ChesterNimitz
governed by the principle of calculated risk
- Jul 4, 2002
- 5,850
- 12,719
Does that make him a Robber Barron?With Matheson injured barron about to steal his spot on the top pp bb
Does that make him a Robber Barron?With Matheson injured barron about to steal his spot on the top pp bb
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.I would be hesitant to trade him for a late 1st and honestly those are the teams that would be interested. But..... I would trade him for a good prospect or an under appreciated youngster (Dach/Newhook) type of deal.
"...or an under appreciated youngster (Dach/Newhook) type of deal..."I would be hesitant to trade him for a late 1st and honestly those are the teams that would be interested. But..... I would trade him for a good prospect or an under appreciated youngster (Dach/Newhook) type of deal.
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.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.
More like the Grand Canyon.There is a chasm between Matheson and Alzner!! Alzner was more like a Savard, shot blocking, stay home type. Not half as mobile as Matheson.
A good young goalie be tempting for me.Minimum I would take this year would be 4 pieces or similar value, like Dubois or Hagel. Something that blow us away.
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.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.
Honestly, Bluechip prospect + 2nd1st + blue chip prospect.
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 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
Dont trade Matheson.
We can barely find 20 best D than him right now.
38 points in 56 games since joining us, plays 25++min a night, is physical, moves the puck extremely well. He is a 1D.
He still has 5-7 years of high quality hockey to give. He is part of the core going forward. Remember that Suzuki and Caufield 8 years contract are running.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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.Trade. Better veteran LDs can be acquired along the way.
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.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.