eklund the clown
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2010
- 2,290
- 2,577
I don't think we make any trades anytime soon unless the injury bug hits yet again.We have to see what we have here and so far it's looking good.We should be 3-0
HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread #88: 2024 Off-Season Thread
- Thread starter MarkovsKnee
- Start date
- Status
sampollock
Registered User
Even with Andersson in the line-up, Guhle won't be moved to the left side. Savard is currently averaging 16 minutes TOI (Barron/Xhekaj get even lower minutes). Guhle will stay on the right side until the Habs have two RHD who can play 18-20+ minutes each. Matheson/Hutson provide those minutes on the left side already. Guhle provide it on the right side right now.
I don't think that Guhle playing on the right side is a big deal.
He said it himself on L'Antichambre Saturday after the game and he seemed genuine about it.
Said he took reps on the right side all summer to get used to it and so far it seems to work fine.
I see him playing with Hutson for a long time.
I think Savard is more suited to play on the 3rd pair.
Too bad Struble is hurt because he looked good enough to play top 4.
I could see them trying those pairs when Struble returns:
Hutson - Guhle
Matheson - Struble
Xhekaj - Savard
Barron
With Andersson instead of Matheson, they'd have Struble playing the left side.
Hutson - Guhle
Struble - Andersson
Xhekaj - Savard
Barron
I'd be surprised if it happens anyway.
I don't think Matheson has that much value and Andersson will cost too much.
And, again, Matheson has a NTC, he's not gonna want to go to Calgary.
WeThreeKings
Demidov is a HAB
A legitimate top line forward, improved bottom 6ers and a 1RD, and a legit backup
So what you're saying is that in that scenario you would go:
Hutson - Guhle
Xhekaj - Andersson
Struble - Savard
????
We have too many RH centres in our core and near-core. Suzuki, Dach, Hage, Kapanen, Beck. I don't see how Suzuki fits long-term and he's the oldest of the guys. By the time many of the fans here are ready to compete, Suzuki will be needing a new contract that will take him to 38 years old.
Trade him now for a LH center. Celebrini or Jack Hughes will do, and if we have to add, then add.
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 39,752
- 22,001
Not agreeing with my opinion about Matheson does not mean I am arguing in "bad faith".
@Treb says he "can't see" Matheson fitting long-term. But many of the arguments to support that opinion would apply to Suzuki too, including the plus/minus stat some like to trot out for Matheson.
Of course, trading Suzuki-plus for Jack Hughes is not likely. I don't think trading Matheson-plus for some true 1st pairing RHD is likely either.
Swap Xhekaj/Struble. Xhekaj is bad defensively, Struble is better in his own zone.
And Guhle or Andersson on the top line, not sure which one would be better with Hutson.
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,167
- 12,522
Have to agree here.
It's unlikely there is a sufficiently sexy RH dman prospect who is close enough to NHL-ready to be worth trading against Matheson.
I don't love Matheson but he could be a solid contributor to any winning team. That is to say, he's not the problem. We need to acquire or develop better d-men around him. Guhle is one of them. Maybe Hutson too. Need another RD.
Yes, building means adding talent, not sideways moves, nor shedding salary for the sake of it.
This is not about not agreeing, it's about you using completely outlandish comparables that make no sense. Not sure where you got the trading him for some true 1st pair RD either. Also, I never said Matheson was bad.
Matheson is not a fit because his skillset is redundant on the team and he will be overshadowed by other players. If he's not your main PMD/PP guy, his value to the team diminish greatly and this will only get worse if/when Mailloux, Reinbacher and Engstrom make the team. Same reason I don't think Barron will be a long term fixture either. For the next few years, the goal should be to find the best complements possible to Guhle and Hutson either via prospects/draft, trade or FA.
Matheson is not that but could help us get that, which is the point I've been making.
Having better complementarity is not a sideway move.
Adding talent to add talent gives you the Leafs.
Getting players that complement each other gives you Tampa.
This is where we disagree. We had Robinson, and Savard, and Lapointe, and their skill sets definitely overlapped. Too many PMD!!
You can't have enough top-4 guys. Matheson would be a candidate for trade once we have Guhle, Hutson, Reinbacher and Mailloux or Engstrom all at top 4 calibre.
We're not there yet. Without Matheson, we have one, maybe two top-4 defencemen, not only today, but also next year. That's not enough, especially given that we don't have a generational forward.
We can re-evaluate at the 2026 Trade Deadline if Matheson won't extend at 2/3D value.
Last edited:
- Jan 18, 2022
- 8,167
- 12,522
Until he is overshadowed he is not redundant.
That is, unless you’re a Forever Tanker and want a constant churn of veteran players.
Those 3 were complimentary. Once again, outlandish comparables.
How many times do I have to say that we aren't getting rid of a top4 D, we are switching a top4 D for another top4 D that fit our team better.
Ideally, we'd get a guy like Cernak for Hutson instead, but that even less likely to happen. I think Guhle and Andersson fit better than Matheson and Guhle.
How is making a trade involving Matheson for Andersson a forever tanker move?
But, but but Savard had to play his wrong side! Lapointe too!
Dach and Hughes fit better than Dach and Suzuki, but that doesn't make a Suzuki+something for Hughes trade realistic.
Matheson for Andersson is not terrible. But I see no reason for Calgary to do it, and the next thing some of the tankers here will say is to dump Matheson for anyone.
Hutson for Cernak seems more realistic by the way, because Tampa is short of young players.
Once again proving you are not having a good faith discussion or are unable to understand what I'm writing.
Dach and Suzuki is not a relevant comparable at all. You're just talking about upgrading the player while I'm talking about complementation.
Of course getting McDavid and Hughes instead of Dach and Suzuki would be great, but that has nothing to do with the whole discussion.
But that's not me. You're trying to argue with me about stuff I never said. My point was always to trade Matheson for a D that fits better.
I'm not proposing Hutson for Cernak, I was talking about getting Cernak to play with Hutson......
Complementation of D pairs.
Benstheman
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2014
- 7,301
- 3,553
What i want next season :
Guhle-Andersson
Huston-Reinbacher
Struble-Mailloux/Barron
With The Sheriff on the 4th line creating havoc on opposing Dmen.
I'd like to have an healthy Reinbacher there too but i don't think we can count on him to be ready to contribute after missing a whole year.
He has to prove that he can play there first.
I'm curious to see how Struble is gonna play this season after having a fantastic pre-season.
He might be the solution for the top 4 in the shorter term.
Benstheman
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2014
- 7,301
- 3,553
Yeah. I like Struble. In fact, i think he is a way better D than Xhekaj. But if we are to contend, i want him on the third pair with PK duties. He would stabilize the 3rd pair playing with Mailloux or Barron.
Short term yeah maybe he can play top 4 but let's calm down a bit on his pre-season stint. Doesn't mean much for me but yeah, i like his play.
I concur, Calgary is not really a good landing spot for Matheson. If the Habs want to leverage Matheson in a deal and Andersson is their objective, the most reasonable approach would be a 3-way deal:
Matheson (50% retained) to a contender needing a top-4 LHD for a future-oriented package (late 1st + prospect) then use that package to build up an offer to Calgary for Andersson.
Having a top-4 caliber D playing the 3rd pair is not a problem for me, as long as the Ds playing in the first two pairs are better than him.
As for Andersson, i was for the Habs getting him but with Laine gone now and the first two lines struggling (at the moment), i'm not sure that it's the right time to go spend significant assets to get help for the short term, even if he could maybe help for the longer term too.
- Status
