NHL
Why Did I Vote Hutson Over Celebrini for Calder?
Why didn’t I vote Macklin Celebrini for the Calder Trophy?
Defenseman Lane Hutson of the Montreal Canadiens was announced as the winner today. Goaltender Dustin Wolf of the Calgary Flames was second and center Celebrini of the San Jose Sharks was a close third.
Here’s the official PHWA vote:
Final voting results for the 2024-25 Calder Trophy: pic.twitter.com/nsK0fyUj0g
— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) June 10, 2025
Here’s the voter-by-voter breakdown.
For the record, my vote was, in this order, Hutson, Celebrini, Wolf, Matvei Michkov, and the San Jose Sharks’ Will Smith.
I thought Celebrini and Wolf were very close, so I have no issue with Wolf getting second.
Celebrini had a marvelous season, his 25 goals and 63 points second or tied for second among all rookies. In the second half of the season, he also became the San Jose Sharks’ No. 1 center and handled being the focal point of his team’s offense competently. At 19:47 a night, he was the only rookie forward to average over 17 minutes a night.
Wolf led the Flames to the doorstep of the playoffs, falling short only because of two less regulation wins than the St. Louis Blues. Wolf was the only true rookie starter in the league last year, and behind the same team, had 29 wins to back-up Daniel Vladar’s 12, and a .910 Save % to Vladar’s .898.
So here’s why I voted Hutson No. 1.
There are the basic counting stats: Hutson, as a defenseman, led all rookies with 66 points. He became the first rookie blueliner since Nicklas Lidstrom in 1991-92 to surpass 60 points.
Hutson, like Wolf, also were key drivers to their team’s success. The Canadiens squeaked into the playoffs with Huston as their clear-cut No. 1 offensive and power play defenseman. The second-most prolific Habs rearguard was Mike Matheson’s 31 points, underscoring Hutson’s importance to a decent-but-not-great NHL roster.
I didn’t hold the Sharks’ lack of success against Celebrini — he showed a promising two-way game and wasn’t putting up empty-calorie points, and I absolutely think he is a winning player — but give Hutson and Wolf credit for their starring roles on playoff-caliber squads.
The biggest reason why I voted Hutson?
Critics want to call him a one-dimensional defenseman, and while he certainly leans offense, he averaged 22:44 a night and impacted the Canadiens in all three zones. He was the only blueliner to average over 19 minutes a night and was Montreal’s No. 2 most-used defender. You don’t play that much and get away with being just an offensive specialist.
Underscoring his overall impact on all three zones, at mid-season, I compared Macklin Celebrini and Hutson’s micro-stat cases for the Calder Trophy.
According to Stathletes, in All Situations, Hutson was elite (and remained so by the end of the season) in Assisted Chances, OZ Possession Time, and Successful Controlled Zone Entries. So it’s not as simple as Hutson racking up empty-calorie assists, he dominated the puck in the offensive zone, set up his teammates in the most dangerous areas, and also gained the zone at levels comparable not just to the top rookies, but to the best defensemen in the league like Quinn Hughes and Cale Makar and company.
The smaller Hutson isn’t a great one-on-one defender, but he was a willing one, and he also was key in getting the Habs out of the defensive zone. He led their defense in Stretch Carries (a successful carry of 30 or more feet) and was second to Matheson in successful DZ passes.
In all, Hutson played top-pairing minutes, reached offensive heights for a rookie defenseman that we haven’t seen in over three decades, drove his team to the playoffs, and under the hood, did a number of winning things at an elite defenseman’s level.
Generally speaking, it’s harder to be a top rookie defenseman than a top rookie center. It’s just the nature of the jobs.
Last year, Connor Bedard won the Calder Trophy, but not because of my vote. Brock Faber, granted more of an all-around defenseman, was the No. 1 blueliner as a rookie for a decent Minnesota Wild squad that missed the playoffs by a wide margin.
Rookie defensemen just don’t do what Hutson did in 2024-25 and Faber in 2023-24, which is why they were both my Calder votes.
