle is what? Are we to believe that Struble is a better ES player then Guhle?
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Also sample size and QOC, deployment.
Struble also did pretty good himself.
We are to believe that Struble had slightly better results at 5v5 than Guhle, its not an indicator of who the better player is. A .02 difference is also a lot smaller than .07.
Sorinth
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 11,376
- 7,592
Lol
Pretty sure WAR stats are supposed to already factor in deployment and you do realize that the issue with a small sample size is that it can't say whether that level of play will be sustainable and not that it will say someone is doing great when they are actually doing bad. So for Barron the stats should have told us he was bad because he was, the sample size argument would say we can't say he'll always be that bad because the sample size is too small to make that kind of prediction.
And frankly at this point I feel I should just respond with Guhle not having a big enough sample size compared to Matheson. I mean the difference in TOI between Guhle and Struble was about 300 minutes, the difference between Matheson and Guhle is about 900. But sure sample size, sample size, sample size whenever something doesn't fit your narrative.
