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

[Bouboumaster]

Our d core is now 50% french

 

[Whitesnake]

In the best run organizations, results aren't the only thing you evaluate people on.

Shouldn't a best run organization...win? What makes an organization good if it's not on wins and success?

 

[Whitesnake]

Barron was a good gamble at the time knowing what we knew THEN.

Hughes still needs a win in his gambles. The 3 biggest gambles he took was that Lehky, Newhook and Dach trades. It's not looking good. Maybe he should stop gambling and invest instead...Rack the picks even more.

Package a few picks to get ahead in the 1st round.
Matheson has to go.
Savard...not sure. Depends again on the value.
Find a way for Dvorak.
Waive Primeau. Go and Get Fucale.
Trade Armia.
Package a few kids from the prospect pool with picks to get ahead even more.

 

[Kennerback]

Hughes still needs a win in his gambles. The 3 biggest gambles he took was that Lehky, Newhook and Dach trades. It's not looking good. Maybe he should stop gambling and invest instead...Rack the picks even more.

Package a few picks to get ahead in the 1st round.
Matheson has to go.
Savard...not sure. Depends again on the value.
Find a way for Dvorak.
Waive Primeau. Go and Get Fucale.
Trade Armia.
Package a few kids from the prospect pool with picks to get ahead even more.

Realistically, what is the chance we can get Fucale from Traktor? We need a replacement for Primeau ASAP.

 

[Hins77]

Crazy like people claiming we lose the trade of lehkonen, Toffoli and cie, don't understand why Kent Gugues done that. First of all, it was it to make the club worse and draft a better player. Its call "tanking".
This, and to win some cap space (Monahan came after)
Some posters are making their Bergevin and looking only the small picture instead of the whole picture of the team.
There is no buissness at all to stay in the middle of the pack, no mands land (10th to 22th position.

 

[Runner77]

It's very possible that Barron finds a niche eventually. He's still young enough.

The problem for montreal is that they have multiple guys on defense that will probably need a significant time investment and then you have to choose which of those guys you think are most worth that investment..... because you can't invest in them all. Barron became the casualty.

And now there is less pressure on the Habs to rush those young RDs in the system. Carrier allows that extra rope for them to sink or swim and to better target who is deserving of significant time investment.

 

[le_sean]

Preds fans say he can be a #4 if he has a stable partner, otherwise bottom pairing. Sounds like it should be Guhle or Xhekaj

I would go

Hutson-Guhle
Matheson-Savard
Xhekaj-Carrier

Our d core is now 50% french

You mean Québécois or Francophone? Because there’s three Québécois but only two Francophones. They are certainly not French

 

[Kennerback]

Crazy like people claiming we lose the trade of lehkonen, Toffoli and cie, don't understand why Kent Gugues done that. First of all, it was it to make the club worse and draft a better player. Its call "tanking".
This, and to win some cap space (Monahan came after)
Some posters are making their Bergevin and looking only the small picture instead of the whole picture of the team.
There is no buissness at all to stay in the middle of the pack, no mands land (10th to 22th position.

I’m willing to make mistakes if we’re moving in the right direction. I hated the Michkov pick at sick to my stomach level. I tore the organization a new one. But the winds changed direction and with Laine, Lane and Demidov, I don’t know where he’d fit. Yes, we can live in La La land and hoard a top heavy distorted lineup of BPAs which includes Michkov. But we can’t keep all these players plus have the supporting cast to win the Cup in a cap world for any length of time.

 

[Miller Time]

Shouldn't a best run organization...win? What makes an organization good if it's not on wins and success?

Is Jean Perron the best Habs coach of the past 40 years?

Was MT & Bergevin's improved win/loss record in year 1 a result of how well they ran the organization?

Confusing outcomes with effectiveness is to ignore the role that chance plays in how results play out.

Of course results play a role, arguably the most important or influential role, in assessing an organization... But sustained excellence is a much better indicator of a well run organization than any individual result or outcome.

 

[Egresch]

The best player is in MTL so what’s the problem

This season Kovacevic is better than Carrier, but we will see. You might be right in the end.

 

[River Meadow]

He was not garbage.. he was putting up great numbers in the AHL and is a toolsy right shot defenseman.

It was not evident to all of us when he got him. He looked exactly as advertised.. a raw, toolsy right shot defenseman who needed to improve his decision making under pressure.

They thought they could take that toolsy defenseman and develop out his weaknesses. It didn't work out and we moved him for a cromulent 2nd pair right shot defenseman with experience.

This seems to be more about your vitriol regarding how Barron plays hockey and less about the trade itself, so I'm going to bow out of discussing this further with you.

No player is 'evidently' bad when you trade for him, otherwise trades would never happen,

The fact of the matter is the player we traded for, thinking he would be good for the team, did not pan out.

This was a mistake and is a blemish on Hughes record however you want to slice it.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

No player is 'evidently' bad when you trade for him, otherwise trades would never happen,

The fact of the matter is the player we traded for, thinking he would be good for the team, did not pan out.

This was a mistake and is a blemish on Hughes record however you want to slice it.

