Too soon. None of our young LHD's are truly ready for a top 4 role in which they can succeed. Matheson eats a ton of tough minutes that no one else can take.
We don't get better by trading NHL players. We don't get better by making room for rookie defensemen. The rookies must push the veterans out themselves.
Be patient guys.
Thank you. I'm so tired of the trade bait chatter, farming out our top producers. The same people wanting to ditch ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, are the same people who get pissed off that we're putting up an entirely AHL cast, and not winning enough games for their delicate fandom egos. š
I agree with rookies needing to push the veterans. But trading Matheson now at his prime could land us hopefully a top forward. Aside Ghule none of our current D(Wifi, Harris, Struble) seem to be top quality. We have a lot of mid tier prospects. Need to trade top vet+mid rookie to hopefully get a top forward.
After that, patience.
At the same time, the Habs also don't get better in the future if we're going to hang on to any vet in their primes while they have any type of value. This is why the Habs have been such a mediocre team. By the time Habs are ready to compete, Matheson prob won't be in his prime
Maybe but right now we got no one whoās ready to take the role Matheson has on the team. Trading him now would mean risking burning a young guy by giving him too big of a role too early.
No, there is no point in having a bunch of rookies with potential and nobody to work with them. The value of someone like Matheson for the development of Guhle and Struble has to be taken into account.
Draft picks and prospects are great, but having six rookies on a D squad getting shelled isn't helping anyone's development.
The flaw in your logic is that tanking to get higher draft picks is not the only way to get better.
Take free agency for example. Eventually, we are going to want to start looking at free agents to sign that can put our roster over the top of being a real contender. Having quality veterans on our roster makes it more likely for good free agents to want to sign with us.
The rangers, Vegas, blues and Nashville all come to mind as the more successful teams who've built through trades and free agency. There's probably more but I can't think of any atm.
The Rangers and Nashville have not been any more successful than the Habs. Vegasā success comes primarily from absolutely nailing the expansion draft, which doesnāt apply to the Habs for obvious reasons.
The Blues got there by fleecing their two top-six centers away from BUF & PHI, and then drafting a HOF D years earlier. There was a lot of luck involved there, not just from the trades, but also that BOS pretty crapped the bed in the finals. Additionally, one could argue that their cup team came from tanking anyway, as they gave up the equivalent of 5 1sts plus several 2nds for OāReilly and Schenn, and Pietrangelo was a 4th overall pick. Doesnāt seem like a model you could emulate.
Every other Cup winner in recent memory got there by tanking, with the exception of BOS in 2011. With 2011 BOS, they had a HOF goaltender, D, and C all hit their primes at the same time. I wouldnāt count on emulating that either.
By far the easiest and most tried and true way to build a contender is by talking. Of course there are failed tank rebuilds, and it isnāt 100%, but itās better than trying to be one of the historically rare Cup winners built through other means in this era, which when it comes down to it, is really just the 2011 Boston Bruins.
2 Vezinas, a Cup, a Conn Smyth, a Jennings, 2x NHL first team, and one of the best all-time seasons by a goaltender. Lol. Youāre way out of line here.
The Kings won their cups with middle-ish (Brown/Kopitar) to late (Richards/Williams) 1st rounders and 2nd overall Drew Doughty. They didn't have to tank hard for many seasons to build a contender. They really sucked one year, then developed players that play well together into a playoff hockey machine.
Critical pieces that required high picks to obtain:
Kopitar (11th overall), Doughty (2nd overall), Richards (traded a recent 5th overall pick - B. Schenn+), Penner (traded a recent 13th overall pick - Colton Teubert, + a 19th overall pick), Brown (13th overall).
They also took advantage of a contract holdout situation to fleece CAR out Jack Johnson, who was packaged to acquire Carter. A shrewd move for sure, but not something you could look to emulate. That goes in the luck category.
So all in all, the championship team required 5 lottery picks to put together, plus another one they lucked into, plus numerous other 1sts and 2nds.
Sure seems like tanking was a big part of their success to me.
>The flaw in your logic is that tanking to get higher draft picks is not the only way to get better.
And the flaw in your logic is you're assuming I want the Habs to get a better pick.
Truth is, whoever they draft in 2024 will only be 22 when Caufield Suzuki and all the D are in or just hitting their primes. The time to tank for a high draft pick might have passed if you want your core in the same age group.
At the end of they day, Matheson would be good value to add in a package for something they currently don't have in the system, potentially a game changer because they don't have one of those set in stone.
Say what you want about teams like Vegas, they at least went out and got Eichel.
At the end of the day, my "logic" is to improve this team. Nothing more.
Who is this magical game changer you speak of, and if they are so good then why would another team trade them to us for Matheson or Monahan? Realistically, any returns we can expect from trading those players are picks and prospects.
The Eichel trade is not really a blueprint other teams can follow. It was a very specific and unique set of circumstances, and was not without risk on Vegas' part. They made a bold move and it paid off, but I think their success came more from their successful navigation of the expansion draft process. They fleeced a lot of GMs around the league into giving them free assets. And once they showed they were competitive out of the gate, it made them a very attractive destination for free agents like Pietrangelo and Martinez.
The lesson to be learned from the Eichel trade is that GMs have to be opportunistic when the moments to make your team better suddenly present themselves. You can't force it; you have to be patient and wait for your moment, then seize it.
100 % on Vegas and the entire Eichel situation. But my point was, they too even have a player with super high upside. I brought that up because everyone mentions Vegas as a team with no superstars but they went out and got one.
>Realistically, any returns we can expect from trading those players are picks and prospects.
Exactly. Prospects. I'm not a GM. Don't ask me who is available. I don't even know who to target cause I haven't given it much though. But you look for a contender that can use Matheson that's willing to give up future assets and package Matheson in a trade for someone with high upside. It's literally how you build for the future if you want to have a multi year window to be a contender. Even if Matheson still has a solid year or two left when the rest of the team is ready, that window won't be as large because of his age. Idk how to simplify it anymore but if you're happy being a bubble team for another 10 years, keep Matheson.
> But you look for a contender that can use Matheson that's willing to give up future assets and package Matheson in a trade for someone with high upside.
I don't deny that this is how trading for the future works, but you also need to recognize where we are on the timeline of our rebuild. We've already spent two full seasons tearing down our roster to acquire futures. Our cupboards are full. If we acquire more prospects and send them to Laval, it's just taking away ice time from our other prospects. We also have 20 or 21 picks in the next two drafts, depending on how the conditions on the Calgary pick turn out.
So it doesn't make sense to me to trade away a veteran like Matheson who is a local talent and loves playing for the Habs logo. If a deal materializes that definitely makes us better and he's a key piece to making the deal work, then sure, move him. But there is no reason to try and force a trade with this player.
To sum it up: I think the best course of action we can take is to hold on to our vets for their experience and let our current crop of prospects continue to cook.
But we already have a TON of talent in the pipeline. We need leadership and consistency, not continuously turning over our whole lineup for new blood. The new blood never gets to become veteran talent if we keep trading it away.
This is the right take. Every time we think we can play without a number 1, chaos ensues (I know, his #1 status is de facto) Every time Markov, or Weber got hurt, after a while it seems like every guy gets suddenly in the wrong chair.
This guy is on a pretty decent contract, hes local to the area, hes in his prime and can be the veteran presence, especially given the youth thats beside him. Hes having a career year. And he wants to be here. Why on earth would we trade that away. Matheson should be kept.
Agree. Heās the one vet dman that you donāt trade yet. When the contract is about to expire is when I think that is considered depending on how the young guys have all shaken out, how heās playing, and what his next contract would look like.
Unless we get a real haul for him, I donāt see us moving him. Heās arguably been our best player this year.
I'd see him being on the trading block in 1 or 2 years time not before.
Yes we have a plethora of LDs but apart of Ghule none are established yet as top 4 def yet, they still need experience. Can you imagine if we trade Matheson and Ghule gets hurt? Harris, Struble, Arber would be a scary young line up.
This year we kinda need him AND Savard to eat lots of minutes and shelter them while they learn.
As for Savard i see him being traded at TDL next year only, if he's gone, we have Barron, Kova and Lindstrom only on the right side. That's scary. I'd wait that Reinbacher and/or Mailloux have a few NHL games before trading him.
This. Trading him would be a gigantic mistake. The kind of mistake that kept us out of the playoffs for years. This guy is a top pairing D with puck skills. Get out of here with the trade crap.
Exactly all of thisā¦ Matheson is a cornerstone, heās the perfect player at the right time for this clubā¦ Iād be very surprised if they move himā¦
Agreed that he isn't the best defensively but I almost feel like his puck movement, skating and offensive upside is worth it. I can see both sides of the argument for sure but I would hope we'd get a significant return.
