Permanent Rumour Thread

[hab29RETIRED]

19 minutes ago, Plutarch said:

I think we should move Matheson for a more responsible player of a similar age.

 

Find a team that wants a little more offense from their back end. Maybe we don't trade for a dfd but just a more reliable guy than Matheson.

I've been thinking the same thing - but not just D for D, but for a more responsible RHD. It should also be someone who is part of the futures We have a lot of draft and prospects that could also be added, because a Solid RHD won't be cheap.

[Plutarch]

56 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I've been thinking the same thing - but not just D for D, but for a more responsible RHD. It should also be someone who is part of the futures We have a lot of draft and prospects that could also be added, because a Solid RHD won't be cheap.

Well I doubt a team will be too kean on moving a youngish rhd. It would be very specific. But a 30 year old rhd who could be in the top four would be great. Transition down to the Savard role in a couple years.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

I’m open to trading Matheson because I don’t think he is part of the future. 
 

However our defence is already a dumpster fire so we can’t replace Matheson with Xhekaj unless we write the season off. 
 

The other possibility is getting a defensive minded RD back in the Matheson trade. 
 

I think if a good centre was offered for Matheson I would take that deal. I’m not so confident that Dach is a strong second line centre (maybe he is, maybe he isn’t). 
 

1 minute ago, Plutarch said:

Well I doubt a team will be too kean on moving a youngish rhd. It would be very specific. But a 30 year old rhd who could be in the top four would be great. Transition down to the Savard role in a couple years.

 

I’m open to this but I expect a very strong player for Matheson. Point producing Dmen are not common (at Matheson’s level). 
 

 

[Commandant]

You are going to downgrade your defence in trading Matheson for a RHD. 

 

You also would be giving up one of the best contracts in the NHL. 

 

its possible to do, but I just don't see an obvious player that another team would be willing to give up a quality RHD for him. The issue league wide is RHD are more rare than LHD. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

Matheson got 62 points playing all 82 games last year and is on a similar pace this year. All for 4.8M this year and next.  If you are going to trade him then the haul better be substantial. I hardly think trading him is going to improve things unless you get a stud in return.  

[Plutarch]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

You are going to downgrade your defence in trading Matheson for a RHD. 

 

You also would be giving up one of the best contracts in the NHL. 

 

its possible to do, but I just don't see an obvious player that another team would be willing to give up a quality RHD for him. The issue league wide is RHD are more rare than LHD. 

Yah and having looked across the league quick... the "around 30 rhd" options basically to a man have ntc protection that likely includes us.

 

So I go back to it being a LHD (maybe a LH who plays RD if possible) who is more responsible. We need a vet who can be a steadying force. Who can actually play minutes. Especially if/when Savard is moved at the deadline.

 

Edit: just to be clear I'm not some sort of "we need to trade matheson" guy. I am more focusing on how imo we need a different style of player out there for that many minutes a night. Plus trading guys at peak value seems like a good move.

[Commandant]

Looking at Matheson's analytics, I'm fine with his responsibility.  He plays huge minutes and he does way more positive than he does negative. 

 

The biggest issue with this team is that our transition game is bad.... we don't get breakouts and turn it to offence. The best two (and miles ahead of everyone else) at this skill are Matheson and Hutson (yes, already).... and while I do think Hutson will eventually pass Matheson, he hasn't yet, and the fact remains we need a third guy who can get the transition game started, not to get rid of one of our best two. 

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

I believe transition is an issue currently, specifically the amount of giveaways by the forwards during zone exit passes. Hutson I believe is already moving the puck out of our zone superior to Matheson and any other D on this team. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but I can count on one hand the amount of incomplete exit passes he has made this season, and I don't even need all my fingers.

 

For me, again, our biggest issue is defending the middle of the ice. We are NOT protecting the middle of the ice. The amount of high danger chances and slot shots must be off the charts. There has to be a stat on that, and we are likely one of the worst teams in that category. The breakdowns are endless!

 

the issue might be that we have the wrong vets to insulate the youngest team in hockey. Not all the vets but most

 

 

As for Matheson... 

he was terrible against Washington!

 

A) he's overused!

