Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 2 Posted June 2 16 minutes ago, tomh009 said: Blocking shots--but especially blocking passes. Shot-blocking is a bit closer. For the regular season, shots blocked/60: Savard 8.68 Guhle 6.39 Carrier 6.23 Matheson 5.02 Hutson 3.96 Struble 3.87 Xhekaj 3.69 Struble and Xhekaj have some work to do in this area! I'm shocked that Struble and Xhekaj are less than half of Savard. PK time surely plays a role in this but that is a huge gap Quote
tomh009 Posted June 2 Posted June 2 1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: I'm shocked that Struble and Xhekaj are less than half of Savard. PK time surely plays a role in this but that is a huge gap Indeed. Even Hutson is blocking more shots. Clearly an area for improvement. Quote
hab29RETIRED Posted June 2 Posted June 2 1 hour ago, tomh009 said: Blocking shots--but especially blocking passes. Shot-blocking is a bit closer. For the regular season, shots blocked/60: Savard 8.68 Guhle 6.39 Carrier 6.23 Matheson 5.02 Hutson 3.96 Struble 3.87 Xhekaj 3.69 Struble and Xhekaj have some work to do in this area! Savard blocks the most shots/passes because he never has the puck. Quote
Plutarch Posted June 2 Posted June 2 On 5/27/2025 at 11:02 AM, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Don’t worry, it was before my time as well 😉 The reason that hit was so massive was (a) it damaged the boards (!!!) and (b) it send a gigantic message. This was the Finals. The Cup champion Flyers were all about intimidation. The Habs were obviously a high-skill team (on the way to becoming perhaps the greatest team ever), and the only way the Flyers were going to beat them was through intimidation. But the Habs had size and strength up and down the lineup, and when Robinson casually sent the hulking Gary Dornhofer into the boards, damaging the Flyers’ precious Spectrum, it established that we had their number. Ken Dryden described it as a casual, “aw shucks” kind of destruction - as though Big Bird was barely even trying, yet wreaked huge devastation - that sent a shiver through both teams. There’s another lesson here too. Despite the “Flying Frenchmen” myth, Habs’ championship teams have always had serious size, toughness, and grit to go with the skill. It’s something we can’t forget as the HuGo rebuild unfolds. Also that toughness was.... in the form of a tremendous defensemen not just bottom six/pairing guys. Quote
DON Posted June 2 Posted June 2 Offseason Checklist: Montreal Canadiens ... "Knowing that the projected Upper Limit of the Salary Cap for 2026-27 is $104MM, that would approximate Hutson’s price tag between $9.256MM and $11.44MM." Quote
Prime Minister Koivu Posted June 2 Posted June 2 16 minutes ago, DON said: Offseason Checklist: Montreal Canadiens ... "Knowing that the projected Upper Limit of the Salary Cap for 2026-27 is $104MM, that would approximate Hutson’s price tag between $9.256MM and $11.44MM." I somehow doubt Hutson signs for under $7.875 unless there is a bridge deal, which I can’t imagine. Good luck Hughes Quote
Commandant Posted June 2 Posted June 2 With the way the cap has risen its better to look at percentages of cap then at pure salary as all salaries will go.up when new contracts are negotiated. Quote
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 2 Posted June 2 2 hours ago, DON said: Offseason Checklist: Montreal Canadiens ... "Knowing that the projected Upper Limit of the Salary Cap for 2026-27 is $104MM, that would approximate Hutson’s price tag between $9.256MM and $11.44MM." No problem. Give it to him. Quote
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 2 Posted June 2 2 hours ago, Plutarch said: Also that toughness was.... in the form of a tremendous defensemen not just bottom six/pairing guys. Yes indeed. I get so tired of fans still thinking in terms of goons. Larry Robinson is much closer to the model of toughness you need today. God love Xhekaj, but the answer is not to give him significant minutes just because he can throw ‘em. The answer is for him to become a player that his coach trusts with significant minutes. But we also need physicality elsewhere in the lineup. As with Dach, a big, strong C with skill, you can see where Reinbacher had an important role in HuGo’s vision: big, strong RD with skill. Unfortunately both have been derailed by injury. Hopefully Reinbacher can still fulfill his potential. Dach is a lot harder to be optimistic about, of course. Quote
GHT120 Posted June 2 Posted June 2 Just now, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: God love Xhekaj, but the answer is not to give him significant minutes just because he can throw ‘em. The answer is for him to become a player that his coach trusts with significant minutes. He needs to "Chris Nilan" his career Quote
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 2 Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, GHT120 said: He needs to "Chris Nilan" his career Love it! Minus the anti-vax stuff, of course.😉 Quote
GHT120 Posted June 2 Posted June 2 32 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Love it! Minus the anti-vax stuff, of course.😉 That was post-career ... 😉 after dozens and dozens of fights 😉 Quote
