Confirmed with Link: Alexandre Carrier acquired from the Predators in exchange for Justin Barron

Andrei79

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
16,732
31,351
Barron was really, really bad, but I'm still surprised they traded him away after what they gave up for him. Hughes is also leaning heavily within the ex-Quartexx clients and I'm not sure I like it. The one thing I wonder though is... why trade Kovacevic then ? What was the point only to trade Barron later ?
 

Adam Michaels

Registered User
Jun 12, 2016
79,106
130,202
Montreal
Another positive is that there's no question that Carrier is a full-time NHL'er. Barron unfortunately couldn't hold onto a spot, which effectively made Savard the only RD in the line-up most nights. Now, instead of being forced to have 2 left shooting defensemen in your line-up, you at least have 2 RDs and will only need to play 1 LD on his off-side.

The only thing now is will they keep Savard with Xhekaj? Which would then make Carrier either play with Hutson or Guhle.
 

The Great Weal

Phil's Pizza
Jan 15, 2015
55,694
71,898
I liked Carrier last year. He's ideally on the bottom pair, but he did a decent job with Lauzon when Nashville didn't ice Josi-McDonagh. That being said it seems like he's having a rough year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrei79

le_sean

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
42,280
45,766
I know nothing of Carrier. Can someone fill me in?
Just a solid 2nd pairing defensive RD

1734577304122.png
 

Habsrule

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
3,608
2,594
Barron is a 6/7 defenceman while Carrier is a 5. That part is an upgrade.

Barron makes 1.2 million for one more year and Carrier makes 3.75 for two more years.

The Habs upgraded but also added 2.55 million on the cap.


Now if you look at it as Carrier is a two year stop gap on the right side of defense until Mailloux and Reinbacher are fully ready then it is a good trade.
 

Boss Man Hughes

Registered User
Mar 15, 2022
18,601
12,740
Barron was really, really bad, but I'm still surprised they traded him away after what they gave up for him. Hughes is also leaning heavily within the ex-Quartexx clients and I'm not sure I like it. The one thing I wonder though is... why trade Kovacevic then ? What was the point only to trade Barron later ?
Probably because they were still evaluating Barron and giving him a chance to improve. And likley decided there is just not enough hockey sense there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Takeru

dinodebino

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
16,441
29,695
Barron was really, really bad, but I'm still surprised they traded him away after what they gave up for him. Hughes is also leaning heavily within the ex-Quartexx clients and I'm not sure I like it. The one thing I wonder though is... why trade Kovacevic then ? What was the point only to trade Barron later ?
Because shit happens?

Nothing is linear in a rebuild.
 

sampollock

Registered User
Jun 7, 2008
43,843
24,027
in my home
Barron is a 6/7 defenceman while Carrier is a 5. That part is an upgrade.

Barron makes 1.2 million for one more year and Carrier makes 3.75 for two more years.

The Habs upgraded but also added 2.55 million on the cap.


Now if you look at it as Carrier is a two year stop gap on the right side of defense until Mailloux and Reinbacher are fully ready then it is a good trade.
Stop gap which he he is defensive
Seems smart
 

The Last Red

Registered User
Jan 2, 2022
1,627
1,848
Barron was really, really bad, but I'm still surprised they traded him away after what they gave up for him. Hughes is also leaning heavily within the ex-Quartexx clients and I'm not sure I like it. The one thing I wonder though is... why trade Kovacevic then ? What was the point only to trade Barron later ?
It’s okay to correct mistakes.
 

Erika

Registered User
Jan 9, 2007
3,004
183
Gatineau
A 5th - 6th defenceman, -14 on the worst NHL team this season... yikes

That's pretty terrible if you ask me...

This Carrier dude looks like a worst version of Josh Gorges
 
  • Haha
Reactions: EveryDay

Habano

Allez les Bleus, (Blancs, Rouges)
May 18, 2012
5,830
8,208
Bad choices were made. Kovacevic, to me, was a much better D-men than Harris, Barron and to a lesser extend Struble. With all the young D-men, the stability he brought was much more valuable according to me than to let him go to test out how the younglings could do without their floaters in the big pool.
Maybe, and I wasn't a huge Barron fan either but, for me, this is an insignificant trade.
 

NobleSix

High Tech Low-Life.
Apr 20, 2013
17,217
16,818
CyberSpace
www.ilovebees.co
Good trade. Barron wasn't developing and we need another NHL defenseman who can actually defend.

You can only have so many offensive defenseman in your lineup and when you're a liability defensively and don't produce offense... there's just no spot. With Mailloux coming up through the system Barron is easily expendable.
 

Wats

Error 520
Mar 8, 2006
42,251
7,011
Barron was really, really bad, but I'm still surprised they traded him away after what they gave up for him. Hughes is also leaning heavily within the ex-Quartexx clients and I'm not sure I like it. The one thing I wonder though is... why trade Kovacevic then ? What was the point only to trade Barron later ?
I do like that it didn't take too long for them to say: Barron was not what we hoped for let's get the most value we can for him.

Not really a fan of another undersized D as a return but he's likely better defensively than Barron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrei79

Ad

Ad

Ad