ChesterNimitz
governed by the principle of calculated risk
- Jul 4, 2002
- 5,654
- 12,193
Minimum price to trade Mike Matheson near the deadline
- Thread starter DAChampion
- Start date
What you want to achieve with a player that is good now -- and has remaining term -- is a Nieuwendyk for Iginla type of trade. Forget the first round pick. It's a bluechip prospect that is being held back on a contending team already filled to the rim with quality forwards, but missing an impact D with experience push the team over the top.
Such a team would be willing to sacrifice a young, Iginla type winger for a puck-moving, 50-point D on a good contract.
Of course, that can't happen until we see Matheson play healthy for most of this season and actually is still on pace for 50+ points at the trade deadline, to go with Matheson's pace of 50+ points from last year when healthy.
I'd also measure this possibility by calling up Mailloux after X-mas this year, just toes where we stand with this fine prospect?
We're weaker on the right side, but Barron has been impressive of late at the start of this year.
We need to decide if we keep Hutson or Mailloux, or either of them, before unloading Matheson, IMO. That's why next year's deadline may be more appropriate as a time frame to consider trading Matheson.
By next training camp, we'll know if we have a confirmed 50 point production from Matheson as trade leverage.
We'll also have seen Mailloux play in theNHL by then to have a better read on his future with the team and, hopefully, Hutson will have signed a professional contract and played during training camp and preseason to see how he measures up against NHL competition.
At worst, we could have a good read on Hutson from play throughout the year at the AHL level once the trade deadline comes along.
If Guhle - Hutson - Xhekaj makes sense on the left side because we also have Reinbacher, Mailloux and Barron on the right side, plus Engstrom who can play both sides, moving Matheson will make sense.
Moving Matheson to finish out the 2024-2025 season, with the 2025 postseason and draft coming up, where Montreal will have a lot of draft capital, packaging Matheson +, to make sure we land a bluechip impact forward will be likelier.
Bluechip elite forwarder don't trade Matheson. Ideally, that's done next year and not this one, if only to have better reads on our own prospects before moving Matheson, but, if you can get a gift horse Bluechip forward this trade deadline, you don't look it un the mouth and you make the trade.
Forget the late first rounder. That's not sufficient for Matheson who also loves playing in Montreal.
No More Subban
GHG
- Apr 28, 2010
- 17,779
- 7,033
i won't trade matheson as well. guhle is our future but he still needs to prove himself first, production-wise. no reason to give him all the responsibilities. he'll get there one day.
"...or an under appreciated youngster (Dach/Newhook) type of deal..."
Too much of a gamble to me. If Matheson is healthy at the deadline, and pacing for 50+points, it's a bluechip, elite forward prospect or nothing for me. I'd look toaddfromour 2025 draftcapital if the prospect is worth it, but a project for Matheson? Nope.
St-Louis may be a horse whisperer, but a good chance at something decent for Matheson is not enough of a price to pay, IMO.
Two more years of Matheson will give Guhle time to develop into a true #1D and time for the Habs to actually test both Mailloux and Hutson in the NHL before making any decisions.
Worst case scenario, you trade Matheson in the last year of his contract (two more years after this one) with even more detain both Mailloux and Hutson, plus perhaps some time seeing Engstrom play in Laval?
Best time to trade Matheson is the final year of his contract, as holding back half of his salary at 2.4375M will make him more affordable to more teams and a bidding war between them could yield more and better assets than originally imagined.
All the more if he truly produces like a #1D until that time?
Who knows, by accumulating data, we might decide to trade Hutson or Mailloux if we're confident Barron is turning int0o an impactful RHD and/or that Engstrom will be the next thing on the right side of D. Don't forget Konyushkov that could eventually be another solid option on RD as minute-munching, reliable D.
Lots of time to see how the D of the future shapes up and tastily get value in a trade involving Matheson by then.
I'm more into accumulating more data about our D prospects at the NHL level, or the professional level, at least, before pulling the trigger on any Matheson trade, barring an offer that can't be refused. Unfortunately, a late first round pick just doesn't cut it in the shorter term.