BCHabnut Posted June 2 Posted June 2 5 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Yes indeed. I get so tired of fans still thinking in terms of goons. Larry Robinson is much closer to the model of toughness you need today. God love Xhekaj, but the answer is not to give him significant minutes just because he can throw ‘em. The answer is for him to become a player that his coach trusts with significant minutes. But we also need physicality elsewhere in the lineup. As with Dach, a big, strong C with skill, you can see where Reinbacher had an important role in HuGo’s vision: big, strong RD with skill. Unfortunately both have been derailed by injury. Hopefully Reinbacher can still fulfill his potential. Dach is a lot harder to be optimistic about, of course. Call me naive, but I'm giving Dach another year of hope. I just see playoff player in him. Its overly optimistic, but I've seen flashes of quiet dirtbag in him. In a copycat league, the quiet dirtbag with skill is just as valuable as a superstar when playoffs come. He will of course need to learn how to defend. I am praying that he finds his game this year. Just give us 30 to 40 points while learning defense and winning offensive puck battles. All while quietly cheating and hurting opposing players on purpose. This is not a game I enjoy or endorse, but it is the game that the league wants. Through their actions. 1 Quote
GHT120 Posted June 2 Posted June 2 2 hours ago, BCHabnut said: Call me naive, but I'm giving Dach another year of hope. I just see playoff player in him. Its overly optimistic, but I've seen flashes of quiet dirtbag in him. In a copycat league, the quiet dirtbag with skill is just as valuable as a superstar when playoffs come. He will of course need to learn how to defend. I am praying that he finds his game this year. Just give us 30 to 40 points while learning defense and winning offensive puck battles. All while quietly cheating and hurting opposing players on purpose. This is not a game I enjoy or endorse, but it is the game that the league wants. Through their actions. I too will happily give him another year ... in part why I would be OK with a band-aid, older 2C ... if Dach is healthy I would start him on the 3rd line (centre or wing), ideally with Newhook ... let Kirby just play without the second-line pressure and let him show Habs and fans what he can do ... if he earns an in-season promotion, great; but don't plan on him both being healthy and quickly getting his game back. Quote
Commandant Posted June 2 Posted June 2 I agree. I'm not dumping Dach off the team, but I also think we need another plan for 2C as well. If he succeeds on line 3 and moves up the lineup, thats a good problem to have. 1 1 Quote
BCHabnut Posted June 2 Posted June 2 32 minutes ago, Commandant said: I agree. I'm not dumping Dach off the team, but I also think we need another plan for 2C as well. If he succeeds on line 3 and moves up the lineup, thats a good problem to have. Absolutely. 2c is not his place right now. I want his focus to be on winning puck battles. A skill you discuss a lot and is under rated by media. 1 Quote
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Yeah, it’s not about “giving up on Dach” as an NHL player. But only a fool would pencil him in as a #2C at this point. He needs to rebuild the knee, then rebuild his game. 1 Quote
Plutarch Posted June 3 Posted June 3 22 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said: Yes indeed. I get so tired of fans still thinking in terms of goons. Larry Robinson is much closer to the model of toughness you need today. God love Xhekaj, but the answer is not to give him significant minutes just because he can throw ‘em. The answer is for him to become a player that his coach trusts with significant minutes. This I where Im very torn on. Dcore construction. With Commandants earlier dcore assumption of... Guhle-Hutson Matheson-Carrier Xhejak/Struble splitting -Mailloux or Reinbacher We have Xhejak splitting time. I feel if we want him to develop he needs to play. My issue is... Struble is a physical beast too and honstly more likely to be a nhl player on a good team. Also he can develop more. I feel we should either move Mathesson as part of the 2C trade and have xhejak and Strubble rotate in or out of the top four... but we would likely not be better next year. Or we decide that Struble-Mailloux provide a ton of physicality and bet that Mailloux projects as a more likely NHL player. (2nd PP and puck moving)... then have Xhejak as a tantalizing part of a 2C trade. I feel our dcore prospects are at an awkward stage. Quote
Commandant Posted June 3 Posted June 3 7 minutes ago, Plutarch said: This I where Im very torn on. Dcore construction. With Commandants earlier dcore assumption of... Guhle-Hutson Matheson-Carrier Xhejak/Struble splitting -Mailloux or Reinbacher We have Xhejak splitting time. I feel if we want him to develop he needs to play. My issue is... Struble is a physical beast too and honstly more likely to be a nhl player on a good team. Also he can develop more. I feel we should either move Mathesson as part of the 2C trade and have xhejak and Strubble rotate in or out of the top four... but we would likely not be better next year. Or we decide that Struble-Mailloux provide a ton of physicality and bet that Mailloux projects as a more likely NHL player. (2nd PP and puck moving)... then have Xhejak as a tantalizing part of a 2C trade. I feel our dcore prospects are at an awkward stage. Im not moving Matheson as hes the most experienced of the group and has to take on some of the leadership that will be missing with Savard already gone. As for the playing time, its doubtful to go through a full season without using 7 defencemen regularly. Injuries will happen so Im not too worried about 2 guys rotating Quote
