That s cute how you assume Engstrom Mailloux Hutson will be superior to Barron whereas he has been playing in the NHL in D+3 and D+4 and is more polished than Mailloux at the same age. I follow SHL and Engstrom is good but nothing exceptional. He could become a top 4 but right now I don t see it.
Yeah, I'm really really not a huge fan of Barron, because, for 6'2", 202 lbs, he's softer than Hutson at 5'10", 162 lbs!
Beyond being so 'Soff', as Therrien used to say, Barron is like a deer in headlights when defending around his net, not far from as clueless as Dumbchenyuk was in his own zone. He's one of the few Ds on the team that gives me regular anxiety attacks.
His offensive prowess lacks consistency and, even with more of that, it doesn't come close to making up for how we get cornered in our zone when Barron is on the ice, or how opponents have a field day in our Goalie's crease with him defending in our zone.
I'm not big on larger Ds who are invisible when it comes to puck battles. It's more understandable with a smaller Harris, but even then, the diminutive D is not very endearing to me, especially when he brings very little offense.
I'm not sure about Engstrom either, but I know he's a sound defensive D with some physicality, solid positional play and good skating/mobility.
That's all you need to pair up with Hutson who controls the play the he has the puck. Such a D playing with Hutson doesn't need to be spectacular -- just steady, to give Hutson the confidence to do what he does best.
Short of Engstrom, Struble, from the little I've seen in the NHL, can likely be a steadying force alongside Hutson, even on his offside (he can play RD), on a 2nd pairing. Again, he just needs to be steady defensively, because he has the physicality and the speed to protect Hutson, both literally, through fisticuffs, and figuratively, in case of turnovers.
Also, you omit context when quoting me. Mailloux would only be on a 3rd pairing with Xhekaj, after almost two years playing as pairing and developing chemistry in Laval.
I'm not sure that Mailloux is any less reliable than Barron, defensively? He, however, is as good a skater (if not better) than Barron with the puck and much more physical, in all zones, even if he doesn't play like a bull in a china shop.
In a third pairing role, any defensive liabilities Mailloux might have would be less exposed.
I'd actually be okay with Barron in a 3rd pairing role, but, in that role, I'd rather the more imposing and physical player in Mailloux.
Beyond that, Mailloux has missed tons of ice time in the last few years because of legal and health issues. Your comparison doesn't hold water with your D+ statement and, despite your affirmation, Barron is far from a polished D, despite all the time spent playing in the NHL.
I'm pretty confident that the remainder of this year and most of next year of professional hockey in Laval should season Mailloux for a regular role in the NHL on a third pairing with, potentially, PP minutes on a 2nd wave, if Hutson isn't on the ice for the whole 2 minutes as the lone D?
Offense makes many forget other glaring weaknesses and my proposal to continue playing Barron in a 3rd pairing role that would mask his defensive shortcomings until the trade deadline next year is all meant to raise his trade value by then. I would definitely give him PP minutes as well to help pad his offensive production with the same aim of getting a larger return for his services.
I wasn't trying to be cute and your snark suggestion that my post was cute really wasn't.
There's surely projection involved in my suggestions for a stronger D-Corps, but my analysis of a limited overall upside for Barron is valid, IMHO, and my expectations for Hutson'spairing partner, as well as Mailloux in a 3rd pairing role are modest and achievable.
The key will be whether Hutson's game translates to the NHL at a similar level to his game in the NCAA. Even then, I expect some time in the AHL before he plays in the NHL on regular basis.
