Unpopular opinion

[Miller Time]

You're tilting against windmills.

I never said intangibles aren't significant. I recommend you read the post again.

I quoted what you said, no need to squirm around trying to reframe it even though you've since edited out the awful take that I pointed out lol

As for what you have left in, it's still full of poor assessments...

With that said, I reject the “leader in the room” argument wholesale.

And you are wholesale wrong in that assessment. Most, if not all, long term sustained cultures of excellence have 1-2 key leaders, often not the best performers, who set the internal tone in the room that is crucial to the overall success.

Hard, if not impossible to quantify, yet very apparent to anyone who has been a part of one, or studied them closely.

Firstly, if you can’t trade away players with character then what do you expect to get in exchange for players who explicitly lack character?

Individual perspective on "character" aside, the list of players with "character" issues/questions traded for quality assets is a lengthy one...

As a Habs fan, you might recall that

Bolts got Sergachev for Drouin
Flames got Cammalleri for Bourque

& what Habs fan could forget the PLD bullet we dodged last summer

The only reason a team would want him is because he has good character and good skills combined. Secondly, what is the value of his leadership removed from his skills? The intangibles thing is always a specious argument imo. Obviously you want professional and high-character players at all times — but so do your trading partners. Your desire and their desire to have high-character players should cancel themselves out.

It's not a video game. GMs aren't trading based on matching up some pre-determined skill/attribute rating & equalling it out.

Character assessments vary widely. You'd think following the Habs & the BargainBin/Michou era, with their terrible assessments on character, would make that easy to understand.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Matheson had 62 points - 9th in the NHL for defensemen!! Next best on the Habs had 24 points.

After MM, no habs D is close in creating offense. (Which helps the young forwards’ production)

There are up and coming offensive D but they’ll need to play sheltered minutes initially. MM isn’t sheltered.

Should have about 5 good years left, which will be within a competitive window for this team. Hopefully he’ll end up as a good #3 in couple seasons when the Habs contend.

 

[Mrb1p]

Matheson had 62 points - 9th in the NHL for defensemen!! Next best on the Habs had 24 points.

After MM, no habs D is close in creating offense. (Which helps the young forwards’ production)

There are up and coming offensive D but they’ll need to play sheltered minutes initially. MM isn’t sheltered.

Should have about 5 good years left, which will be within a competitive window for this team. Hopefully he’ll end up as a good #3 in couple seasons when the Habs contend.

Sigh, we need to stop inventing stuff. Matheson produces at 5v4 and 4v4/3v3, his 5v5 production isn't anything special, or rather Savards and Guhles production are good. They all have 2nd pair levels of offense at 5v5.

It's easy to have 28 more points than the next person on the list when you get 280 minutes of PP time and the next two ones get 22 combined.

 

[Ozmodiar]

I just don't see a successful playoff team that has Matheson, Hutson, Harris, Barron on the blueline, who's going to battle in the crease, intimidate the forecheck, defend the goalie? If you can trade him for a younger D with less offense and more snarl I do it.

You list the 4 least physical D out of the pool of 10 that have a chance to play in the top 6.

Try this:

Ghule (6’3”) - Reinbacher (6’3”)
Matheson (6’2”) - mailloux (6’3”)
Hutson (4’11”) - Xhekaj (6’4”)
Kovy (6’5”)

View attachment 858558

Sigh, we need to stop inventing stuff. Matheson produces at 5v4 and 4v4/3v3, his 5v5 production isn't anything special, or rather Savards and Guhles production are good. They all have 2nd pair levels of offense at 5v5.

It's easy to have 28 more points than the next person on the list when you get 280 minutes of PP time and the next two ones get 22 combined.

What did I invent?

 

[Mrb1p]

You list the 4 least physical D out of the pool of 10 that have a chance to play in the top 6.

Try this:

Ghule (6’3”) - Reinbacher (6’3”)
Matheson (6’2”) - mailloux (6’3”)
Hutson (4’11”) - Xhekaj (6’4”)
Kovy (6’5”)


What did I invent?

That "no habs D is close to creating offense" when ltierally two D's have produced more than him at 5v5, which is the hardest offensive production to come by.