Totally fair and I agree. I would still take Celebrini over Hutson or Wolf, but that’s because of the potential, I feel like most league execs would feel the same way. But the award is for the best rookie season and Hutson had the best one
Sheng,
I had the first three in the same order for mostly same the reasons. I can easily see Celebrini ending his career with more hardware than either of the other two (maybe even combined), but this season they were more critical to their team’s success and had remarkable seasons.
Hutson was absolutely a deserving winner and Wolf had a tremendous season as well. Celebrini is in good company — and also agree he’ll likely have the best career. Probably by a bunch. Not sure how anyone had Macklin below 3, though. Guess they didn’t have a good sample and to be fair, some of the Sharks national broadcasts were abysmal games.
Nice to see Will Smith getting some appreciation from a bunch of voters. Looks like several 5ths and an occasional 4th
My gripe with the final tallies comes down to Celebrini’s age. What he did as the youngest player in the league on a nightly basis was so impressive, and the fact that he ended with a majority of third place votes and a few outside the top three really hammers home how infrequently east coast reporters catch the late games.
Forget which trophy it is and the exact wording , but there was a stat about ‘zero winners west of the Rockies’, implying that no one stayed up to watch west coast games.
Might have been the Norris, from 1987-2015, only 1 player Rob Blake, won a Norris who played west of StL/CHI
From 1989-2015, only Vezina winner not in east or central time zone was Kipper in CGY.
To be blunt, I’m not fussed about player awards. Voting is what it is and I get why west coast games aren’t getting seen by east coast voters.
Starting with the 1981-82 season when it changed (prior to that it was just the team with fewest goals allowed), Grant Fuhr (87-88, Edmonton), Kiprusoff (05-06, Calgary), and Flower (shortened 2021 season, FV) are the only three goalies to have won the Vezina from Mountain or Pacific time. That said, prior to the change it was only ever ET/CT teams, but that wasn’t due to viewership since it was purely numerical. Of course there were only 14 seasons between the Original Six era (which had no PT/MT teams) and the rule change, and there weren’t many PT/MT teams during that… Read more »
My gripe with the final tallies comes down to Celebrini’s age. Description of the award, that has no bearing on the vote. It is impressive, but rookie of the year is just the best rookie, no matter the age (up to 26). Same argument could’ve been used against Faber (21), Bedard was also an impressive 18-year-old. I didn’t vote in 2016, but I would’ve voted for Panarin (24). In 2021, I voted for Kaprizov (23). I do agree, I don’t get the votes outside of the top-three and especially the fifth-place vote. You can strain a case for Michkov over… Read more »
Out of curiosity, do you factor in prior games played? For instance, there’s been a lot of Sharks fans who suggested Couture would’ve won in 2011, but he’d played the maximum number of regular season games in the 09-10 season (25) that he could play while still being eligible, plus 15 playoff games. This season had something similar with Stankoven (not saying he should’ve won or been a finalist, just an example). I’m sure that many of the voters don’t factor that in and just treat it as “the rules say he’s eligible so he’s eligible”, but at least some… Read more »
Others might, but I don’t. It’s just about the season I’m being asked to judge. That’s why I don’t care about age either.
Looking back, I’m fairly certain I would’ve voted Couture over Skinner because of his all-around usage that year. I probably would’ve had Crawford, Subban, or Carlson over third-place Grabner too.
Not all of the criteria people use to make their decisions is included in the award description. Age is a consideration mentioned often by other voting members of the PHWA.
I have no issue with how you voted. You watched Macklin play 70 times. You know the same cannot be said for your colleagues east of the Rockies.
Putting Gauthier above Celebrini should be cause to have your vote revoked. That is indefensible. But otherwise, this isn’t something I’m going to expend any energy on. I doubt Macklin cares much and I’m sure he’s happy for Lane.
Your vote is logical and true, but if you had said ” Macklin is amazing and I am a homer, so he is my choice”, I would be ok with that too.