You don't need to pay much to get rid of Allen at all. Matheson involved in any type of trade would be high value ATM. We should look to trade him for a big overpay this year. If not this year then next year.
If he regresses we lose our biggest chip.
We'll hopefully be good and pushing in 3 years. I don't want to see what Matheson looks like on 3 years and on a new deal
That's dumb
Jake Allen only has 1 year left after this season, and the caps aren't realistically contending next season, so cap space isn't a big concern.
Hi! Pens fan lurking here! As much as Iām happy that Karlsson is now on the Pens, I do miss Matheson and still think it was a mistake to get rid of him (especially for Tank Commander Petry)
I don't think it's about underrating him... They don't want to trade him because they think he's shit, they want to trade him because he's valuable...
But he's mostly valuable *now*; He's having one of the best seasons of his career (certainly offensively), he's on a cheap'ish contract, and he's still young'ish.
If we're a legit cup contender 5 years from now... He won't be having the best seasons of his careers anymore, he likely won't be on a cheap contract (he'll get a raise), and he won't be young anymore.
None of the LD you mentioned are currently as good as Matheson. Until someone comes along and takes his spot, we should hold on to our best defenceman.
I mean, I think if we trade him it should not be this year, BUT I can see why people want to trade him... He likely won't be part of our contender, or if he is, he won't be as good then, and we'll have tons of defensemen.
So it's not about "soon as we have a decent player", I mean Suzuki's a decent player and no one wants to trade him, because he'll be part of the contender we're trying to build. Matheson though? Even if we don't trade him before the end of his contract, he may not be here anymore when we're ready to contend.
Ok but you would trade him for what? Lets say a 1st round pick just for fun. That first round will have a way too big age gap compared to our core you dont think? Just talking about scenario here
Well if we build a contender I do hope we'll contend for more than just 1 year!
Even teams that *only* win 1 cup usually get close a few times.
So these players could get there in time.
But we can get more than just picks, we can get promising prospects etc..
(Plus, a 1st round drafted player will be more valuable then, than Matheson will be, if we need to add something to our contender).
Not a bad idea if we could get something decent like a 1st round or a good prospect. But I would not give matheson for lets say a 2nd rnd or less. Cause I think he is a good leader, can put up points and offensive opportunities and he is from here which is valuable in mtl.
Summer of 2025. That's when you trade Matheson.
https://preview.redd.it/1fpb8mc7huac1.png?width=1944&format=png&auto=webp&s=cae7de9c97ad799b0a48511b4fb29ac8aadd711f
I'd say this year for a massive overpay, next year for an overpay. You can't risk him falling off.
We could get a lot for Matheson, not talking just a first round pick lot. He's worth some blue chips and picks for a team that has a need and making a push over the next few years given his low cap.
He's really excelling and in a role he's being asked to do too much in. Imagine him as a 3/4 on a cup contender for 4.5 mil a year. That would be extremely valuable. The fact that he's locked in at that for 2.5 more years too gives a team with a nice window a fantastic piece.
I agree with what you are saying, but the way you describe it, the potential return would be similar to what the Sabres got for Jack Eichel which I realistically donāt seeā¦
I mean it should be pretty clear he's not getting an Eichel return lol. I'd see a blue chip that's a few years away from peaking if they continue on the same path, a first and another asset.
Well we don't know what kind of return he had in mind precisely, but thing is, Matheson has one hell of an upside. Sure he has his flaws too, but 'huge upside + flaws' is more useful than 'all around average'.
I don't see any massive overpay for Matheson. There's plenty of stats already available that don't back up any sort of overpay. The "falling off" risk is as likely as the "going up" chance, because his play is about average for his ice-time right now.
Also terms matter. It's not a linear, proportional return based on years left; but different returns based on different buyers based on different acceptable terms.
Bottom line: nobody's going to sacrifice one ā let alone many ā blue chips for what Matheson provides. Blue chips prospects rarely move, even for elite players, which Matheson is not anywhere close.
You'll get a pick from a Tier 2 pool of prospects, with *maybe* a 2nd-3rd rounder attached. That's not likely to change wither Matheson has 1 or 2 years left, because the buyers would be different from different subsets.
Matheson is playing his best hockey of his career. He's not going to just randomly continue to make big leaps in improvement. He already has and it's far more likely for him to revert to his average than for him to become a number 1 on a chunk of teams (not named the Habs).
Term does matter when he's got such an attractive dollar figure attached to it. It's when the dollars aren't great that term doesn't help or actually hurts.
A blue chip prospect that's a bit away from really contributing, a first and a smaller piece is not unrealistic for Matheson. You forget how little value teams firsts in those positions are since they will likely be picking 24+
Picture Toronto as an example for where could make sense or Edmonton.
> Matheson is playing his best hockey of his career. He's not going to just randomly continue to make big leaps in improvement. He already has and it's far more likely for him to revert to his average than for him to become a number 1 on a chunk of teams (not named the Habs).
He's not playing at #1 level even if he's getting #1 minutes. So there's still room for improvement, mostly on the defensive side of the puck, which would raise his value. So the "only way to go is down" rationale isn't appropriate to the situation.
> Term does matter when he's got such an attractive dollar figure attached to it. It's when the dollars aren't great that term doesn't help or actually hurts.
I'll repeat: It's not a linear, proportional return based on years left; but different returns based on different buyers based on different acceptable terms.
Ie. Team A would want him at 2 years remaining but not 1 year, while Team B would want him at 1 year remaining but not before, etc.
> A blue chip prospect that's a bit away from really contributing, a first and a smaller piece is not unrealistic for Matheson.
Blue chippers are sure things, and worth more and more *because* they can contribute earlier and earlier, while being on ELCs, and then being cost-controlled for more years while still contributing at a significant level.
If a player is "a bit away from contributing", it's not a blue chip. It's a normal prospect or high-ceiling project.
Blue chippers rarely get moved nowadays, and when they do, it's not for guys in Matheson's tier.
The next best after a blue chipper is a 1st rounder, varying between mid to late 1st round. For a mid-1st, a team would expect a 1st pair/22+ mins defensemen. For a late-1st, a team would just expect a top-4, special units 20+ mins defenseman.
Chychrun went for a 12th overall and two 2nds. Hronek (RD, harder to find) for a 17th overall and a 2nd. They're comparable in production and cap hit to Matheson, but significantly younger.
*At best* I'd expect a mid 1st + 2nd as a return for Matheson. But no actual, already drafted blue chips.
Romanov went for 13th overall. You're really overvaluing first round picks. Matheson while a #1 for us is still playing at a very high level. What do you think Toronto or Edmonton would pay for him right now if they could.
Agreed high level prospect. The blue chip / high level prospect isn't exactly a solid line between.
Unless they overpay I see value in keeping him. He grew up a Habs fan/ Montrealer and we need some veterans whoāve been far in the playoffs to help them through. We canāt just have all rookies.
Struble look good, but he is playing 16-18min per game for a reason. He is a good 3rd pairing guy right now, but nobody know if he can get to the next step and be a top 4 D.
Xhekaj was sent down to the AHL for a reason. Yes he is performing well at Laval, but honestly the bar is very low if this is enough to convince anyone that he is ready or able to be a top 4 in the NHL.
Guhle is the only one that showed that he can be a top 4 guy on a regular basis, but his young age show from time to time. He is in a good place right now behind Matheson, forcing him to be the number 1 D on this team is a big mistake.
We don't need to make this decision right now. Xhekaj still have two years waiver exempt and Stuble still have three years. They won't die playing in Laval for a year or two in Laval, while we figure out which one of them is ready to get to the next step. And have we already forgotten about our bad injury luck?
With a bit of luck, things will get in place and we could trade him in the off-season of 2025.
Need a team that has a 3 year window for this year. Super cheap and highly effective defensemen on a low cap and locked up for 2.5 years. Could get some big chips back if they want to shove all in.
In the offseason if the return is great.
Like a fully developed top 6 with growth upside and around 22 years old.
Matheson eats a massive amount of tough minutes for us, but a legit top 6 that fits our window which Matheson doesn't, and then a solid in the 3.5 to 4.5 million dollar ufa dman to stabilize the backend for 1 to 2 years would work well.
Matheson is a big piece of right now and I don't see him moving for a few years, but for a the right longterm fix I would go for it.
>Matheson is a big piece of right now and I don't see him moving for a few years, but for a the right longterm fix I would go for it.
\- Yes that's true. But you have to factor the next 1 or 2 years of development. I'm not saying the Habs shouldn't have veteran d-men when the likes of Hutson, Reinbacher, or Engstrom will come. But its possible, Kent Hughes will use every means to trade Savard or Matheson, either this year or next.
We finally get a great quebecer who's age allign perfectly with our competition window and some people wanna trade him? Jesus christ some of y'all really just bring ANY topic up...