 

[Habs]

Curious what team makeup makes it to the final 4. Big D , gritty forwards with sprinkled in offense ? Probably. Formula rarely changes. Games have been so physical so far. I think we need to model those types of teams

 

[Ozmodiar]

That "no habs D is close to creating offense" when ltierally two D's have produced more than him at 5v5, which is the hardest offensive production to come by.

Not invented at all. It’s a fact. None were close at generating offence.

You’re trying to dispel that by providing a subset of the overall numbers (5 v 5). Did I write that none were close 5v5? No.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Avs have Makar, Toews, Girard & Walker...

Remains to be seen if they are successful this year, but they won the cup with Byram instead of Walker).

Xhekaj, Guhle, Strubble, Reinbacher, Mailloux provide plenty of what you are concerned we will lack. What 6-7 of the bunch (not to mention any additions via trade/UFA) are there as we become a playoff team will have the mix of competencies required to succeed, no reason to doubt that at this stage

Makar is a generational dman, Toews would arguably be our best dman of the last decade and Girard barely played

Remains to be seen what Reinbacher and Mailloux will provide

Wouldn't give Matheson away, if someone like Cernak was available in trade I'd do it

 

[Habs7631]

You list the 4 least physical D out of the pool of 10 that have a chance to play in the top 6.
Try this:
Ghule (6’3”) - Reinbacher (6’3”)
Matheson (6’2”) - mailloux (6’3”)
Hutson (4’11”) - Xhekaj (6’4”)
Kovy (6’5”)

 

[Ozmodiar]

 

[Habs]

Unpopular opinion- maybe we should have kept DeSmith ? Update - never mind he sucks balls

 

[Habs]

Unpopular opinion- mccarron has made a solid career for a guy that skates like Ogie Ogilthorpe

 

[Kiss Under the Guy]

Mackenzie Weeger is a player that has a similar value to Matheson imo.

So basically, we can pair him with a cap dump to get Tkachuk.

 

[Miller Time]

Makar is a generational dman, Toews would arguably be our best dman of the last decade and Girard barely played

Remains to be seen what Reinbacher and Mailloux will provide

Wouldn't give Matheson away, if someone like Cernak was available in trade I'd do it

Sure. Point is simply that it's not accurate to suggest a team succeed in the playoffs with a smallish d core

A lot remains to be seen indeed. Today, Matheson is a valuable asset who is performing well (& certainly contributing well above his cap cost), is appreciated by his coaches & teammates, and appears to enjoy playing in this market.

If a trade emerges that makes us better or is a better fit, then as with any player, he's available.

 

[Habs]

Sure. Point is simply that it's not accurate to suggest a team succeed in the playoffs with a smallish d core

A lot remains to be seen indeed. Today, Matheson is a valuable asset who is performing well (& certainly contributing well above his cap cost), is appreciated by his coaches & teammates, and appears to enjoy playing in this market.

If a trade emerges that makes us better or is a better fit, then as with any player, he's available.

I would trade him in a heartbeat and not look back.

 

[River Meadow]

I would trade him in a heartbeat and not look back.

+1

The choice is 100% clear - We need to trade him while his value is at it's highest.

 

[ReHabs]

I quoted what you said, no need to squirm around trying to reframe it even though you've since edited out the awful take that I pointed out lol

I didn’t edit anything out.

As for what you have left in, it's still full of poor assessments...


And you are wholesale wrong in that assessment. Most, if not all, long term sustained cultures of excellence have 1-2 key leaders, often not the best performers, who set the internal tone in the room that is crucial to the overall success.

Hard, if not impossible to quantify, yet very apparent to anyone who has been a part of one, or studied them closely.


Individual perspective on "character" aside, the list of players with "character" issues/questions traded for quality assets is a lengthy one...

As a Habs fan, you might recall that

Bolts got Sergachev for Drouin
Flames got Cammalleri for Bourque

& what Habs fan could forget the PLD bullet we dodged last summer



It's not a video game. GMs aren't trading based on matching up some pre-determined skill/attribute rating & equalling it out.

Character assessments vary widely. You'd think following the Habs & the BargainBin/Michou era, with their terrible assessments on character, would make that easy to understand.

It’s remarkable how badly you mangled my simple argument because you thought you had a point. Spectacular even.

 

[SOLR]

I don't think its that unpopular opinion, its more of a question of what would the return be and who are you adding on D.

