Jump to content

Constructing the D corps


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Guhle - no way. I'd consider Matheson if only we can talk to Necas and see if we can work out a reasonable contract. I'd rather move Matheson for Zegras than Necas, but wouldn't move Guhle for either.


It’s a tough call because to get a top line player you need to pay a price or you don’t get that player. 
 

I'm not as excited by Guhle anymore. I think he will be a reliable, minute eater that is typically unremarkable beyond that. He is only 23 so he has a couple of years before his “prime” to prove me wrong. 
 

I would personally prefer to keep Matheson and extend him but would understand if he was traded. 
 

If Guhle or Matheson are traded then perhaps the Habs add another high puck to grab a good forward and one of those Dmen too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


It’s a tough call because to get a top line player you need to pay a price or you don’t get that player. 
 

I'm not as excited by Guhle anymore. I think he will be a reliable, minute eater that is typically unremarkable beyond that. He is only 23 so he has a couple of years before his “prime” to prove me wrong. 
 

I would personally prefer to keep Matheson and extend him but would understand if he was traded. 
 

If Guhle or Matheson are traded then perhaps the Habs add another high puck to grab a good forward and one of those Dmen too. 

 

Playing 20 minutes per night of fairly unsheltered minutes as a 22-year-old is pretty good. But the problem with Guhle is that he didn’t seem to take what I’d call a notable step forward last season; as Brian’s piece says,

 

Guhle’s sophomore year wasn’t a big improvement over his rookie year but it wasn’t a step back either.  He managed to stay healthy a lot more than in 2022-23 and spent a lot of time covering on his off-side.

 

What frustrates me is that last bit. On the one hand, it’s impressive that he had to play the off-side and didn’t show any regression. On the other, it makes it hard to assess how good he’d have been without that handicap. 

 

I’m not inclined to trade him for Necas either, because Necas seems to me like a double rather than a home run, and of all the young D on the team right now, only Guhle and probably Hutson are sure-fire top-4 guys. That said, if I asked you an objective observer what a fair return for Guhle would be, I doubt that the answer would be anything better than Necas. And we’re NOT getting him or a Necas-equivalent player for a disposable part like Harris. It’s going to involve someone like Guhle, Mattheson, or - if we’re lucky - Barron.

 

One X-factor is Wifi. IF another GM sees Wifi in the way that some of us do - a unicorn - then he *could* be a key component of a deal involving an impact young W. I don’t see this as too likely, but it is possible.

 

I’m glad I’m not the one having to make these decisions… 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Playing 20 minutes per night of fairly unsheltered minutes as a 22-year-old is pretty good. But the problem with Guhle is that he didn’t seem to take what I’d call a notable step forward last season; as Brian’s piece says,

 

Guhle’s sophomore year wasn’t a big improvement over his rookie year but it wasn’t a step back either.  He managed to stay healthy a lot more than in 2022-23 and spent a lot of time covering on his off-side.

 

What frustrates me is that last bit. On the one hand, it’s impressive that he had to play the off-side and didn’t show any regression. On the other, it makes it hard to assess how good he’d have been without that handicap. 

 

I’m not inclined to trade him for Necas either, because Necas seems to me like a double rather than a home run, and of all the young D on the team right now, only Guhle and probably Hutson are sure-fire top-4 guys. That said, if I asked you an objective observer what a fair return for Guhle would be, I doubt that the answer would be anything better than Necas. And we’re NOT getting him or a Necas-equivalent player for a disposable part like Harris. It’s going to involve someone like Guhle, Mattheson, or - if we’re lucky - Barron.

 

One X-factor is Wifi. IF another GM sees Wifi in the way that some of us do - a unicorn - then he *could* be a key component of a deal involving an impact young W. I don’t see this as too likely, but it is possible.

 

I’m glad I’m not the one having to make these decisions… 

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I'd say that playing on your off-side without showing regression, is in fact a sign of progression as a player.


Commandant does make a good point about not declining while playing on the off side. 
 