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Commandant said: Im not moving Matheson as hes the most experienced of the group and has to take on some of the leadership that will be missing with Savard already gone. As for the playing time, its doubtful to go through a full season without using 7 defencemen regularly. Injuries will happen so Im not too worried about 2 guys rotating Yes, all else being equal, if we lose MM, a perfectly decent D-core suddenly sucks. Now, if we lose MM AND then replace him with another experienced puck-moving top-4 LD, the top-4 remains fairly strong. If Matheson can be a major piece of a trade bringing back an impact C, for example, then it’s worth considering. But you absolutely have to replace him with a player of similar profile. That scenario has two dangers: one, you aren’t able to secure that replacement; two, it risks becoming one of those whac-a-mole scenarios: trade MM to fill a hole…then create another hole trying to fill the hole left by MM…etc. I expect we’ll keep Matheson. It is a pity that both Struble and Xhekaj are physical players jostling for the same spot. If either could evolve into a legit #4 D, you can see a world where one of Reinbacher or Mailloux eventually crowd Carrier down to the bottom pair and provide enough secondary offensive push from the back end to make MM expendable. Won’t happen this year, though - if it ever does. Quote
hab29RETIRED Posted June 3 Posted June 3 3 hours ago, Plutarch said: This I where Im very torn on. Dcore construction. With Commandants earlier dcore assumption of... Guhle-Hutson Matheson-Carrier Xhejak/Struble splitting -Mailloux or Reinbacher We have Xhejak splitting time. I feel if we want him to develop he needs to play. My issue is... Struble is a physical beast too and honstly more likely to be a nhl player on a good team. Also he can develop more. I feel we should either move Mathesson as part of the 2C trade and have xhejak and Strubble rotate in or out of the top four... but we would likely not be better next year. Or we decide that Struble-Mailloux provide a ton of physicality and bet that Mailloux projects as a more likely NHL player. (2nd PP and puck moving)... then have Xhejak as a tantalizing part of a 2C trade. I feel our dcore prospects are at an awkward stage. Frankly, I think we should move Xhejac to the wing. You can’t have a dman that sits in the penalty box 5+ min every 2 or 3 games. 1 2 Quote
hab29RETIRED Posted June 3 Posted June 3 3 hours ago, Commandant said: Im not moving Matheson as hes the most experienced of the group and has to take on some of the leadership that will be missing with Savard already gone. As for the playing time, its doubtful to go through a full season without using 7 defencemen regularly. Injuries will happen so Im not too worried about 2 guys rotating If we can get an experienced dman like Dobson (my dream scenario is making a trade for a Dobson-Horvat package), I think we can afford to move Matheson. We are deep in LD prospects and there are concerns about our two RD prospects (is Reinbacher going to be injury prone, and is Mailloux ever going to be reliable enough defensively). Ideal situation would be that Carrier becomes a 3rd pairing RD, with Dobson and Reinbacher as 1A/1B RD options. Dobson-Hutson Reinbacher-Guhle Carrier-Struble/Engstrom/Xhejac Although, as I said in another post, I’d like to see them try playing Xhejac on the wing. Would be strong and heavy on the forecheck and probably more defensively responsible as a winger than he is as a dman. Would also be less of an issue with a winger out for majors than it is with losing a dman. Quote
Commandant Posted June 3 Posted June 3 Sure, any player can be traded and then replaced by a similar player. My point is that if you trade Matheson, you have created a hole on defence too. And its a massive one as its both a top 4 guy missing (when we arguably have only 3 in Matheson, Hutson and Guhle) as well as the fact that youve lost the leadership. The point is the moment you trade matheson for a 2c, you are still in the same situation with a core part of any team missing, only now its a top 4 d missing instead of a 2c. That said Dobson is more valuable than Matheson too. So a trade for both Horvat and Dobson would be expensive and youd have to add a lot even starting with Matheson. And if the Isles make a trade its to rebuild, so why take Matheson. And given the Isles signed Palmeiri (yes it was Lou but ownership has to sign off too), are they rebuilding cause if not, then Horvat and Dobson may not even be available. Quote
hab29RETIRED Posted June 3 Posted June 3 2 hours ago, Commandant said: Sure, any player can be traded and then replaced by a similar player. My point is that if you trade Matheson, you have created a hole on defence too. And its a massive one as its both a top 4 guy missing (when we arguably have only 3 in Matheson, Hutson and Guhle) as well as the fact that youve lost the leadership. The point is the moment you trade matheson for a 2c, you are still in the same situation with a core part of any team missing, only now its a top 4 d missing instead of a 2c. That said Dobson is more valuable than Matheson too. So a trade for both Horvat and Dobson would be expensive and youd have to add a lot even starting with Matheson. And if the Isles make a trade its to rebuild, so why take Matheson. And given the Isles signed Palmeiri (yes it was Lou but ownership has to sign off too), are they rebuilding cause if not, then Horvat and Dobson may not even be available. I don’t think it would necessarily mean we would move Matheson as part of that trade. I think we could offer cheaper younger Newhook (albeit not as good as Horvat) two firsts (which they could move the same way a Hughes did), And a choice of two or three prospects that includes Beck, Roy, Xhejac, Engstrom, Mailloux. Or you could include Matheson instead of one of the picks or prospects. I think the cost of them resigning Matheson would be less than what a contract with Hobson would. if we keep Matheson, that would even let us start the season with him as insurance until Reinbacher is ready, but if we pick up Dobson, I think we would eventually move Matheson. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.