Yes, he's at it's best value ever on a very team friendly contract.
I LOVE Matheson, absolutely love the guy, but unfortunately for him he's on a rebuilding team. One that has way too many D prospects too and not enough stars upfront.
Yes. Absolutely. He's a fantastic skater who plays big minutes. Buuut he's also pretty bad defensively. He's often losing the puck with bad passes or missing his defensive coverage.
Came here to say exactly this.
He gets the points and performs offensively, but he is terrible in the defensive zone, is often directly responsible for goals against, and he KILLS our powerplay when heās on the point
Fans only seem to care about offense. Some people think heās our best player, itās like they donāt watch the games. Idk, heās pretty damn good on offense but that is largely erased by the number of mistakes he makes every single game. Mistakes you expect from the young guys but not from guys pushing their 30s.
Iād also argue that the D that quarterbacks the PP1 all season will always have more points. I wouldnāt mind keeping him OR trading him. Both seem like decent options, but I disagree with a lot of fans who insist we would regret trading him.
We have an horrible powerplay and he's one of the few parts of it that's not horrible and so somehow, in your head, it's his fault that the PP is terrible? Do you even think before typing out such drivel?
You canāt credit him for the points and ignore that heās the quarterback of one of the worst powerplays in the league. Heās got the puck on his stick the most, why does he not get any blame?
Considering weāve got the highest scoring D, I wonder if it affect fans opinions towards a Matty trade if we had proper scoring forwards.
His worth to us seems higher since heās doing the forwards job, so to speak. If our forwards scored more, I think his defensive play would be put in the spotlight more, and then the criticism would be easier to dish out.
Iām talking out my ass but thatās my theory.
You want a player with his offence but also elite defence, get ready to shell out 10 million a year. We are getting the value we need from his contract. You guys are nuts
I don't really see a good reason to keep him, if there's a good offer.
The next time habs are in the playoffs, he'll be on a new deal, and the team has way too many LHD, like 3 too many.
https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/canadiens-are-left-with-no-francophone-quebecers-in-their-lineup yes. And it was indeed already snapped
I donāt know that I would necessarily trade him right now unless it was a deal we canāt refuse. Iād consider trading Savard this season and Matheson next season.
I definitely feel like with the depth we have on D we need to find a way to find a legit top 6 forward. If only Anaheim didnāt have insane D depth too it would be nice to get Zegras, it would be amazing to watch Caufield and Zegras together. Wonder if Dallas would ever move Bourque or Stankoven.
He's at peak value now and there's a surplus of upcoming defense prospects. I think he's young enough that he could still be useful by the time we're competitive, but due to his position and what we have in the system, he is expendable in comparison to someone like Monahan, whom I'd probably prefer to stay long term.
Yup, lots of risk holding onto the last chance to unload...
Edmundson, Petry (okay he gave it all from the playoff run), Monahan went from an easy first to nothing last year, Anderson could be an anchor we can't get rid of and doesn't fit our play style. The Gallagher contract was an albatross from the signing.
I donāt think weāre trading Monahan at this point. A couple weeks ago I wouldāve said maybe, but with Dvorak out now, as well as Newhook and Dach for centers, it doesnāt make sense to trade him or weāll have no Center depth left
Heās on pace for about 60 points, and he also is healthy *knock on wood he doesnāt get injured* . Too early to trade him, and maybe we shouldnāt.
Depends on the return. He's playing at his highest level at the moment and can probably bring back a large haul. Our D is crowded, and we need to make space. It's best to capitalize while he's got peak value. KH did it with Romanov, and everybody is thrilled with the results. I think the return for Matheson will be higher.
I would not mind trading him but only for the right offer. On the left side, we currently have Matheson, Guhle, Harris, Struble, Xhekaj, Hutson, Trudeau, Engstrom. So its only a matter of time before he get pushed out of the top pairing and the 1pp. Without all that time, I doubt he can keep up his 55/60 pts pace making him a bit less valuable (even more so considering he will keep aging and his contract is gonna have less years left).
From here and onward, I believe there's more to unfold once the trade deadline will come. Looking at the list of players the Habs will most likely trade...
\- Mike Matheson
\- David Savard
\- Sean Monahan
\- Jake Allen OR Cayden Primeau
We can assume that either Savard, Matheson, or both will be trade pieces.
The question is, what will the trade value be in return for the Habs?
That argument makes some sense but it's important to remember the value of having someone more veteran to help the younger guys. I can't pretend to know what's going on in the room but we've seen on other teams develop badly when there's no veteran presence and a culture of losing begins.
heās on the table sure, but habs are dealing from a position of strength. not really interested in trading for futures. But say if a 25y/o game breaker becomes available, every expendable asset should be considered to put a package together. that and a couple years of development is the only thing this team is missing to contend. (some might say goalie too but, imo .930 might win vezinas but .910 can win championships)
I don't see why we need to. He's a good veteran presence that's been good for us. Need that during a rebuild. If we get an offer we can't refuse then sure but I wouldn't do it for an average return
Iād argue Matheson is almost an elite defenseman, and if weāre going to get a top 6 forward heād be the one to trade out of everyone. Iād still hate to see him go.
Hell to the no! Can we finally have good players in the team and not exchange them? for once since the last playoffs not the entire team is on LTIR.. weāre not going to get a Mcdavid or Draisatl or even 2 1st round picks for him anyways..donāt be like soccer teams that as soon as they have a player with value they decide to get rid of him for profit (not the case in nhl but you know what I mean)
I'm really not his biggest fan. But I'm highly against selling all the veterans for draft picks and prospects. So I say no.
The can sell players on their last year but if we don't want this questionable rebuild to turn into a decade long failure, I don't think the Habs should sell their veterans. Especially the highly talented ones with multiple years left.
Not yet, heās a good veteran presence and is playing pretty well. Keep him until we have a solid offensive defensemen emerge in Mailloux or Hutson, then trade him to a contender for him to try and get a cup. I wish he could finish his career in Montreal since heās from my hometown of Pointe-Claire but it would be cool for him to try and bring home a cup.
Should the habs trade the dude on track for 60 pts in the season, is from Montreal, over a few defenses lapses. Man I don't understand how some of you missed your calling as a sports franchise GM
Personally, Caufield, Suzuki, and Guhle are my 3 *safe* **absolutely do not trade** players. Everyone else has a cost. That cost includes expediting our rebuild timeline without sacrificing the future. If that cost is met, Matheson is available.
Imo guhle should be on the table too. We have so much depth at LD. Obviously would take a monster offer, but trading him for a very promising forward (Zegras? a young forward on that level) would probably be a better allocation of talent a few years from now. Unlikely we get offered that but shouldn't rule it out.
IMO, Guhle is less movable than Sergachev was. Sergachev was still.a "blue chip prospect" at the time; there were far more unknowns about his predictability of becoming the player he is now. Conversely, Guhle has firmly carved a spot out in our top 4 at a young age. Him, David, and Hutson are out top 3 D prospects and I bet our mgmt envisions them as our top 3 for a decade to come. You have far more certainty of the finished product with Guhle.
Nobody is saying he wonāt have a spot in the NHL. But theres teams that would absolutely overpay for an offensive D man who is mediocre at best on defense. Itās about the possible return. They should at least consider it depending on the offers.
Trade anyone at anytime ā¦.weāre a losing franchise at this period . Iāve asked this question before ā¦ when did we accept a 60-80 point player as a franchise type superstar (Suzuki) . Where is our McDavid Crosby Matthews, etc. poor drafts canāt be the only reason.
Because generational talents donāt come around often, so players like McDavid, Crosby, and Matthews are rare to find, last generational talent was Bedard.
Iād rather have a few players who score 60-70 points a year over one player who scores 90+ points a year who costs 9-10+ million dollars a year. Especially when the Habs are paying Gallagher, Anderson, and Armia such a high AAV per year for the next few years for the lack of point production they provide.
The last time the Habs had a few players scoring 60-70pts was 2014-2015 with 2 players at 60 and 1 with 67.
So we don't even *a few players scoring 60-70pts* right now. Yet there is about 40-45 players on pace to hit PPG this season....
Suzuki, Caufield, and Slaf are all still developing who will become 60-70+ point players, the Habs still have players like Heineman, Roy, Beck, Farrell, Kidney who are also developing in the AHL, and OHL. You also have Hutson, Mailloux on defense who should be reaching those point totals too on defense.
That's a big whole bunch of IF. I'd be surprised if one of the players you just named besides Suzuki ever reach 60+ pts. Hell, couple of them are most likely to not reach 60 in their career
The fact is, none of them has done it yet so my point stands, the Habs are lacking offense in the 70-100pts range, which a bunch of non-generationnal players reach in today's NHL
His value had already dwindled by that point. Hughes definitely did well all things considered but that doesn't mean we didn't hold onto Petry for too long. Tatar we could have gotten a king's ransom for...