Guhle is certainly a second pairing guy but I personally question if he will be more than that so to me he is an important piece but not a key piece. 
 

Like you said CC I’m happy that I’m not making these decisions. 
 

I do expect HuGo will do something interesting on draft day if not before 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


It’s a tough call because to get a top line player you need to pay a price or you don’t get that player. 
 

I'm not as excited by Guhle anymore. I think he will be a reliable, minute eater that is typically unremarkable beyond that. He is only 23 so he has a couple of years before his “prime” to prove me wrong. 
 

I would personally prefer to keep Matheson and extend him but would understand if he was traded. 
 

If Guhle or Matheson are traded then perhaps the Habs add another high puck to grab a good forward and one of those Dmen too. 

Hey there were a lot of people in Edmonton wanting to move Bouchard 2-3 years ago. Saying he can't play D, isn't producing, doesn't use his size and looks like a bust. You want forwards to start producing in year 2-4. Guhle has been in the league 2 years and is a Dman. How long did Matheson take to show he can score and produce? Dmen require more patience and Guhle didn't spend time in the minors went through Covid during key development years, so I'd say we need two more years to know if he is a top pairing or middle pairing guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Hey there were a lot of people in Edmonton wanting to move Bouchard 2-3 years ago. Saying he can't play D, isn't producing, doesn't use his size and looks like a bust. You want forwards to start producing in year 2-4. Guhle has been in the league 2 years and is a Dman. How long did Matheson take to show he can score and produce? Dmen require more patience and Guhle didn't spend time in the minors went through Covid during key development years, so I'd say we need two more years to know if he is a top pairing or middle pairing guy.

The only potential problem is that by then other teams will also know the same thing ... so, if he ends up as a middle pairing guy that will also be his trade value ... if HuGo feel it is more likely he is a middle pairing guy then now is the time to try to sell high (i.e., don't move him just to move him, but be open to offers that value him as more likely to be a top pairing guy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not opposed to moving Guhle or Matheson in the right deal, just not sure what that deal is. 

 

If either one was moved then it opens up more options for the #5 pick.  I know this might sound crazy but I wouldn't be opposed to taking Sam Dickinson with the 5th pick if we got a good young forward another way. I just think Dickinson could potentially be a stud #1 defensemen on the Habs able to play in any situation.  Having said that I think Dickinson will be gone before the Habs draft anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I am not opposed to moving Guhle or Matheson in the right deal, just not sure what that deal is. 

 

If either one was moved then it opens up more options for the #5 pick.  I know this might sound crazy but I wouldn't be opposed to taking Sam Dickinson with the 5th pick if we got a good young forward another way. I just think Dickinson could potentially be a stud #1 defensemen on the Habs able to play in any situation.  Having said that I think Dickinson will be gone before the Habs draft anyway. 


I think this is a very real possibility. 
 

Habs address the forward trade through moving a Dman and then draft one this year. 
 

Ideally I want HuGo to get another high pick so that we can trade for a forward and then draft a forward and a Dman. 
 

Go Hughes Go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

Having said that I think Dickinson will be gone before the Habs draft anyway. 

Not big fan of Dickinson at 5, seems will be a solid 2 way d-man at worst, but lacks upside of others it seems and from what little i saw of him play.

Buium or Levshunov sound like higher upside options?

12 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

I am not opposed to moving Guhle or Matheson in the right deal, just not sure what that deal is. 

Just cant see either being moved this summer. Need offensive experienced Matheson (Hutson mentor?) and Guhle i agree  could trade, given Left depth, but more expect a Mailloux or one of others like Xhekaj perhaps to be packaged up in couple weeks. 

 

Exploring the Possibility of the Canadiens Taking Another Defenseman at Fifth Overall (awinninghabit.com)

"...Anton Silayev, Zane Parekh Zeev Buium and Sam Dickinson are all still on the board, and all have the potential to be difference-makers at the next level. At five, the Canadiens could feel as though they’d be passing on an excellent defenseman to reach for a forward. It might make sense to take a player like Parekh, a right-shot defenseman with incredible offensive upside, and look to address the forward position via trade, using their surplus of young defensive prospects to get it done."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

Not big fan of Dickinson at 5, seems will be a solid 2 way d-man at worst, but lacks upside of others it seems and from what little i saw of him play.

