this would be great but idk if Columbus bites

Since when is matheson a top 4 dman

Either him or pettersson take your pick

this may be surprising, but he hasn't been god awful on the Pens this year; stepped up for Dumo

Just bc a guy steps up for someone for a little doesnt make him just as good. Bc he is doing better hes now an nhl dman. I would take petterson over matheson any day of the week even if they had the same contract.

Sorry, but that’s a huge no from Columbus. Matheson would be 3rd pair at best and Jankowski would likely be 3rd or 4th line and play the same role as Folingo or Robinson. Honestly it’s really hard to see why Columbus would even consider this trade.

this is the kind of comment from someone not watching him play.... for like the last 2 years.
His last year his 5v5 play in FL he was a 49% corsi and FF and a -3 getting 52.5% start in the D zone.
Those aren't the kind of stats from a guy who isn't playing well and he's playing even better this year as he continues to build on his game.
You want to hate on the guy but he's a better player than you think. Yes he had a down year in 18-19....but that has long past. He's a legit 2LD which is why he got a 4.8 mil contract.

honestly I think the value is fair, not that I think CBJ needs another defenseman, but the value itself is fair.
But then again I'm someone who thinks people over value Domi. Having watched enough of him in CBJ this year, I don't see things turning around for him and CBJ and they are probably going to move him eventually.

Exactly, if he played best at centre, and that's where we need help, it seems like a no brainer. And no offense to others making comments about matheson, he is playing really well right now, he is way more experienced than the current 2 and 3 LD on columbus, just because you think he's not as good at the game, doesn't mean his other intangibles may not prove useful i.e. can you trust someone to play under the pressure of post season hockey and such.

Np you can have him at your 2LD. Id be looking forward to playing you. And as for getting the contract bobrovskys making 10mil, skinners making 9, karlssons making 11, vlasics making 7, whats your point?

at one point all those players played well enough to earn it. The difference is a lot of those guys are old. Bob is 32, EK 30 and injured often, Vlasic is 33. Matheson is 27. Hading 31 year old bob big money was a mistake waiting to happen. But You are talking about a guy who's contract ends when he's 32.
Huge difference on a guy who is just 27 making 4.8 million and playing well vs 33 year old Vlasic making 7 for multiple more years. Come tell me you would take Clasic 6 years ago at that rate if his contract ended at 32.
This isn't a guy who's career is over, he's got at least 3-4 years in him at this point before you will see the decline you got on these other guys.
That contract isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. It's just further internet sensationalism.

My point with those contracts wasnt whether it was a good idea to give it to them, it was as you said so well, at one point all those players played well enough to earn it. Yet now i dont think anyone would say any of them are even in the same rink as those contracts. So just bc they played well enough to earn them at some point doesnt mean they are good players.

Lets be clear about this because you are comparing apples to oranges.
you want to compare aging guys some with injury histories to a guy who's 27 and has a reasonable contract and say "they aren't good players".
4.8 million for a 2LD, is not 9 million for a winger, or 7 mill/11 million for a defense man, or 10 million for a goalie. So lets Just start there. Matheson is in an average range for a 2LD. None of those guys are in an average like that. None. They all got paid like the top of their position.
B. All of those guys but skinner, are 32+ or injury history that has wrecked them guys. That's not Matheson. He's 27. Perfectly healthy.
C. "mean they are good players", dude, you haven't watched him on the ice. That is clear. Which is half the point here. "good player". Having 1 bad year doesn't make you a "bad player" either. You seem to have trouble figuring that part out. His year last year in FL was not "bad" it was average. His year this year is better. So you got a guy taking 2LD minutes, playing at least average, on a basically average salary.
None of that says bad contract. The guy has clearly had more good to average years than bad years at this point. And it's not like those years are in his past. Those better years are right now.
D. nor does his contract run till he's like 35+ the some of the other people on this list, if not all of them. His contract ends at 32. You know, just about the time guys start to decline and fall.

It is a much more telling story when you play well enough at 23 or 24 to earn a good contract to have the talent to play well at 27-28, than it is to earn your money at 28 and play well at 32 mid contract.
For a lot of players 26-27 is the age they start to hit their best hockey, up till their early 30s where it drops off. The only guy you listed there in that range is skinner.
so no, those contracts aren't even close comparable. Yes playing well at a young age does mean you have the talent to do it in your mid to late 20s. It's simply a massively different situation to pay a guy when he's hitting peak hockey and then say oh look when he's 32+ he's not good anymore. It must mean that's true for all players when they have 1 down year.