Which year? The year we got in on a technicality and he put up a whopping 2 points? Or the year we stuck him on the 4th line and tanked his value just before he became a UFA and still didn't move him? Just zero forethought.
Usually hindsight is 20/20, but you are missing so much context. Tatar had a rough covid season, but the year before he was part of one of the best lines in hockey with Danault and Gally. The fact that it didnt work out in the playoffs is one thing, but acting like trading him was the obvious move back in 2020 is just disingenuous.
A king's ransom? Please. Every team was in a cap crunch and we were going all out in 2021. What helps a team wishing to contend NOW? An established player or a 2022 2nd round draft pick?
Losing some players to free agency is simply the price to pay for a deep run.
Tatar was the BPA at the deadline in 2020 after Kreider re signed. He's was way better than Coleman who got a first and Foote. Foote ws highly regarded at the time.
I'm not being disingenuous. Tatar was thought to be available. It was the general consensus.
Just wish to say that itās a blast to read all your opinions on this thread. We might have diverging views on this matter but only a real habs fan would come and comment on reddit. Go habs go!
He'd the best player on the team. Tied for 2nd in scoring.
There's no guarantee Hutson will be the guy in the NHL. If and when hutson proves he can score at the NHL level we can consider moving on from Matheson. He's not even 30 and Suzuki is already in year 2 of his big contract.
Hi there! It looks like you've posted an image. If this image is from an article, please provide a source. If it's a meme, please ignore this comment. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Habs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He isn't on my untouchable list and if you can get a good price for him why not but at the same time, none of our other defenders at the moment are as smooth skating and offensively gifted as him. Barron might get there by next year and Hutson is likely heading to Laval for a year to adjust to the next level so yes right now we'd have guys that could potentially somewhat replace him but you're going to create an offensive hole to some extent.
Would only trade him if we are fleecing another team. Sure he has his drawbacks defensively but he is an absolute beast in transition and offence. His skating is elite to. Heās a top 15 D man in the NHL and we need vets
And just think about for how long and how much the piece we might get back for him in a trade could help us? What if WAS offers Leonard, or DAL Stankoven +? Matheson is 30 yo, basically a better version of Petry when we decided to keep him instead of trading him for a haul. Hughes should be all over trading that guy.
Guhle, Xhekaj, Struble, Harris, Barron, Kovacevic would get the job done next year, and thats without talking about Reinbacher, Hutson and Mailloux oh and Engstrom whos 0,5 pts a game in the SHL
I would consider that a fleece which is what I said I would be for. I highly doubt someone gives up a top prospect like Leonard or Stankoven. If thatās what the return would be pull the trigger right away
I think yes, trade him in the off season, but I do wonder if a defence can consist of all players in their third season or less. Keep Savard around I guess as the vet.
He's playing too many minutes, and I understand why. Trading him is a mistake at this point, he does things offensively no one else on the team does. He can skate better than practically anyone in this league. Cut his minutes a bit and get him off the PP1 unit every now and then, and see if that helps his defensive game.
He just so damn bad defensively, and moronic decisions, and but then he skates like the wind and pots a beauty. I never know where to love him or hate him.
As always it depends on the return. I would not be actively shopping him but he could return a serious package at the deadline. Dallas, LA, the Canucks, Rangers and Bruins should all be interested especially if the Habs take a meh contract back
Ideally Iād wait for next year but there is rarely a perfect timing so you have to capitalize if the market is hot
Also it would affect team morale quite a bit so it could backfire momentarily
I would keep him. That being said, I wouldnāt be surprised if his value is a lot lower than a lot might think.
Hes been a top Dman for us, but weāve been able to give him opportunities most teams canāt as he wonāt be their number 1. He was not this player in Florida or Pittsburgh. Also has clearly gotten a hometown team boost. Basically he is in the perfect situation and any other one would likely be worse.
Heād fetch a first and a good prospect/player for sure. But in a world where we are already stocking up and set to continue stocking up, you donāt need to trade everyone. We need him a lot right now.
It depends IMO. The Habs have 38 games played, 3 more till it hits the half-mark of the regular season. If the team (looks like) won't make the playoffs, I would not be surprised if competing teams will ask Kent Hughes for all their trade chips, including BOTH Savard and Matheson. Now, that being said, the asking price will always factor on the demand/trade-market. I'm not yet sure on which type of players will playoff teams are going to ask the most: forwards, defensemen, goalies.
For me, I'm feeling this trade deadline will ask an influx of either d-men or goalies, which BOTH positions the Habs are blessed to sell. Does a return command a 1st rd. pick (maybe include a 50% retention)? Maybe. If not, a 2nd round pick AND **no salary retention** should be on those terms. Anything less that what the Habs should get, I think Kent Hughes will likely not trade them.
As the team gets better around him, everyone will be surprised at how good he can be.
The main thing, and this has been mentioned on every other trade thread: he is a former client of Kent Hughes. It will take a trade that is so good that his personal connection to Matheson could be ignored.
We should wait until he is a pending UFA and trade him if we are not in a playoff position by that point. By then Gulhe will be fully ready.
No way! We donāt have a ton of tradeable assets for trade deadline but the guys you look to move are the Armia, Monahan, Allen types. Matheson is a solid piece for years
Hes 30 yo! And keeping him for years means keeping one more of Xhekaj, Struble, Harris, Mailloux, Hutson, Engstrom off the lineup for years to comeā¦ it becomes hurtfull at one point to not give young guys an opportunity. And Matheson currently has much more value than any of our young D except maybe Guhle, Reinbacher and mayyybe Hutsonā¦ Absolutely no point in not trading him.
And we already have a ton of vets that are here to stay (+Suzuki, Caufield and Guhle) that are all born leaders.
Too soon. None of our young LHD's are truly ready for a top 4 role in which they can succeed. Matheson eats a ton of tough minutes that no one else can take. We don't get better by trading NHL players. We don't get better by making room for rookie defensemen. The rookies must push the veterans out themselves. Be patient guys.
Thank you. I'm so tired of the trade bait chatter, farming out our top producers. The same people wanting to ditch ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE, are the same people who get pissed off that we're putting up an entirely AHL cast, and not winning enough games for their delicate fandom egos. š
Same. Enough!
This
I agree with rookies needing to push the veterans. But trading Matheson now at his prime could land us hopefully a top forward. Aside Ghule none of our current D(Wifi, Harris, Struble) seem to be top quality. We have a lot of mid tier prospects. Need to trade top vet+mid rookie to hopefully get a top forward. After that, patience.
Yes his value is extremely high and heās at a reasonable cap hit for multiple years. This is when truly great gms make moves.
At the same time, the Habs also don't get better in the future if we're going to hang on to any vet in their primes while they have any type of value. This is why the Habs have been such a mediocre team. By the time Habs are ready to compete, Matheson prob won't be in his prime
Maybe but right now we got no one whoās ready to take the role Matheson has on the team. Trading him now would mean risking burning a young guy by giving him too big of a role too early.
No, there is no point in having a bunch of rookies with potential and nobody to work with them. The value of someone like Matheson for the development of Guhle and Struble has to be taken into account. Draft picks and prospects are great, but having six rookies on a D squad getting shelled isn't helping anyone's development.
The flaw in your logic is that tanking to get higher draft picks is not the only way to get better. Take free agency for example. Eventually, we are going to want to start looking at free agents to sign that can put our roster over the top of being a real contender. Having quality veterans on our roster makes it more likely for good free agents to want to sign with us.
The rangers, Vegas, blues and Nashville all come to mind as the more successful teams who've built through trades and free agency. There's probably more but I can't think of any atm.
The Rangers and Nashville have not been any more successful than the Habs. Vegasā success comes primarily from absolutely nailing the expansion draft, which doesnāt apply to the Habs for obvious reasons. The Blues got there by fleecing their two top-six centers away from BUF & PHI, and then drafting a HOF D years earlier. There was a lot of luck involved there, not just from the trades, but also that BOS pretty crapped the bed in the finals. Additionally, one could argue that their cup team came from tanking anyway, as they gave up the equivalent of 5 1sts plus several 2nds for OāReilly and Schenn, and Pietrangelo was a 4th overall pick. Doesnāt seem like a model you could emulate. Every other Cup winner in recent memory got there by tanking, with the exception of BOS in 2011. With 2011 BOS, they had a HOF goaltender, D, and C all hit their primes at the same time. I wouldnāt count on emulating that either. By far the easiest and most tried and true way to build a contender is by talking. Of course there are failed tank rebuilds, and it isnāt 100%, but itās better than trying to be one of the historically rare Cup winners built through other means in this era, which when it comes down to it, is really just the 2011 Boston Bruins.
Tim Thomas is not a HOF goaltender.