Buium or Levshunov sound like higher upside options?

 

 

I think Dickinson has a ton of upside. He has it all. Just my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I think Dickinson has a ton of upside. He has it all. Just my opinion. 

Obviously not what Habs need, Iginla-Lindstrom or the like forward will be picked, but who knows how the bunch of top-d this year will pan out.

Now, just how good with Reinbacher and Hutson look come pre-season i wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DON said:

Obviously not what Habs need, Iginla-Lindstrom or the like forward will be picked, but who knows how the bunch of top-d this year will pan out.

Now, just how good with Reinbacher and Hutson look come pre-season i wonder?

 

The Habs do need a forward, no question, that is priority #1.  Just saying that if the Habs do trade for a forward before the draft then maybe Dickinson becomes an option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

The Habs do need a forward, no question, that is priority #1.  Just saying that if the Habs do trade for a forward before the draft then maybe Dickinson becomes an option. 

there is no urgency to move a D under contract out if they draft a D this year. Habs can safely draft best player available even if it is a D and wait until the trade deadline to make a decision on which D to move out: be it Matheson, Guhle or any other.

I believe that the Habs have many ways to trade for a forwards at or around the draft day or during training camp. They could draft a forward at 5 but that player will probably not be at his prime during the stanley cup window of the current young core they are building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

there is no urgency to move a D under contract out if they draft a D this year. Habs can safely draft best player available even if it is a D and wait until the trade deadline to make a decision on which D to move out: be it Matheson, Guhle or any other.

I believe that the Habs have many ways to trade for a forwards at or around the draft day or during training camp. They could draft a forward at 5 but that player will probably not be at his prime during the stanley cup window of the current young core they are building.

 

A forward drafted at 5 should be ready in 2 years and in prime in 3-4.  When do you think think the window will be and how long do you think its open for. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2024 at 2:23 PM, Prime Minister Koivu said:


It’s a tough call because to get a top line player you need to pay a price or you don’t get that player. 
 

I'm not as excited by Guhle anymore. I think he will be a reliable, minute eater that is typically unremarkable beyond that. He is only 23 so he has a couple of years before his “prime” to prove me wrong. 
 

I would personally prefer to keep Matheson and extend him but would understand if he was traded. 
 

If Guhle or Matheson are traded then perhaps the Habs add another high puck to grab a good forward and one of those Dmen too. 

 

 

Personally, I think I'd move Matheson over Guhle.  Guhle is still young so he can still possibly add a bunch of muscle and potentially improve too.  Matheson is older and identical to Guhle he needed to gain muscle but the issue is he never did put on serious weight.  i.e. he's 6'2" and 190lbs - at that height and weight I considered him to be weak - and thats for a F. 

 

However, my main reason for moving Matheson over Guhle is that he had a great offensive season last year so the Habs would be selling him at his highest value.  In a way Matheson sort of reminds of Petry - they are both good offensively but are somewhat of a defensive liability.  Hughes managed to get rid of Petry twice at the right time.  My concern with Matheson is that Hughes knows him fairly well so he might choose to not move him and resign him which I believe could potentially end up being a mistake.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

My concern with Matheson is that Hughes knows him fairly well so he might choose to not move him and resign him which I believe could potentially end up being a mistake.

Is a risk, but 62 points is pretty good and much needed offense from the back end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DON said:

Is a risk, but 62 points is pretty good and much needed offense from the back end.

 

He’ll be 32 when his contract expires. He’s the kind of player whose game will likely age well, but still.  The scenario where we re-sign him would have to be that the Habs somehow contend by 2026 and therefore re-up him as a key cog for Cup runs.

 

The other scenario is that he takes a significant hometown discount. Which might change the calculus.

