2025-26 projected lineup discussion

[DON]

2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Yes, I meant it in a 100% positive way. 
 

Speedy, two way forward that can play up and down the line up when required. Always works his ass off and scores some goals too. 
 

 

Splitting hairs. 

Newhook 'may' yet have more offense; but not as good defending i suppose?

$2.9m/yr for Newhook seems about right for now.

[alfredoh2009]

5 hours ago, DON said:

U serious?

Maybe way down the road, but Kapanen/Beck dont even seem like would have the offense needed for top six anyways and Hage is even farther away from a top six centre role.

 

I have not been following this thread, so sorry if I am proposing something that was proposed and shot down. But:

 

1. if the first line stays the same: Caufield-Suzuki-Slafkovsky

2. the fourth line stays somewhat the same: Heineman-Evans-(someone#1)

3. If Laine comes back healthier and Dach is back to form, second-line becomes: Newhook-Dach-Demidov

4. the third line would be: Anderson-(someone#2)-Gallagher

 

In this scenario, I would sign Pius Suter to center the 3rd line: Anderson-Suter-Gallagher

And then, I would trade Newhook and try this: Demidov-Dach-(Kapanen or Beck) on the second. Roy could also play there but I do not think he complements the line the way Kp or Bk may

 

So, yes, I was serious. I think that Beck seems better a threading the needle to find his wingers on the ice and that he is defensible responsible. Kapanen seems to have a more mature game, but I would try Beck there too.

 

===

In this view, it seems like Newhook and Roy are not pieces that fit this puzzle. Dach's repeated injuries are the reason I am not sure if we can count on him.

[BCHabnut]

Neither Beck or Kapanen have shown that they are NHL ready at this point. I wouldn't pencil either of them in. If they earn a spot, fine, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Commandant]

"f Laine comes back healthier and Dach is back to form, second-line becomes: Newhook-Dach-Demidov"

 

Laine is healthy and he just disappears so we can sign suter to the third line and play Newhook on the second?

 

WHat?

 

and suter is the only centre we acquire?

 

And then we trade newhook, still have Laine in Siberia or gitmo or wherever you disappeared him to, and we try Beck as the second line winger 

 

Oof, 

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

19 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

Neither Beck or Kapanen have shown that they are NHL ready at this point. I wouldn't pencil either of them in. If they earn a spot, fine, but I haven't seen it yet.

100% agree.  Roy looked like he was ready to take the next step 2 years ago, but has regressed. With young players, we don’t know if both will need to start in Laval or need another full season in Laval.

[alfredoh2009]

On 6/6/2025 at 12:10 AM, BCHabnut said:

Neither Beck or Kapanen have shown that they are NHL ready at this point. I wouldn't pencil either of them in. If they earn a spot, fine, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

100% agree.  Roy looked like he was ready to take the next step 2 years ago, but has regressed. With young players, we don’t know if both will need to start in Laval or need another full season in Laval.

I agree that they are nowhere near a solution for the second line center hole.  But Inhave then both on Dach’s wing to see at least during training g camp if they can be passengers on that line.

 

Either HughGort finds a real 2C or we are stuck with something g like this

[DON]

9 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I agree that they are nowhere near a solution for the second line center hole.  But Inhave then both on Dach’s wing to see at least during training g camp if they can be passengers on that line.

Whose spots do Beck & Kapenen take?

Heineman & Gallagher, or Anderson?

[alfredoh2009]

41 minutes ago, DON said:

Whose spots do Beck & Kapenen take?

Heineman & Gallagher, or Anderson?

As stated in my post:

Caufield-Suzuki-Slafkovsky

Newhook-Dach-Demidov                ==> Demidov-Dach-(Kapanen or Beck)

Anderson-(someone#2)-Gallagher ==> Anderson-(P.Suter?)-Gallagher

Heineman-Evans-(someone#1)

 

trade Newhook, Roy.