ChesterNimitz
governed by the principle of calculated risk
- Jul 4, 2002
- 5,654
- 12,193
Guess
Registered User
Wouldn't trade Matheson unless we get a 1D/1F prospect + 1st
Doubt that happens.
Once our young D are ready for top 4 minutes and he doesn't need to play top line minutes then you trade him.
Doubt that happens.
Once our young D are ready for top 4 minutes and he doesn't need to play top line minutes then you trade him.
NicRattlehead
Registered User
This is my fantasyland idea.
The Habs hire people close to Brad Treliving. These contractors have one job - convince Treviling that the Leafs defense is lacking and that William Nylander sucks. Then Kent Hughes swoops in and we trade Matheson for Nylander. It could work……in fantasyland anyway
.
The Habs hire people close to Brad Treliving. These contractors have one job - convince Treviling that the Leafs defense is lacking and that William Nylander sucks. Then Kent Hughes swoops in and we trade Matheson for Nylander. It could work……in fantasyland anyway
.
the valiant effort
settle down, bud
- Apr 17, 2017
- 4,262
- 5,156
HabsWhiteKnightLOL
Registered User
Trade him for 1 late first of a 2+ a good prospect.
People overrate Matheson heavily. hes a second pair d-man having terrible defensive issues. Yes he skates fast and can make crazy plays , but more often he turnovers the puck or somehow manages to fail the most basic plays ever.
I wouldnt trade him for leftovers since our d-squad is already garbage at this moment. But if I get the offer i have on my paper , i would trade him right away.
I think offensively we can easily put Guhle or Barron on the PP and Matheson is not a good defensive d-man at all so I think replacing him is not a big deal. I would rather get a bigger dude with defensive abilities with decent skating (upgraded version of Savard) to insert up in our lineup with Jackeye to play a bit more beefy. Our d-squad is soft as hell.
People overrate Matheson heavily. hes a second pair d-man having terrible defensive issues. Yes he skates fast and can make crazy plays , but more often he turnovers the puck or somehow manages to fail the most basic plays ever.
I wouldnt trade him for leftovers since our d-squad is already garbage at this moment. But if I get the offer i have on my paper , i would trade him right away.
I think offensively we can easily put Guhle or Barron on the PP and Matheson is not a good defensive d-man at all so I think replacing him is not a big deal. I would rather get a bigger dude with defensive abilities with decent skating (upgraded version of Savard) to insert up in our lineup with Jackeye to play a bit more beefy. Our d-squad is soft as hell.
Scintillating10
Registered User
Skip Bayless
The Skip Bayless Show
- Aug 28, 2014
- 21,066
- 23,729
I don't known what planet you watch hockey!? Seriously, your takes are so over the top trying to sell just how bad most Habs are it's become a running joke for me.
Theresa's a large sample size, after his return from injury last year where Matheson could have mailed in his D-Game in a lost cause, like both Pacioretty and Galchenyuk had done to score thirty goals a while back.
Instead, on top of being mobile, producing strong offense to end last season, Matheson was surprisingly string defensively, back-checking effectively, thanks to his speed, and stripping pucks off opponents to cause positive turnovers in our favour.
You're so off when it comes to reality it's not even worth taking into account your negative takes.
Honestly, Bluechip prospect + 2nd
HabsWhiteKnightLOL
Registered User
Having an opinion that is not positive or not around yours idea means perhaps you should see what i see. I see a Florida Matheson and the same why Pittsburgh got rid of him.
I do not say he does not back check i never said that. Im just saying he's completely out of the play often in the defensive zone. His partner Savard was doing the same. They struggle to clear the puck behind the net or follow their player.
If we wanna go forward those guys can't be in the longterm plan of this team.
I get what you mean offensively. Remember the goal he scored coast to cast? That was great but don't tell me you don't remember the numerous turnovers and lack of commitment when hes quarter back. He's more of a rush guy.
They are positives and also more annoying negatives about him. Not everything is perfect. This board keep saying we have an atrocious def squad which Matheson is in.