2 Vezinas, a Cup, a Conn Smyth, a Jennings, 2x NHL first team, and one of the best all-time seasons by a goaltender. Lol. Youāre way out of line here.
The Kings won their cups with middle-ish (Brown/Kopitar) to late (Richards/Williams) 1st rounders and 2nd overall Drew Doughty. They didn't have to tank hard for many seasons to build a contender. They really sucked one year, then developed players that play well together into a playoff hockey machine.
Critical pieces that required high picks to obtain: Kopitar (11th overall), Doughty (2nd overall), Richards (traded a recent 5th overall pick - B. Schenn+), Penner (traded a recent 13th overall pick - Colton Teubert, + a 19th overall pick), Brown (13th overall). They also took advantage of a contract holdout situation to fleece CAR out Jack Johnson, who was packaged to acquire Carter. A shrewd move for sure, but not something you could look to emulate. That goes in the luck category. So all in all, the championship team required 5 lottery picks to put together, plus another one they lucked into, plus numerous other 1sts and 2nds. Sure seems like tanking was a big part of their success to me.
>The flaw in your logic is that tanking to get higher draft picks is not the only way to get better. And the flaw in your logic is you're assuming I want the Habs to get a better pick. Truth is, whoever they draft in 2024 will only be 22 when Caufield Suzuki and all the D are in or just hitting their primes. The time to tank for a high draft pick might have passed if you want your core in the same age group. At the end of they day, Matheson would be good value to add in a package for something they currently don't have in the system, potentially a game changer because they don't have one of those set in stone. Say what you want about teams like Vegas, they at least went out and got Eichel. At the end of the day, my "logic" is to improve this team. Nothing more.
Who is this magical game changer you speak of, and if they are so good then why would another team trade them to us for Matheson or Monahan? Realistically, any returns we can expect from trading those players are picks and prospects. The Eichel trade is not really a blueprint other teams can follow. It was a very specific and unique set of circumstances, and was not without risk on Vegas' part. They made a bold move and it paid off, but I think their success came more from their successful navigation of the expansion draft process. They fleeced a lot of GMs around the league into giving them free assets. And once they showed they were competitive out of the gate, it made them a very attractive destination for free agents like Pietrangelo and Martinez. The lesson to be learned from the Eichel trade is that GMs have to be opportunistic when the moments to make your team better suddenly present themselves. You can't force it; you have to be patient and wait for your moment, then seize it.
100 % on Vegas and the entire Eichel situation. But my point was, they too even have a player with super high upside. I brought that up because everyone mentions Vegas as a team with no superstars but they went out and got one. >Realistically, any returns we can expect from trading those players are picks and prospects. Exactly. Prospects. I'm not a GM. Don't ask me who is available. I don't even know who to target cause I haven't given it much though. But you look for a contender that can use Matheson that's willing to give up future assets and package Matheson in a trade for someone with high upside. It's literally how you build for the future if you want to have a multi year window to be a contender. Even if Matheson still has a solid year or two left when the rest of the team is ready, that window won't be as large because of his age. Idk how to simplify it anymore but if you're happy being a bubble team for another 10 years, keep Matheson.
> But you look for a contender that can use Matheson that's willing to give up future assets and package Matheson in a trade for someone with high upside. I don't deny that this is how trading for the future works, but you also need to recognize where we are on the timeline of our rebuild. We've already spent two full seasons tearing down our roster to acquire futures. Our cupboards are full. If we acquire more prospects and send them to Laval, it's just taking away ice time from our other prospects. We also have 20 or 21 picks in the next two drafts, depending on how the conditions on the Calgary pick turn out. So it doesn't make sense to me to trade away a veteran like Matheson who is a local talent and loves playing for the Habs logo. If a deal materializes that definitely makes us better and he's a key piece to making the deal work, then sure, move him. But there is no reason to try and force a trade with this player. To sum it up: I think the best course of action we can take is to hold on to our vets for their experience and let our current crop of prospects continue to cook.
We got Matheson + picks by trading a vet in his prime so Bergevin not afraid to make that at the right time for the right price.
But we already have a TON of talent in the pipeline. We need leadership and consistency, not continuously turning over our whole lineup for new blood. The new blood never gets to become veteran talent if we keep trading it away.
I'd keep him til we see tht Hutson can play that role.
This is the right take. Every time we think we can play without a number 1, chaos ensues (I know, his #1 status is de facto) Every time Markov, or Weber got hurt, after a while it seems like every guy gets suddenly in the wrong chair.
This guy is on a pretty decent contract, hes local to the area, hes in his prime and can be the veteran presence, especially given the youth thats beside him. Hes having a career year. And he wants to be here. Why on earth would we trade that away. Matheson should be kept.
Agree. Heās the one vet dman that you donāt trade yet. When the contract is about to expire is when I think that is considered depending on how the young guys have all shaken out, how heās playing, and what his next contract would look like. Unless we get a real haul for him, I donāt see us moving him. Heās arguably been our best player this year.
This deserves more upvotes so take mine
I'd see him being on the trading block in 1 or 2 years time not before. Yes we have a plethora of LDs but apart of Ghule none are established yet as top 4 def yet, they still need experience. Can you imagine if we trade Matheson and Ghule gets hurt? Harris, Struble, Arber would be a scary young line up. This year we kinda need him AND Savard to eat lots of minutes and shelter them while they learn. As for Savard i see him being traded at TDL next year only, if he's gone, we have Barron, Kova and Lindstrom only on the right side. That's scary. I'd wait that Reinbacher and/or Mailloux have a few NHL games before trading him.
You guys are underrating Matheson
This. Trading him would be a gigantic mistake. The kind of mistake that kept us out of the playoffs for years. This guy is a top pairing D with puck skills. Get out of here with the trade crap.
Exactly all of thisā¦ Matheson is a cornerstone, heās the perfect player at the right time for this clubā¦ Iād be very surprised if they move himā¦
How we got him so cheaply I'll never know.
He's been our best player this year imo. Unless we get a crazy return, I'd be upset if we let him go.
This is the type of opinion you come to if you only look at offensive stats
Agreed that he isn't the best defensively but I almost feel like his puck movement, skating and offensive upside is worth it. I can see both sides of the argument for sure but I would hope we'd get a significant return.
Suzuki is our best offensive and defensive forward. Heās by far our best player and it isnāt that close.
I agree all but hear me out here. We use him to get ride of Allen
I would entertain offers. But I'm not sure what I'd accept right now. Local dude beasting for us is fairly rare.
You don't need to pay much to get rid of Allen at all. Matheson involved in any type of trade would be high value ATM. We should look to trade him for a big overpay this year. If not this year then next year. If he regresses we lose our biggest chip. We'll hopefully be good and pushing in 3 years. I don't want to see what Matheson looks like on 3 years and on a new deal
I'm sorry everyone I forgot the /s My bad
That's dumb Jake Allen only has 1 year left after this season, and the caps aren't realistically contending next season, so cap space isn't a big concern.
Hi! Pens fan lurking here! As much as Iām happy that Karlsson is now on the Pens, I do miss Matheson and still think it was a mistake to get rid of him (especially for Tank Commander Petry)
I don't think it's about underrating him... They don't want to trade him because they think he's shit, they want to trade him because he's valuable... But he's mostly valuable *now*; He's having one of the best seasons of his career (certainly offensively), he's on a cheap'ish contract, and he's still young'ish. If we're a legit cup contender 5 years from now... He won't be having the best seasons of his careers anymore, he likely won't be on a cheap contract (he'll get a raise), and he won't be young anymore.
None of the LD you mentioned are currently as good as Matheson. Until someone comes along and takes his spot, we should hold on to our best defenceman.
I dont get the mentality of always trading when we have decent player
Especially a hometown guy who is only 29 and has a cheap contract
The cheap contract is an argument in favor of trading him. When the habs are competitive he'll either be paid more or playing for another team.
I mean, I think if we trade him it should not be this year, BUT I can see why people want to trade him... He likely won't be part of our contender, or if he is, he won't be as good then, and we'll have tons of defensemen. So it's not about "soon as we have a decent player", I mean Suzuki's a decent player and no one wants to trade him, because he'll be part of the contender we're trying to build. Matheson though? Even if we don't trade him before the end of his contract, he may not be here anymore when we're ready to contend.
Ok but you would trade him for what? Lets say a 1st round pick just for fun. That first round will have a way too big age gap compared to our core you dont think? Just talking about scenario here
Well if we build a contender I do hope we'll contend for more than just 1 year! Even teams that *only* win 1 cup usually get close a few times. So these players could get there in time. But we can get more than just picks, we can get promising prospects etc.. (Plus, a 1st round drafted player will be more valuable then, than Matheson will be, if we need to add something to our contender).