[DON]

 

Big questions drive the Habs attack for the next two windows of change – Hab At Her

 

There is no doubt that HuGo will leave no stone unturned in these upcoming windows of change to improve the Montreal Canadiens. If we’re make assumptions about the answers to those questions, we might be surprised at what unfolds.

 

 

[DON]

2025 NHL PROSPECT REPORT: Top 200 NHL Affiliated Prospects - Biggest risers in 2024-25

Oliver Kapanen - Center - Montreal Canadiens
Previous Ranking: 142, New Ranking: 52

One of the biggest risers in our yearbook this past summer, thanks to a strong performance at the World Championships for Finland, Kapanen continues to rise. He nearly made the Canadiens full time this year and then was a near point per game player in the SHL. An intelligent two-way center, he looks like an NHL lock.

 

Owen Beck - Center - Montreal Canadiens
Previous Ranking: 132, New Ranking: 65

You could probably make the argument that Beck has looked better as a first year pro in the AHL than he did over his three OHL seasons. His game just screams long time NHL standout thanks to his speed, tenacity, and IQ. But the skill has translated better than expected.

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I heard a discussion of Nic Hague the other day suggesting that he can play either side. 

 

If that’s correct, then maybe it makes a lot more sense that HuGo are investigating that option.

[GHT120]

56 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I heard a discussion of Nic Hague the other day suggesting that he can play either side. 

 

If that’s correct, then maybe it makes a lot more sense that HuGo are investigating that option.

 

But THAT would break the first of Babcock's commandments ... Thou shalt not play a defenceman on his off side.

 
 Hague is a veteran of 6 NHL seasons ... if he has played enough right-side to make HuGo comfortable that he can do so for the Habs I'll trust them over the obsession that LHD can NEVER play on the right side.

 

BTW - between two defencemen of equal defensive abilities, I too would prefer the right-side be manned by RHD
 

[alfredoh2009]

21 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

[…]

BTW - between two defencemen of equal defensive abilities, I too would prefer the right-side be manned by RHD
 

isn’t this obvious?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

32 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

But THAT would break the first of Babcock's commandments ... Thou shalt not play a defenceman on his off side.

 
 Hague is a veteran of 6 NHL seasons ... if he has played enough right-side to make HuGo comfortable that he can do so for the Habs I'll trust them over the obsession that LHD can NEVER play on the right side.

 

BTW - between two defencemen of equal defensive abilities, I too would prefer the right-side be manned by RHD
 

 

True, obviously - but if Hague has a solid track record at RD, then the move would be reasonable.

 

My other thought is this. They might be interested in Hague because he can play *both* sides. So: he can be a Savard replacement on the right, but can also be a proven NHL option at LD in the event that (a) WiFi fails to make the leap to being a reliable defender or (b) they decide to move out one of Struble, Xhekaj, or - gulp - Matheson. 

 

It’s his versatility they might want, not just his RD play.

 

All of this assumes that what I heard was accurate (I forget who reported it, but it was a credible analyst on Van radio). If Hague is one of these guys whose plays both sides BUT sees his performance drop significantly on the right side nevertheless, then the argument for RD goes away.

[GHT120]

37 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

isn’t this obvious?

Nice job taking it completely out of context ... the "BTW" in the original post was intended to avoid responses focusing on the RHD vs LHD on the right-side aspect ... 🙄

[alfredoh2009]

47 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Nice job taking it completely out of context ... the "BTW" in the original post was intended to avoid responses focusing on the RHD vs LHD on the right-side aspect ... 🙄

But isn’t that the whole conversation about playing Hage on the right side? Not knowing if he is as effective in both sides?

 

Probably I missed the point where the two defensemen of equal ability are one lefty and one righty. Then playing the lefty on RD vs the righty on RD would not be the same.

 

But two lefty defensemen of equal ability, then they would be equally challenged playing the RD since they are both of same ability

 

—-

my logic algebra may be off.

 

[GHT120]

18 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

But isn’t that the whole conversation about playing Hage on the right side? Not knowing if he is as effective in both sides?