TOI needs to come down significantly. Under no circumstance should he be playing 29 minutes in game 11 and Struble only 10 and Hutson 19. As an example, Matheson had upwards of almost 8min on the PP and Hutson only 3. Mind you if he didn't play the 5on3, Hutson would have a minute on PP. That makes zero sense to me considering Mathesons overall TOI.

Matheson is a good top 4 no doubt. However, he is being deployed currently as Hedman, Doughty and Chara in their prime and that is a major mistake as he is not that kind of player.

 

B) he isn't a calming defender.

As one of only 2 veteran D, we need to lean on him to be a calming presence. Instead, we get wreck-less defense, giveaways at the worst of times and hes all over the place. Of course when a guy has the puck as much as he does, giveaways will occur, its common sense... BUT, on a team with 4 kids in the back already...  our Vets need to settle sh*t down rather than add to the hot mess that is our Dzone.

 

Do I want Math traded? No way , not now. Do we need another calm presence on D? 100%, because only Savard is calming with veteran experience. However, Savard is not a top 4 and should be on the bottom pair with PK duty. He looks slow to start the season and seems to be always chasing the play.

 

[TurdBurglar]

All very valid points, but it's the growing pains of this roster.  Matheson isn't a top pair minute eating guy and Savard is a 5th/6th defenceman on most teams.  They are 2 of the best 3 defencemen on this team, with Guhle being the 3rd and not in that particular order.  Hutson's offense is amazing, but his defense isn't there yet to put him into the top-3.  These are the growing pains of having 4 of 6 inexperienced defencemen.

 

[BCHabnut]

13 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Matheson got 62 points playing all 82 games last year and is on a similar pace this year. All for 4.8M this year and next.  If you are going to trade him then the haul better be substantial. I hardly think trading him is going to improve things unless you get a stud in return.  

I was asking earlier if there was a hockey trade out there for a RD, but as you say, his contract is excellent.  Next years deadline might be the right time for trading him. Keep the picks rolling in.

[alfredoh2009]

7 hours ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

I believe transition is an issue currently, specifically the amount of giveaways by the forwards during zone exit passes. Hutson I believe is already moving the puck out of our zone superior to Matheson and any other D on this team. Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but I can count on one hand the amount of incomplete exit passes he has made this season, and I don't even need all my fingers.

 

For me, again, our biggest issue is defending the middle of the ice. We are NOT protecting the middle of the ice. The amount of high danger chances and slot shots must be off the charts. There has to be a stat on that, and we are likely one of the worst teams in that category. The breakdowns are endless!

 

the issue might be that we have the wrong vets to insulate the youngest team in hockey. Not all the vets but most

 

 

As for Matheson... 

he was terrible against Washington!

 

A) he's overused!

TOI needs to come down significantly. Under no circumstance should he be playing 29 minutes in game 11 and Struble only 10 and Hutson 19. As an example, Matheson had upwards of almost 8min on the PP and Hutson only 3. Mind you if he didn't play the 5on3, Hutson would have a minute on PP. That makes zero sense to me considering Mathesons overall TOI.

Matheson is a good top 4 no doubt. However, he is being deployed currently as Hedman, Doughty and Chara in their prime and that is a major mistake as he is not that kind of player.

 

B) he isn't a calming defender.

As one of only 2 veteran D, we need to lean on him to be a calming presence. Instead, we get wreck-less defense, giveaways at the worst of times and hes all over the place. Of course when a guy has the puck as much as he does, giveaways will occur, its common sense... BUT, on a team with 4 kids in the back already...  our Vets need to settle sh*t down rather than add to the hot mess that is our Dzone.

 

Do I want Math traded? No way , not now. Do we need another calm presence on D? 100%, because only Savard is calming with veteran experience. However, Savard is not a top 4 and should be on the bottom pair with PK duty. He looks slow to start the season and seems to be always chasing the play.

 

 

excellent points.

 

I do not think transition is that big of a problem. From what I've seen, they have not trouble entering the O-Zone in control of the puck and they have sometimes dumped and chased but at a 50/50 rate.

 

Your points about defending the middle of the ice are bang on. And the overuse of Matheson since last year is a symptom of the lack of experienced Ds and depth.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

I was asking earlier if there was a hockey trade out there for a RD, but as you say, his contract is excellent.  Next years deadline might be the right time for trading him. Keep the picks rolling in.