 

Mattheson would be a massive addition to a contending team - on a value contract to boot! - so I think the return on him at this year’s deadline will likely be too substantial to pass up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

He’ll be 32 when his contract expires. He’s the kind of player whose game will likely age well, but still.  The scenario where we re-sign him would have to be that the Habs somehow contend by 2026 and therefore re-up him as a key cog for Cup runs.

 

The other scenario is that he takes a significant hometown discount. Which might change the calculus.

 

Mattheson would be a massive addition to a contending team - on a value contract to boot! - so I think the return on him at this year’s deadline will likely be too substantial to pass up. 


that is also my thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Mattheson would be a massive addition to a contending team - on a value contract to boot! - so I think the return on him at this year’s deadline will likely be too substantial to pass up. 

With another season on his contract after 24/25 he is not a "classic" trade-deadline acquisition ... the return might be greater over the summer when teams hoping to move into playoff contention would also be bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

He’ll be 32 when his contract expires. He’s the kind of player whose game will likely age well, but still.  The scenario where we re-sign him would have to be that the Habs somehow contend by 2026 and therefore re-up him as a key cog for Cup runs.

 

The other scenario is that he takes a significant hometown discount. Which might change the calculus.

 

Mattheson would be a massive addition to a contending team - on a value contract to boot! - so I think the return on him at this year’s deadline will likely be too substantial to pass up. 

 

Agree with all your points. Just wondering if Hughes is hesitant to trade a hometown boy who is thriving in his hometown (doesn't always work that way), while also providing leadership to a young defense core. There are certainly legitimate reasons to trade him (selling high and getting a forward which we need) and there are also legitimate reasons to keep him. I trust Hughes to make the right call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Matheson dominated games at times. I mean he totally controlled the game and was unstoppable. 
 

There were games where Matheson made bizarre decisions with the puck and was a liability. 
 

He is indeed Jeff Petry

 

I would 100% trade him for a top 6 forward but other than that I think he too good to not re-sign on a 4-5 year contract. 
 

Perhaps Hutson makes Matheson expendable but why not keep both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

I feel like Matheson dominated games at times. I mean he totally controlled the game and was unstoppable. 
 

There were games where Matheson made bizarre decisions with the puck and was a liability. 
 

He is indeed Jeff Petry

 

I would 100% trade him for a top 6 forward but other than that I think he too good to not re-sign on a 4-5 year contract. 
 

Perhaps Hutson makes Matheson expendable but why not keep both?

 

I love Hutson, but yes, keep both for now.  Hutson can learn a ton from watching Matheson. Also for anyone out there (not you) to suggest a guy who has played 2 NHL games will replace a 60 point D as a rookie is putting unfair expectations on the kid.  He has the potential to score 60 points in the NHL, sure, but its highly unlikely as a rookie, and even later in his career right now its potential, no guarantee. 

And yes, Matheson makes mistakes from time to time, but no defenceman is perfect, and the good with him far, far outweighs the bad. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

With another season on his contract after 24/25 he is not a "classic" trade-deadline acquisition ... the return might be greater over the summer when teams hoping to move into playoff contention would also be bidding.

 

His contract is amazing value, so I don't think the extra year would be a problem. Just the reverse, in fact. 

 

27 minutes ago, Commandant said:


And yes, Matheson makes mistakes from time to time, but no defenceman is perfect, and the good with him far, far outweighs the bad. 

 

Yeah...anyone who feels his mistakes overpower his 62 points (!!) and general puck-moving excellence is looking a gift horse in the mouth IMHO. I felt the same way about Petry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

His contract is amazing value, so I don't think the extra year would be a problem. Just the reverse, in fact. 

Also true this summer ... and likely more teams able to bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Mattheson would be a massive addition to a contending team - on a value contract to boot! - so I think the return on him at this year’s deadline will likely be too substantial to pass up. 

So you tell Suzuki & Caufield, will be no playoffs and we are trading bunch good stuff at deadline and hoping to draft high.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...