The weirdest thing to me are the three people who didn’t include Wolf in their top five (Wayne Fish from Allentown Morning Call, Sammi Silber from Hockey News (WSH), and Adam Denker from Hockey News (DAL)), the one person who had him at fifth (Glen Dreyfuss of Davy Jones’ Locker Room), and the one person who had Celebrini at fifth (Justin Guerriero from Pittsburgh Tribune Review). Gauthier was generally the extra person who got ahead of them on those few with Jackson Blake, Logan Stankoven, and Smith getting ahead for a few of them. It’s worth noting, all of Wolf’s… Read more »
I would have voted for Wolf over Hutson, but man, all three had great seasons (Michkov and Smith weren’t far behind). Great season for rookies and Sharks having 2 is pretty damn exciting!
Hopefully Askarov is up there in votes next year (is he still eligible?)
Yeah he will be eligible
I wouldn’t trade Macklin or Smith for any of the other guys on the list. That’s all that matters to me. I wouldn’t trade Macklin for the entire rest of the list.
100%.
Sheng made this point on a podcast and yes it’s all that matters 100%.
Macklin, definitely not. Smith for Hutson, I’m in.
Oh wow, not me. Sorry but Hutson was a liability in the playoffs. A tiny PP specialist isn’t all that helpful in the playoffs if they’re getting buried 5v5.
Both Hutson and Smith are rookies and will usually not do too well in the playoffs, lack of experience. But our need at D for a player like Hutson and his skills would contribute greatly to our team. It’s all hypothetical……….
The Krieder deal should be interesting to see what Anaheim has to give up if they are taking on the whole salary number. It’s the type of deal the Sharks could do in spades if the cost is palatable. I’d rather see them go get younger players they could add to a championship core, but for a low cost, this type of bridge player could work well for a couple years
He’s a great candidate for a bounce back season. Wouldn’t want to give up anything more than a 4th though if even that. Maybe Gushins rights?
Old guys are not great candidates to bounce back. They are great candidates to be a year older and that much worse.
I’m not saying Krieder in particular, but I’m assuming there are probably 20 deals out there like this and one might be palatable. I’m interested in anything that makes this team better
EDIT: Not really responsive to your post.
But I’d take most of the other similar options over Kreider in particular.
One thing I read today is that he had at least 3 injuries and vertigo last year, so if the price is right, I’d be interested in seeing if he could rebound. The guy played 4 Nations last year, wasn’t the most deserving team member, but he’s well-regarded and there could be a leadership aspect to him being on the team.
He’s going to be a Duck, so who cares? But still
I don’t really care one way of the other on the guy but, Whew… glad you’re not in charge.😉
Yeah he is a great candidate for a bounce back despite his age due to mitigating circumstances this last season. Pundits much more in the know than I have already penciled him in for a bounce back season. Thanks for playing though. 😜
Kreider is washed
I don’t disagree, he’s dropped off a cliff. But if you’ve been wearing dirty socks for a week, a clean pair with a hole or two starts to look pretty good.
I do. If he’s recovered from the vertigo he would immediately be the best natural goal scorer on the team.
This is such a deep and wise statement haha
So dumb. In 3 of his last 4 season he had 36 or more goals. He had a medical condition and injuries last season that affected him and still scored 22. Seriously, just being contrarian as a personality makes you type the dumbest shit sometimes.
It is inarguably true that you can expect 34-35 year old hockey players to be getting worse, not better or back to what they once were. What’s happened here is you heard Kreider come up and it was a name you hadn’t considered and you got a rush from the dopamine hit of something other than Noah Dobson or Porter Martone and that caused you to have a favorable impression of the idea because it gave you that nice little upper. I am in control of my hormones and emotions and instead took a realistic view of things. You had… Read more »
No, you dumb shit. You’ve yet again manufactured another straw man argument to declare victory that has nothing to do with what I said originally. No one said his career was on an upward trajectory overall. “He’s a great candidate for a bounce back season“. That was the premise. last season he had medical challenges that cratered his production. If healthy again, he absolutely IS a potential 30+ goal scorer again. That’s it. You’re a moron.