I few week's back I took a deep dive into NDL team rosters and any RD that may fit the Habs' needs. To be honest, Barron is better than most RDs that may be available on a trade where the Habs would not loose a core piece.

 

A high draft pick is not the answer.

 

Mailloux and Reinbacher are probably one year away from being "NHL capable" vs "NHL ready". They'll need some time to become top-4 Ds

[TurdBurglar]

44 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I few week's back I took a deep dive into NDL team rosters and any RD that may fit the Habs' needs. To be honest, Barron is better than most RDs that may be available on a trade where the Habs would not loose a core piece.

Barring the fact that a LD for RD lateral movement is extremely rare, you are right that there aren't many available RD that are comparable.  Andersson, Pesce, Durzi, Carlo, and Cernak are loosely comparable, but I doubt any of them will be available. 

[alfredoh2009]

Not a rumour but an opinion that aligns with comment on this board:

Here's the deal. Some players in Laval are playing well. Some players in Montreal are going through the motions. I would send down Dvorak and Armia and call up Roy and Tuch. If one or both get claimed....fine. They need a shakeup.

— Grant McCagg (@grantmccagg) November 2, 2024

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

38 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Not a rumour but an opinion that aligns with comment on this board:

 

 

I doubt either one would get claimed. Think of the extra cap room if they did. I just don't get why Dvorak and Armia would go through the motions. They are both going to be UFA's. The difference between having a crappy year and a good year can be millions of dollars on the free agent market. Maybe they are not motivated by money?

[Prime Minister Koivu]

It would be a ballsy, progressive move to waive Dvorak and Armia. 
 

I hope the Habs do it tomorrow 

[hab29RETIRED]

13 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

It would be a ballsy, progressive move to waive Dvorak and Armia. 
 

I hope the Habs do it tomorrow 

100% agree! At least get Dvorak out of here!!!

[TurdBurglar]

I would be all for sending them down, or at least waiving them, but you have to wonder if there's more going on that we are unaware of.  It also doesn't look good sending expensive contracts to the minors if you intend to call them back up again.  Typically the only reason they would be sent down if there wasn't any intention of calling them back up, like Souray or Alzner situation.  Armia last season was a bit of an anomaly. 

 

It also tanks any value those player may have.

[hab29RETIRED]

5 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

I would be all for sending them down, or at least waiving them, but you have to wonder if there's more going on that we are unaware of.  It also doesn't look good sending expensive contracts to the minors if you intend to call them back up again.  Typically the only reason they would be sent down if there wasn't any intention of calling them back up, like Souray or Alzner situation.  Armia last season was a bit of an anomaly. 

 

It also tanks any value those player may have.

I don't want Dvorak back and I doubt that he has much value unless we used our retention spot on him. Even than the return would be insignificant.

[GHT120]

17 minutes ago, TurdBurglar said:

It also tanks any value those player may have.

Good one ... "value those players may have" ... I needed a good laugh

 

NOTE: Somewhat sarcastic, but not entirely ... think Habs would have to pay someone to take either of them at this point.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Both of them would clear waivers. Meaning nobody will even take them for free

[GHT120]

2 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Both of them would clear waivers. Meaning nobody will even take them for free

Or at least not their contracts ... if they were terminated I expect somebody would roll-the-dice on an NHL minimum contract offer.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Just now, GHT120 said:

Or at least not their contracts ... if they were terminated I expect somebody would roll-the-dice on an NHL minimum contract offer.

Absolutely, Armia will surely get a contract somewhere. Dvorak maybe not. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

28 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

NOTE: Somewhat sarcastic, but not entirely ... think Habs would have to pay someone to take either of them at this point.

 Not sarcastic at all. Right now Dvorak has negative value, zero chance someone claims him on waivers. Who in their right mind would claim him and take on his contract of 4.4M, especially this early in the year. 

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

It would be a ballsy, progressive move to waive Dvorak and Armia. 
 

I hope the Habs do it tomorrow 

 

Dont see a reason to waive Armia.  Hes playing hard.  Lack of scoring isnt lack of effort.

 

Dvorak can go.