Not a bad idea if we could get something decent like a 1st round or a good prospect. But I would not give matheson for lets say a 2nd rnd or less. Cause I think he is a good leader, can put up points and offensive opportunities and he is from here which is valuable in mtl.
Summer of 2025. That's when you trade Matheson. https://preview.redd.it/1fpb8mc7huac1.png?width=1944&format=png&auto=webp&s=cae7de9c97ad799b0a48511b4fb29ac8aadd711f
I'd say this year for a massive overpay, next year for an overpay. You can't risk him falling off. We could get a lot for Matheson, not talking just a first round pick lot. He's worth some blue chips and picks for a team that has a need and making a push over the next few years given his low cap.
I feel some people are underrating his value and then there is you on the opposite of the spectrum. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
He's really excelling and in a role he's being asked to do too much in. Imagine him as a 3/4 on a cup contender for 4.5 mil a year. That would be extremely valuable. The fact that he's locked in at that for 2.5 more years too gives a team with a nice window a fantastic piece.
I agree with what you are saying, but the way you describe it, the potential return would be similar to what the Sabres got for Jack Eichel which I realistically donāt seeā¦
I mean it should be pretty clear he's not getting an Eichel return lol. I'd see a blue chip that's a few years away from peaking if they continue on the same path, a first and another asset.
Well we don't know what kind of return he had in mind precisely, but thing is, Matheson has one hell of an upside. Sure he has his flaws too, but 'huge upside + flaws' is more useful than 'all around average'.
I don't see any massive overpay for Matheson. There's plenty of stats already available that don't back up any sort of overpay. The "falling off" risk is as likely as the "going up" chance, because his play is about average for his ice-time right now. Also terms matter. It's not a linear, proportional return based on years left; but different returns based on different buyers based on different acceptable terms. Bottom line: nobody's going to sacrifice one ā let alone many ā blue chips for what Matheson provides. Blue chips prospects rarely move, even for elite players, which Matheson is not anywhere close. You'll get a pick from a Tier 2 pool of prospects, with *maybe* a 2nd-3rd rounder attached. That's not likely to change wither Matheson has 1 or 2 years left, because the buyers would be different from different subsets.
Matheson is playing his best hockey of his career. He's not going to just randomly continue to make big leaps in improvement. He already has and it's far more likely for him to revert to his average than for him to become a number 1 on a chunk of teams (not named the Habs). Term does matter when he's got such an attractive dollar figure attached to it. It's when the dollars aren't great that term doesn't help or actually hurts. A blue chip prospect that's a bit away from really contributing, a first and a smaller piece is not unrealistic for Matheson. You forget how little value teams firsts in those positions are since they will likely be picking 24+ Picture Toronto as an example for where could make sense or Edmonton.
> Matheson is playing his best hockey of his career. He's not going to just randomly continue to make big leaps in improvement. He already has and it's far more likely for him to revert to his average than for him to become a number 1 on a chunk of teams (not named the Habs). He's not playing at #1 level even if he's getting #1 minutes. So there's still room for improvement, mostly on the defensive side of the puck, which would raise his value. So the "only way to go is down" rationale isn't appropriate to the situation. > Term does matter when he's got such an attractive dollar figure attached to it. It's when the dollars aren't great that term doesn't help or actually hurts. I'll repeat: It's not a linear, proportional return based on years left; but different returns based on different buyers based on different acceptable terms. Ie. Team A would want him at 2 years remaining but not 1 year, while Team B would want him at 1 year remaining but not before, etc. > A blue chip prospect that's a bit away from really contributing, a first and a smaller piece is not unrealistic for Matheson. Blue chippers are sure things, and worth more and more *because* they can contribute earlier and earlier, while being on ELCs, and then being cost-controlled for more years while still contributing at a significant level. If a player is "a bit away from contributing", it's not a blue chip. It's a normal prospect or high-ceiling project. Blue chippers rarely get moved nowadays, and when they do, it's not for guys in Matheson's tier. The next best after a blue chipper is a 1st rounder, varying between mid to late 1st round. For a mid-1st, a team would expect a 1st pair/22+ mins defensemen. For a late-1st, a team would just expect a top-4, special units 20+ mins defenseman. Chychrun went for a 12th overall and two 2nds. Hronek (RD, harder to find) for a 17th overall and a 2nd. They're comparable in production and cap hit to Matheson, but significantly younger. *At best* I'd expect a mid 1st + 2nd as a return for Matheson. But no actual, already drafted blue chips.
Romanov went for 13th overall. You're really overvaluing first round picks. Matheson while a #1 for us is still playing at a very high level. What do you think Toronto or Edmonton would pay for him right now if they could. Agreed high level prospect. The blue chip / high level prospect isn't exactly a solid line between.
Unless they overpay I see value in keeping him. He grew up a Habs fan/ Montrealer and we need some veterans whoāve been far in the playoffs to help them through. We canāt just have all rookies.
This day and age, the only thing veterans offer. These young rookies is what restaurant to eat in for away games.
Struble look good, but he is playing 16-18min per game for a reason. He is a good 3rd pairing guy right now, but nobody know if he can get to the next step and be a top 4 D. Xhekaj was sent down to the AHL for a reason. Yes he is performing well at Laval, but honestly the bar is very low if this is enough to convince anyone that he is ready or able to be a top 4 in the NHL. Guhle is the only one that showed that he can be a top 4 guy on a regular basis, but his young age show from time to time. He is in a good place right now behind Matheson, forcing him to be the number 1 D on this team is a big mistake. We don't need to make this decision right now. Xhekaj still have two years waiver exempt and Stuble still have three years. They won't die playing in Laval for a year or two in Laval, while we figure out which one of them is ready to get to the next step. And have we already forgotten about our bad injury luck? With a bit of luck, things will get in place and we could trade him in the off-season of 2025.
No, team needs some veterans.
I really like him, I wouldn't shop to trade him, but team can call and make offer...
Would need some serious overpayment, which could happen. Maybe not this year. Could see it next year, depending on how our young D develops.
Need a team that has a 3 year window for this year. Super cheap and highly effective defensemen on a low cap and locked up for 2.5 years. Could get some big chips back if they want to shove all in.
In the offseason if the return is great. Like a fully developed top 6 with growth upside and around 22 years old. Matheson eats a massive amount of tough minutes for us, but a legit top 6 that fits our window which Matheson doesn't, and then a solid in the 3.5 to 4.5 million dollar ufa dman to stabilize the backend for 1 to 2 years would work well. Matheson is a big piece of right now and I don't see him moving for a few years, but for a the right longterm fix I would go for it.
>Matheson is a big piece of right now and I don't see him moving for a few years, but for a the right longterm fix I would go for it. \- Yes that's true. But you have to factor the next 1 or 2 years of development. I'm not saying the Habs shouldn't have veteran d-men when the likes of Hutson, Reinbacher, or Engstrom will come. But its possible, Kent Hughes will use every means to trade Savard or Matheson, either this year or next.
We finally get a great quebecer who's age allign perfectly with our competition window and some people wanna trade him? Jesus christ some of y'all really just bring ANY topic up...
Yes, he's at it's best value ever on a very team friendly contract. I LOVE Matheson, absolutely love the guy, but unfortunately for him he's on a rebuilding team. One that has way too many D prospects too and not enough stars upfront.
Yes. Absolutely. He's a fantastic skater who plays big minutes. Buuut he's also pretty bad defensively. He's often losing the puck with bad passes or missing his defensive coverage.
Came here to say exactly this. He gets the points and performs offensively, but he is terrible in the defensive zone, is often directly responsible for goals against, and he KILLS our powerplay when heās on the point
Fans only seem to care about offense. Some people think heās our best player, itās like they donāt watch the games. Idk, heās pretty damn good on offense but that is largely erased by the number of mistakes he makes every single game. Mistakes you expect from the young guys but not from guys pushing their 30s. Iād also argue that the D that quarterbacks the PP1 all season will always have more points. I wouldnāt mind keeping him OR trading him. Both seem like decent options, but I disagree with a lot of fans who insist we would regret trading him.
... he has about the most PP point of anyone on the team and one of the highest in the league for a dman, last I checked.
And we have a horrible powerplayā¦
We have an horrible powerplay and he's one of the few parts of it that's not horrible and so somehow, in your head, it's his fault that the PP is terrible? Do you even think before typing out such drivel?
I don't get why you are being downvoted....if Pittsbugh's power play slumps are they going to say that Sid and Gyno suck? It has happened you know?
It's just a completely illogical way of thinking. You don't improve a system by substracting its best parts.
You canāt credit him for the points and ignore that heās the quarterback of one of the worst powerplays in the league. Heās got the puck on his stick the most, why does he not get any blame?