I mean, bouncing back means getting better results than you just had. As in, becoming better than you were most recently.
But you make a good point about his injury excuses. Because what happens when you get older is you start getting hurt, but then you’re like “This sucks!” and then the universe is like “Oh sorry, didn’t realize you weren’t going to like that. You won’t get hurt anymore. Just let us know when it’s convenient for your body to start breaking down. Again, sorry. Really want to emphasize the sorry aspect.”
bounce back by definition means back to a more typical season. Clearly that’s far too difficult for you to follow since I guess you’re like 12? So yeah as usual you have nothing of value to contribute. 😘
That’s not what bouncing back means.
It doesn’t mean improve over your most recent performance? Of course it does. Just because it ALSO means return to a prior level of performance doesn’t exclude it from meaning you must improve over what you just did.
Your bird brains don’t want to face that fact of the implication of what it means to bounce back means you have to perform better than your most recent performance and that that isn’t something to count on with 34 year olds.
The honesty is too much for you.
It is with this particular 34 year old. Hence the use of the phrase “bounce back”. Also I said he was a great candidate not a mortal lock.
Don’t think we don’t see you trying to change your angle yet again to modify your straw man argument.
Kinda funny how you painted yourself into a corner and your replies just keep getting more nonsensical. Tweet tweet dumbass!😜🤣🤣🤣
My replies have been extremely consistent. I set aside my “never smarten up a dummy” policy for you because there are no stakes to it, smartening you up won’t cost me anything. But I did that also knowing it was likely useless, dummies don’t really listen.
34 year olds whose production declined and/or who had injuries are not great candidates to bounce back. Never said that you said he was a lock. They are bad candidates to bounce back, every single time.
Reading this line of comments from you is like watching a fish flail on the dock that doesn’t know it’s already dead. 😵😜🤣🤣
Seravalli at DFO just did a whole segment of what a great bounce back candidate Krieder.🤔
You can’t possibly think that means anything good for your position. There is no lazier and dumber and more worthy of contempt class of people than pundits. Hockey or otherwise.
Just saw Kurtz in Philly had Michkov 2nd and Celebrini 3rd. His thought process seemed a little weak.
“I had him second over Celebrini. Why?
– More goals/led all rookies
– Played on a better team: Flyers were still 24 points better than Sharks
– Played in 80 games. Yes, durability matters. Saying Celebrini would have had more points if he stayed healthy is a hollow argument to me”
This is exactly why it’s silly to get worked up about this stuff. Sportswriters mostly suck. Mostly. Like a lot. They barely have basic mastery of the English language, let alone the ability to craft reasoned arguments in support of their biased positions.
Again, I wouldn’t trade Macklin for 20 Michkovs and no NHL GM would either. Gotta let the rest roll like water off a duck’s back.
The overall result is acceptable. Now let’s go win some Cups.
“20”? I would do that. 😜
If people are saying Marner can’t win in the playoffs, what about Michkov?
I would trade some of my 20 Michkovs for other pieces. 😜
Great sportswriters are dwindling in direct correlation with newspapers. I worked on the sports desk at a medium sized newspaper and I promise you, the veteran reporters working the Bruins, Red Sox and Patriots beats were absolutely brilliant writers and highly intelligent, thoughtful people. But that newspaper was also actively dying and offering buyouts that only the reporters in their prime took. Very few people want to go to journalism school today, and the majority of the modern sportswriting sphere is made up of bloggers and beat reporters who didn’t study it in school, who haven’t taken law of the… Read more »
Good thing AI’s here to suck all the remaining critical thinking and trust verification out of both sides of the journalist-readership equation.
Just in time to put a punctuation mark on this garbled, run on sentence of a species.
Kurtz has always been a fuckin putz.
Really good stuff with Chris Peters, Cam Robinson and … Chris Pronger
Among his insights — it takes 300 NHL games, the chip on the shoulder, etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b0osI3hNN0
because that’s a helluva season for a stick figure