eklund the clown
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2010
- 2,226
- 2,512
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
Just need PL back..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
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.Again, the discussion here was about Matheson for Andersson.
Guhle - Andersson
Hutson - Savard
Xhekaj - Barron
Struble
I don't think that Guhle playing on the right side is a big deal.Again, the discussion here was about Matheson for Andersson.
Guhle - Andersson
Hutson - Savard
Xhekaj - Barron
Struble
What do we need then?
Tougher 3rd liner
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.
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.He's a natural LD and we have an imbalance of LD/RD.
Trading Matheson for a RD puts Guhle back on his more comfortable side and lessen the LD logjam.
I don't see how Matheson fit in this team past the short term.
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 o,ldest 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 39 years old.
Trade him now for a LH center. Celebrini or Jack Hughes will do, and if we have to add, then add.
Not agreeing with my opinion about Matheson does not mean I am arguing in "bad faith".Good job proving you're not discussing in good faith.
Swap Xhekaj/Struble. Xhekaj is bad defensively, Struble is better in his own zone.So what you're saying is that in that scenario you would go:
Hutson - Guhle
Xhekaj - Andersson
Struble - Savard
????
Have to agree here.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.
Yes, building means adding talent, not sideways moves, nor shedding salary for the sake of it.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.
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.
Yes, building means adding talent, not sideways moves, nor shedding salary for the sake of it.
This is where we disagree. We had Robinson, and Savard, and Lapointe, and their skill sets definitely overlapped. Too many PMD!!Matheson is not a fit because his skillset is redundant on the team
Until he is overshadowed he is not redundant.Matheson is not a fit because his skillset is redundant on the team and he will be overshadowed by other players.
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.
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.
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.How is making a trade involving Matheson for Andersson a forever tanker move?