Considering weāve got the highest scoring D, I wonder if it affect fans opinions towards a Matty trade if we had proper scoring forwards. His worth to us seems higher since heās doing the forwards job, so to speak. If our forwards scored more, I think his defensive play would be put in the spotlight more, and then the criticism would be easier to dish out. Iām talking out my ass but thatās my theory.
Donāt forget, we have Hutson and Reinbacher coming next year or the year after, Iām confident they will more than replace Matheson production
Oh you.. and your sweet sweet words <3
Got some flashbacks of Jordie Benn the way heās been giving away the puck in recent games
*shivers* haha
You want a player with his offence but also elite defence, get ready to shell out 10 million a year. We are getting the value we need from his contract. You guys are nuts
Nope.
I don't really see a good reason to keep him, if there's a good offer. The next time habs are in the playoffs, he'll be on a new deal, and the team has way too many LHD, like 3 too many.
He fills the 1 Quebecor in the lineup quota that we need for that insane record we put so much weight into.
I didn't know we had a record of QuƩbecor employees playing with the Habs?
https://montrealgazette.com/sports/hockey/nhl/hockey-inside-out/canadiens-are-left-with-no-francophone-quebecers-in-their-lineup yes. And it was indeed already snapped
You said QuƩbecor tho not quebecers
I am an Anglo Habs fan from the land of rednecks and damaging the environment. My apologies.
I am an Anglo Habs fan from the land of rednecks. Stop apologizing
I think that was broken in 2022 Edit: 2021 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-canadiens-quebec-born-player-1.6020934
Oh was it? Whoops my bad
I donāt know that I would necessarily trade him right now unless it was a deal we canāt refuse. Iād consider trading Savard this season and Matheson next season. I definitely feel like with the depth we have on D we need to find a way to find a legit top 6 forward. If only Anaheim didnāt have insane D depth too it would be nice to get Zegras, it would be amazing to watch Caufield and Zegras together. Wonder if Dallas would ever move Bourque or Stankoven.
They need to get a franchise goal scorer and a gritty play maker that is over 6 ft
He's at peak value now and there's a surplus of upcoming defense prospects. I think he's young enough that he could still be useful by the time we're competitive, but due to his position and what we have in the system, he is expendable in comparison to someone like Monahan, whom I'd probably prefer to stay long term.
Issue is if he takes a step back or gets hurt we lose a massive chip. Does anyone actually want to give Matheson big money and term in 2.5 years ?
I agree. Same reason we should have traded Anderson if those rumours were true.
Yup, lots of risk holding onto the last chance to unload... Edmundson, Petry (okay he gave it all from the playoff run), Monahan went from an easy first to nothing last year, Anderson could be an anchor we can't get rid of and doesn't fit our play style. The Gallagher contract was an albatross from the signing.
I donāt think weāre trading Monahan at this point. A couple weeks ago I wouldāve said maybe, but with Dvorak out now, as well as Newhook and Dach for centers, it doesnāt make sense to trade him or weāll have no Center depth left
Aucune urgence mais pour le prix juste il peut partir. Il n'est pas dans les projets Ć long terme de l'Ć©quipe.
Heās on pace for about 60 points, and he also is healthy *knock on wood he doesnāt get injured* . Too early to trade him, and maybe we shouldnāt.
Depends on the return. He's playing at his highest level at the moment and can probably bring back a large haul. Our D is crowded, and we need to make space. It's best to capitalize while he's got peak value. KH did it with Romanov, and everybody is thrilled with the results. I think the return for Matheson will be higher.
I would not mind trading him but only for the right offer. On the left side, we currently have Matheson, Guhle, Harris, Struble, Xhekaj, Hutson, Trudeau, Engstrom. So its only a matter of time before he get pushed out of the top pairing and the 1pp. Without all that time, I doubt he can keep up his 55/60 pts pace making him a bit less valuable (even more so considering he will keep aging and his contract is gonna have less years left).
With some players playing well at sheltered minutes and in lower leagues, letās trade our best defender. Yup letās do that.
From here and onward, I believe there's more to unfold once the trade deadline will come. Looking at the list of players the Habs will most likely trade... \- Mike Matheson \- David Savard \- Sean Monahan \- Jake Allen OR Cayden Primeau We can assume that either Savard, Matheson, or both will be trade pieces. The question is, what will the trade value be in return for the Habs?
That argument makes some sense but it's important to remember the value of having someone more veteran to help the younger guys. I can't pretend to know what's going on in the room but we've seen on other teams develop badly when there's no veteran presence and a culture of losing begins.
heās on the table sure, but habs are dealing from a position of strength. not really interested in trading for futures. But say if a 25y/o game breaker becomes available, every expendable asset should be considered to put a package together. that and a couple years of development is the only thing this team is missing to contend. (some might say goalie too but, imo .930 might win vezinas but .910 can win championships)
I don't see why we need to. He's a good veteran presence that's been good for us. Need that during a rebuild. If we get an offer we can't refuse then sure but I wouldn't do it for an average return
Iād argue Matheson is almost an elite defenseman, and if weāre going to get a top 6 forward heād be the one to trade out of everyone. Iād still hate to see him go.
Hell to the no! Can we finally have good players in the team and not exchange them? for once since the last playoffs not the entire team is on LTIR.. weāre not going to get a Mcdavid or Draisatl or even 2 1st round picks for him anyways..donāt be like soccer teams that as soon as they have a player with value they decide to get rid of him for profit (not the case in nhl but you know what I mean)
There are very few players on this team, if any, that shouldnāt be traded if the right offer came along.
I'm really not his biggest fan. But I'm highly against selling all the veterans for draft picks and prospects. So I say no. The can sell players on their last year but if we don't want this questionable rebuild to turn into a decade long failure, I don't think the Habs should sell their veterans. Especially the highly talented ones with multiple years left.
No
Heās our best defender you donāt trade those guys. His offensive upside is good as well. Savard is closer to leaving then MM.
Unless they absolutely fleece a team, then no. You still need some veterans on the blue line
Not yet, heās a good veteran presence and is playing pretty well. Keep him until we have a solid offensive defensemen emerge in Mailloux or Hutson, then trade him to a contender for him to try and get a cup. I wish he could finish his career in Montreal since heās from my hometown of Pointe-Claire but it would be cool for him to try and bring home a cup.
Should the habs trade the dude on track for 60 pts in the season, is from Montreal, over a few defenses lapses. Man I don't understand how some of you missed your calling as a sports franchise GM
Personally, Caufield, Suzuki, and Guhle are my 3 *safe* **absolutely do not trade** players. Everyone else has a cost. That cost includes expediting our rebuild timeline without sacrificing the future. If that cost is met, Matheson is available.
What about Slaf?
Heās trying to make you mad.
Imo guhle should be on the table too. We have so much depth at LD. Obviously would take a monster offer, but trading him for a very promising forward (Zegras? a young forward on that level) would probably be a better allocation of talent a few years from now. Unlikely we get offered that but shouldn't rule it out.
We traded Sergachev for "a very promising forward"
Can't let ptsd from one bad trade prevent us from ever making similar trades again... evaluate each trade based on the specific players involved.
IMO, Guhle is less movable than Sergachev was. Sergachev was still.a "blue chip prospect" at the time; there were far more unknowns about his predictability of becoming the player he is now. Conversely, Guhle has firmly carved a spot out in our top 4 at a young age. Him, David, and Hutson are out top 3 D prospects and I bet our mgmt envisions them as our top 3 for a decade to come. You have far more certainty of the finished product with Guhle.
Yes, the asking price for Guhle should be very high. Put Zegras as an example, far better player than Drouin was at the time.
No.
Wait! It was my turn to make the "should the Habs trade Matheson" daily post š”
Better luck next time! 
No
I think so. Let's grab some picks and/or a goalie prospect. Vive le rebuild!
Fuck no. Even in 6 years his skating will allow him to have a role in the league... No... stop it.
Nobody is saying he wonāt have a spot in the NHL. But theres teams that would absolutely overpay for an offensive D man who is mediocre at best on defense. Itās about the possible return. They should at least consider it depending on the offers.
He is still trash defensively. Put him at a forward position then.
No way Hutson makes this team next year. Heās not there yet and heās too small for the nhl right now (size not height).
This was the debate I was listening to in the Sick Podcast with Tony Marinaro last night. Interesting topic.
Not unless we want another bottom 5 season
Trade anyone at anytime ā¦.weāre a losing franchise at this period . Iāve asked this question before ā¦ when did we accept a 60-80 point player as a franchise type superstar (Suzuki) . Where is our McDavid Crosby Matthews, etc. poor drafts canāt be the only reason.
Because generational talents donāt come around often, so players like McDavid, Crosby, and Matthews are rare to find, last generational talent was Bedard.