 

Probably I missed the point where the two defensemen of equal ability are one lefty and one righty. Then playing the lefty on RD vs the righty on RD would not be the same.

 

But two lefty defensemen of equal ability, then they would be equally challenged playing the RD since they are both of same ability

 

—-

my logic algebra may be off.

 

The original post mocked the absolute obsession that LHD should never play the right-side ... said if HuGo feel that Hage has shown he can play the right-side after 6 years in the NHL I trust them and then as an aside ("BTW") said, in the context of LHD Hage being discussed as a possible right-side D for the Habs, that at equal ability I would prefer the right-side by a RHD (clearly meaning that is not a necessity IMO) ... not certain how that doesn't add up for you ... and I am done trying to clarify for you.

[alfredoh2009]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

The original post mocked the absolute obsession that LHD should never play the right-side ... said if HuGo feel that Hage has shown he can play the right-side after 6 years in the NHL I trust them and then as an aside ("BTW") said, in the context of LHD Hage being discussed as a possible right-side D for the Habs, that at equal ability I would prefer the right-side by a RHD (clearly meaning that is not a necessity IMO) ... not certain how that doesn't add up for you ... and I am done trying to clarify for you.

Ok

[tomh009]

6 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

My other thought is this. They might be interested in Hague because he can play *both* sides. So: he can be a Savard replacement on the right, but can also be a proven NHL option at LD in the event that (a) WiFi fails to make the leap to being a reliable defender or (b) they decide to move out one of Struble, Xhekaj, or - gulp - Matheson. 

 

It’s his versatility they might want, not just his RD play.

A good point, but we do already have this guy Hutson, who has done very well at both LD and RD in his short career. He may end up being better at LD but his play on RD was strong enough to win him the Calder.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

48 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

A good point, but we do already have this guy Hutson, who has done very well at both LD and RD in his short career. He may end up being better at LD but his play on RD was strong enough to win him the Calder.

 

Well sure, but Hutson is our #1 defenceman. We need other guys too. There’s no rule that says you can only have one positionally versatile defenceman on your team.

[tomh009]

Absolutely, I agree, versatility is good. But Hutson is amazingly good on the right, and both Guhle and Matheson have played reasonably well on the right, so I think the flexibility is likely not critical at this point.

 

2C, on the other hand ...

[DON]

Matheson struggled on the right-side didnt he?

And Guhle looks better when on the left-side.

1 top-4 RH-d needed, but likely not as much as a 2C.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 minute ago, DON said:

Matheson struggled on the right-side didnt he?

And Guhle looks better when on the left-side.

1 top-4 RH-d needed, but likely not as much as a 2C.

 

Yes, leave guys alone in their natural positions as much as possible. Especially kids. 

 

I don't know about Hague's chops on RD. It's fine to say "he can play either side," but when people say that, they're usually describing player usage rather than parsing how much better the player actually is at his natural side. 

[hab29RETIRED]

37 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Absolutely, I agree, versatility is good. But Hutson is amazingly good on the right, and both Guhle and Matheson have played reasonably well on the right, so I think the flexibility is likely not critical at this point.

 

2C, on the other hand ...

I don’t agree about Matheson, and Guhle seemed to get clocked even more  on the right side. If anything, Struble looked more comfortable on the wrong side.

Hutson is the only one that made a seamless transition.

[Commandant]

3 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t agree about Matheson, and Guhle seemed to get clocked even more  on the right side. If anything, Struble looked more comfortable on the wrong side.

Hutson is the only one that made a seamless transition.

 

The average a player loses in xG% playing on the wrong side is about 5%.  So most players are less effective on their wrong side. 

 

I look at it this way. 

 

Hutson is a phenom, so it doesn't matter where you put him.  He's shown he can be an exception. 

 

Everyone else.... Matheson, Guhle, Hague, you want them on their correct side when the entire team is healthy.  Its nice to have versatility so they can play short stints when injuries hit, but you don't want to pencil them in to play their offside for the entire season.  Hague is not a Savard replacement for this reason.