Right now only Carlson has played more minutes than Matheson this season (Doughty will have as well if he isn't rested in the Kings last game). Assuming the return is good, Montreal needs to find someone to take those minutes. And they can't do that internally yet.

But if you can get a really strong return (which would be an irresponsible assumption) and can add an ideally right shot big minute munching D in Free Agency, then it does make sense.

That's false. They can.

The real replacement for Matheson was Hutson, he is here now. Move on. What I saw in the 2 games was an NHL player.

 

[Mrb1p]

That's false. They can.

The real replacement for Matheson was Hutson, he is here now. Move on. What I saw in the 2 games was an NHL player.

Amen. And the 5v5 time can go to all three LDs.

The real problem would be the 1RD spot.

Mackenzie Weeger is a player that has a similar value to Matheson imo.

So basically, we can pair him with a cap dump to get Tkachuk.

Weegar is not without flaw but he's always been a better player than Matheson, even when they played on the same team he was ahead in the depth chart.

 

[Captain Mountain]

That's false. They can.

The real replacement for Matheson was Hutson, he is here now. Move on. What I saw in the 2 games was an NHL player.

To be clear, you think that those 2 games is enough evidence to give him possibly the most difficult D minutes in the NHL?

 

[SOLR]

To be clear, you think that those 2 games is enough evidence to give him possibly the most difficult D minutes in the NHL?

No, that's why I said "he's a NHL player" vs. "he's a top pairing D"

I think he could do as well as Matheson on the PP pretty soon given his superior talent, even if there is a year of learning, I'm good with that.

Then he can play bottom pairing in 5v5 for a while.

 

[Bacchus1]

I know people will not like this but here it goes...

Buy low sell high, it works with money and it works with sports.

Huberdeau 115pts season? Traded to CGY... since then a 50pts player

Karlsson 101pts season? Traded to Pittsburgh now gets about 50pts

It works as well for pending aging UFA's coming off great seasons that team don't re-sign like our former Captain Pacioretty who never produced like he did with us with a new large contract he got...

Habs are loaded on the D with blue chip prospect. We are still 2-3 years of being a cup contender. Matheson is coming off a career year 62pts season at 30yrs old and signed at 2 more years at 4.8M$. Trading him in the off season would be the smart thing to do, he will likely be a 30-40 pts D for another year or two at best, we could get something good for him now. Agree? disagree?

Other unpopular opinions?

I agree, but the way our new management rins things is they consider what the player wants above all. So if Matheson wants to stay, he stays. If he wants a chance at a cup, or wants to live in the states, he could get traded.

 

[InglewoodJack]

Lock up Matheson for the next 4-5 years and factor him into our hypothetical cup window.

If you truly believe that he’s at his peak and will never have a better season (a fair assumption), other GMs also believe that too. I don’t think any piece you get in a deal that includes him will make our team tangibly better especially during the window our other guys will peak and this idea that we’re going to build an elite d core by simply having every single one of our prospects hit is just unrealistic. Have him as a solid #1 D to help our young players get to the playoffs and get that experience, factor him in as our #3 or #5 defenceman when we lift the cup.


“Buy low sell high” works when the guy is a bonafide star. Calgary probably didn’t go for Huberdeau assuming he was going to be a perennial 110 pt guy, but if he regressed to ~ppg ish player, he would’ve been worth it. If Matheson “regresses” to a 40 point guy, which is plausible, what can you even get with that?

 

[Miller Time]

I would trade him in a heartbeat and not look back.

Yes, but to be fair habby, judging by your posts in most threads, you'd trade everyone in a heartbeat, then complain about the new guys & whomever is left

 

[Captain Mountain]

No, that's why I said "he's a NHL player" vs. "he's a top pairing D"

I think he could do as well as Matheson on the PP pretty soon given his superior talent, even if there is a year of learning, I'm good with that.

Then he can play bottom pairing in 5v5 for a while.

I said that Montreal would need to find someone to take Matheson's minutes if they were to trade him and that they can't do that internally yet. You said that's false. Hutson playing PP1 doesn't replace Matheson in the slightest, as he was one of the most used players in the NHL on the PK (5th most) and ES (22nd).

People can fairly criticize Matheson's play, but his usage was insane this season.