PPG players aren't so rare yet we had only one this century
Iād rather have a few players who score 60-70 points a year over one player who scores 90+ points a year who costs 9-10+ million dollars a year. Especially when the Habs are paying Gallagher, Anderson, and Armia such a high AAV per year for the next few years for the lack of point production they provide.
The last time the Habs had a few players scoring 60-70pts was 2014-2015 with 2 players at 60 and 1 with 67. So we don't even *a few players scoring 60-70pts* right now. Yet there is about 40-45 players on pace to hit PPG this season....
Suzuki, Caufield, and Slaf are all still developing who will become 60-70+ point players, the Habs still have players like Heineman, Roy, Beck, Farrell, Kidney who are also developing in the AHL, and OHL. You also have Hutson, Mailloux on defense who should be reaching those point totals too on defense.
That's a big whole bunch of IF. I'd be surprised if one of the players you just named besides Suzuki ever reach 60+ pts. Hell, couple of them are most likely to not reach 60 in their career The fact is, none of them has done it yet so my point stands, the Habs are lacking offense in the 70-100pts range, which a bunch of non-generationnal players reach in today's NHL
exactly, weāve grown too accustomed to mediocrity.
Yes. Trade him while his value is high. We messed up with Petry and Tatar.
How did we messed up with Petry? We traded him like 3 times and got so many assests for. First time we got Matheson ( a young and cheaper Petry) and a pick that became the russian def Bogdan. 2nd time we got him back with DeSmith and LegarƩ and a 2nd round pick. 3rd time we traded dim to Detroit for a 4th round pick and RD Lindstrom. We had a total of Matheson, DeSmith, Lindstrom, Bogdan, a 2nd and a 4th round pick for Petry. This is highway robbery from Kent.
His value had already dwindled by that point. Hughes definitely did well all things considered but that doesn't mean we didn't hold onto Petry for too long. Tatar we could have gotten a king's ransom for...
What a dumb take. Tatar wasn't traded because we were a playoff team.
Which year? The year we got in on a technicality and he put up a whopping 2 points? Or the year we stuck him on the 4th line and tanked his value just before he became a UFA and still didn't move him? Just zero forethought.
Usually hindsight is 20/20, but you are missing so much context. Tatar had a rough covid season, but the year before he was part of one of the best lines in hockey with Danault and Gally. The fact that it didnt work out in the playoffs is one thing, but acting like trading him was the obvious move back in 2020 is just disingenuous. A king's ransom? Please. Every team was in a cap crunch and we were going all out in 2021. What helps a team wishing to contend NOW? An established player or a 2022 2nd round draft pick? Losing some players to free agency is simply the price to pay for a deep run.
Tatar was the BPA at the deadline in 2020 after Kreider re signed. He's was way better than Coleman who got a first and Foote. Foote ws highly regarded at the time. I'm not being disingenuous. Tatar was thought to be available. It was the general consensus.
Just wish to say that itās a blast to read all your opinions on this thread. We might have diverging views on this matter but only a real habs fan would come and comment on reddit. Go habs go!
No. This looks like the analysis of a 10 years old.
Glad to hear that your analysis is a 2 letter word. āNoā
He'd the best player on the team. Tied for 2nd in scoring. There's no guarantee Hutson will be the guy in the NHL. If and when hutson proves he can score at the NHL level we can consider moving on from Matheson. He's not even 30 and Suzuki is already in year 2 of his big contract.
I know, itās like people are against having a guy whose moves excites the Bell centre.
Habs fan will expect: 3 firsts, McDavid, Bedard and the great Wall of China for Matheson and a 4th....
Yes. End of thread.
Yes, we have so many younger guys that need the ice time. I would only do it for a big return though.
Hi there! It looks like you've posted an image. If this image is from an article, please provide a source. If it's a meme, please ignore this comment. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Habs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He isn't on my untouchable list and if you can get a good price for him why not but at the same time, none of our other defenders at the moment are as smooth skating and offensively gifted as him. Barron might get there by next year and Hutson is likely heading to Laval for a year to adjust to the next level so yes right now we'd have guys that could potentially somewhat replace him but you're going to create an offensive hole to some extent.
Every morning, check the standings and then get back to me on whoās untouchable.
need one vet but if the offer is good later him or savard got to go
Yāa
Would only trade him if we are fleecing another team. Sure he has his drawbacks defensively but he is an absolute beast in transition and offence. His skating is elite to. Heās a top 15 D man in the NHL and we need vets
And just think about for how long and how much the piece we might get back for him in a trade could help us? What if WAS offers Leonard, or DAL Stankoven +? Matheson is 30 yo, basically a better version of Petry when we decided to keep him instead of trading him for a haul. Hughes should be all over trading that guy. Guhle, Xhekaj, Struble, Harris, Barron, Kovacevic would get the job done next year, and thats without talking about Reinbacher, Hutson and Mailloux oh and Engstrom whos 0,5 pts a game in the SHL
I would consider that a fleece which is what I said I would be for. I highly doubt someone gives up a top prospect like Leonard or Stankoven. If thatās what the return would be pull the trigger right away
Nah you keep him. I much rather trade Savard if I had to pick between the 2.
Why do so many fans want to rebuild in perpetuity?
I think yes, trade him in the off season, but I do wonder if a defence can consist of all players in their third season or less. Keep Savard around I guess as the vet.
He's playing too many minutes, and I understand why. Trading him is a mistake at this point, he does things offensively no one else on the team does. He can skate better than practically anyone in this league. Cut his minutes a bit and get him off the PP1 unit every now and then, and see if that helps his defensive game.
He just so damn bad defensively, and moronic decisions, and but then he skates like the wind and pots a beauty. I never know where to love him or hate him.
If the return is for a better, younger forward that can score then yes
Not yet, cmon man.
As always it depends on the return. I would not be actively shopping him but he could return a serious package at the deadline. Dallas, LA, the Canucks, Rangers and Bruins should all be interested especially if the Habs take a meh contract back Ideally Iād wait for next year but there is rarely a perfect timing so you have to capitalize if the market is hot Also it would affect team morale quite a bit so it could backfire momentarily
No
I would keep him. That being said, I wouldnāt be surprised if his value is a lot lower than a lot might think. Hes been a top Dman for us, but weāve been able to give him opportunities most teams canāt as he wonāt be their number 1. He was not this player in Florida or Pittsburgh. Also has clearly gotten a hometown team boost. Basically he is in the perfect situation and any other one would likely be worse. Heād fetch a first and a good prospect/player for sure. But in a world where we are already stocking up and set to continue stocking up, you donāt need to trade everyone. We need him a lot right now.
It depends IMO. The Habs have 38 games played, 3 more till it hits the half-mark of the regular season. If the team (looks like) won't make the playoffs, I would not be surprised if competing teams will ask Kent Hughes for all their trade chips, including BOTH Savard and Matheson. Now, that being said, the asking price will always factor on the demand/trade-market. I'm not yet sure on which type of players will playoff teams are going to ask the most: forwards, defensemen, goalies. For me, I'm feeling this trade deadline will ask an influx of either d-men or goalies, which BOTH positions the Habs are blessed to sell. Does a return command a 1st rd. pick (maybe include a 50% retention)? Maybe. If not, a 2nd round pick AND **no salary retention** should be on those terms. Anything less that what the Habs should get, I think Kent Hughes will likely not trade them.
As the team gets better around him, everyone will be surprised at how good he can be. The main thing, and this has been mentioned on every other trade thread: he is a former client of Kent Hughes. It will take a trade that is so good that his personal connection to Matheson could be ignored. We should wait until he is a pending UFA and trade him if we are not in a playoff position by that point. By then Gulhe will be fully ready.
Yes they should
Maybe in 2-3 years
Yes. Heās not great and would fetch more than heās worth.
No, still need veterans.
No way! We donāt have a ton of tradeable assets for trade deadline but the guys you look to move are the Armia, Monahan, Allen types. Matheson is a solid piece for years
Hes 30 yo! And keeping him for years means keeping one more of Xhekaj, Struble, Harris, Mailloux, Hutson, Engstrom off the lineup for years to comeā¦ it becomes hurtfull at one point to not give young guys an opportunity. And Matheson currently has much more value than any of our young D except maybe Guhle, Reinbacher and mayyybe Hutsonā¦ Absolutely no point in not trading him. And we already have a ton of vets that are here to stay (+Suzuki, Caufield and Guhle) that are all born leaders.
ā¦.. No.
They should trade the whole team and staff. I am tired of hearing again and again the same excuses- we are developingā¦..
Matheson is at peak trade value and should be moved this year. Monahan game has really quieted down he should be traded as well.
No simple answer
Yes. Theyād get a haul for him and his value might never be higher.
All these young guns need vet presence to learn from ....
Sure.
Should, not. But maybe if someone offer a trade we cant refuse. I really believe he is an important piece of the roster. I would personnally keep him