If you can't read my messages because i well explained why I would get rid of him if THE OFFER is good. That not everyone will agree with it but since OP asked people, I don't know it's not positive then just don't read it.
The only veteran i have attachments is Monahan but it should be traded because nobody in this board eould risk a 5+years at 6-7m at this pace for a guy turning 30 next season with his iniury history.
Matheson is clearly not the biggest problem right now but if a team is looking for him abd the offer is worth it. Then sometimes it's better moving on than keeping the status quo.
SOLR
Registered User
He's 29 years old, he won't be what he is in 3 years and that's that, he's a goner. If not this season, next one. But we would get more from him this year and he's been injured a lot so I wouldn't take the risk of another year considering this.
I have no problem with posters having different opinions, but I haven't seen the somethings you have over a larger sample than a game or two. Micro-analysis is just away of proving oneself right in the moment, not the long run. I see every player in the league having worse games than others. I can agree when they have bad games, but that doesn't necessarily radiate throughout their season's play.
Matheson is older. He has matured and the current fit in Montreal, closer to his childhood home, is a good fit. His games improved from his Florida days and, no, PIT wasn't trying to get rid of him at all. Where you get your takes, again, is mind-boggling, but it's clear that false, left field statements like that are just to prop up your stance.
It has the opposite effect with me.
Matheson isn't the end all of Ds, by any means, but some of the defensive problems you spotted are likely due to Savard being his defensive partner. Even Guhle,on his side, would be the better choice. Barron, despite the offensive awakening, not as much, although he has improved.
I'd rather risk (that's your take, because of the history) and wait until next year, just to get more data on our young Ds in the right chairs (for now) before moving him.
SOLR
Registered User
We don't need the data at all because you know you have to trade him to recycle value to add to your Suzuki window years.
Jaynki
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2014
- 5,778
- 5,881
Suzuki and Caufield 8 years contract are running.
Most of our prospects/core is in place.
I dont think we are in a spot to trade a high quality player like Matheson for future that will be here when Suzuki contract is nearing the end.
I don't think the rebuild is close to being over, so I think that trading Matheson is only worthwhile if we get a bluechip prospect that has already been drafted and is that much closer to having an actual impact at the NHL level.
If we only get offered a late first round pick, I'd keep him, at least for next season. We'll still get the same thing, then, if he doesn't self-destruct and it keeps Guhle in the right chair as he continues to progress.
The fear of injury and missing out entirely on a trade return is becoming a running joke as well...
Montreal's rebuild -- meaning youngsters are well along being near to fully developed -- won't be until 2027-2028, after four more years have gone by.
Look at three years left on Suzuki's contract where we might do some damage in the playoffs. That will be our window, but we still need to add talent to get there on time.
ChesterNimitz
governed by the principle of calculated risk
- Jul 4, 2002
- 5,654
- 12,193
One would have thought by now we would have learned the immutable lesson that you trade the type of mobility that Matheson can bring to a team at your franchise's peril. But I guess the grass is always greener approach has an unending allure to some.
The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
Flip him for whatever , we are 5-6-7 years away , not needed.
I see alot of wishful thinking here saying we could be good in 2-3 years , meh , no elite forwards still , we will see what we draft this year and next year but without a player better than Nick or Cole we are never going to be a contending team
I see alot of wishful thinking here saying we could be good in 2-3 years , meh , no elite forwards still , we will see what we draft this year and next year but without a player better than Nick or Cole we are never going to be a contending team
Harry Kakalovich
Like and reply
I don't think they trade him this year. I do hope they trade him eventually though. But I think he's helpful this year at least to eat up minutes and provide leadership and support.
Chadstudsky
Registered User
VirginiaMtlExpat
Second most interesting man in the world.
Who comes to mind as an Iginla in the making? There cannot be very many of those, especially who are not signed long-term. High skill, high toughness.
An alternate scenario is a budding star, like Pettersson, whom the team knows it cannot keep, dealing from a weak position, where we give Matheson + one of our lesser centers in exchange.