That is not remotely true as teams trade for bad players all the time in exchange for assets for taking the bad player off of the other team's books. Teams also exchange "bad" players for other "bad" players with hopes that they will benefit from the change. Just because they hope that the player will not continue to be bad does not make the player anything other than bad until proven otherwise.

 

[ReHabs]

That is not remotely true as teams trade for bad players all the time in exchange for assets for taking the bad player off of the other team's books. Teams also exchange "bad" players for other "bad" players with hopes that they will benefit from the change. Just because they hope that the player will not continue to be bad does not make the player anything other than bad until proven otherwise.

Is Carrier or Barron or both of them “bad” in your paradigm?

If it’s both, then the Habs just took a chunky cap hit for a bad player. Not sure what’s worth celebrating there other than the marginal improvement between Barron and Carrier. Personally, I think the marginal improvement is a bit late coming but welcome all the same.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

This season Kovacevic is better than Carrier, but we will see. You might be right in the end.

That is a purely stat based comment and is honestly meaningless as Carrier has always been the better player. If they switched teams you would be saying that Carrier has been better than Kovacevic.

Kovacevic is playing on the 3rd pairing against the opposition's bottom lines whereas Carrier was on the second pairing and playing against better players on a team that is not playing for their coach and leaving the D hanging out to dry.

Kovacevic's only advantage is size/strength whereas Carrier scores clear superiority with his skating, puck skills and hockey IQ. Both players compete hard and pride themselves in their defensive game but Carrier is so much more polished than Kovacevic and a much better fit in Marty's read based system than Kovacevic who struggled mightily at times to move the puck during his time in Montreal.

Both these guys are flawed but Carrier is a legit NHL dman on any team whereas Kovacevic is still a #7 on some teams.

Is Carrier or Barron or both of them “bad” in your paradigm?

If it’s both, then the Habs just took a chunky cap hit for a bad player. Not sure what’s worth celebrating there other than the marginal improvement between Barron and Carrier. Personally, I think the marginal improvement is a bit late coming but welcome all the same.

Carrier is a good player who will likely continue to be a good player. Barron is a bad player who has the potential to get better and maybe become a good player but he is not trending in that direction . Barron's age, pedigree and salary are the factors that enticed Trotz to move the better player in the deal........pretty simple deal to break down, I don't understand why anybody needs me to hold their hand and walk them through this deal?

 

[Egresch]

That is a purely stat based comment and is honestly meaningless as Carrier has always been the better player.

That is why I wrote this season. Kovy is not playing 3rd pairing, they run 3 equal pairings. He has 19:48 average icetime and is +14, best in the team (same as he was with Habs). Next best D is +7.
I am not against Carrier, he might be a very good option for us, but this is just a series of bad decisions that led to this trade and it cost us few assets.

 

[Kennedys]

People are like yeah but Carrier is not really good. Barron was ? He's way worse. Not all obviously but a part of our fanbase seem to think we traded Bobby Orr for Douglas Murray

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

People are like yeah but Carrier is not really good. Barron was ? He's way worse. Not all obviously but a part of our fanbase seem to think we traded Bobby Orr for Douglas Murray

Agreed, it is such a joke.

Always the same people doing it as well. We got a legitimate 4-6 NHL dman for a player that is so mentally soft and insecure that he just could not assert himself at the NHL level and imo will be lucky to ever get to Carrier's level.

All that Hughes did is give up an Barron's upside and paid an extra 2.7 M over the next two seasons to turn Barron into a reliable NHL dman.....which is at least what he would have had to pay Barron if his game reached Carrier's level of value after next season to retain him. Hughes was almost certainly going to be in a situation where he was going to need to waive Barron and lose him for nothing. Barron was a good gamble that did not work out but ultimately we still got a solid right handed NHL defender and an asset that we needed to secure Michael Hage from dealing Lehkonen and if people think that is an atrocity then I submit that they may be more interested in finding something to complain about rather airing legitimate grievances. The fact that people are just unable to break down the trade in this sort of logical manner is annoying and I am so tired of having to read it.

 

[ReHabs]

People are like yeah but Carrier is not really good. Barron was ? He's way worse. Not all obviously but a part of our fanbase seem to think we traded Bobby Orr for Douglas Murray

Always the same people doing it as well. We got a legitimate 4-6 NHL dman for a player that is so mentally soft and insecure that he just could not assert himself at the NHL level and imo will be lucky to ever get to Carrier's level.

I don't want to speak for others but my impression is that a lot of the criticism comes from Hughes getting it wrong by acquiring Barron (in exchange for Lehklonen) in the first place given that Barron did not improve much at all from his acquisition to today.

pretty simple deal to break down, I don't understand why anybody needs me to hold their hand and walk them through this deal?

Was merely interested in your perspective because of the "bad players" paradigm you posted. Thanks.

 

[River Meadow]

That is not remotely true as teams trade for bad players all the time in exchange for assets for taking the bad player off of the other team's books. Teams also exchange "bad" players for other "bad" players with hopes that they will benefit from the change. Just because they hope that the player will not continue to be bad does not make the player anything other than bad until proven otherwise.

So we traded for a bad player and we knew it?

 

[dinodebino]

The Carrier I remember from the Piques was an intense, great first pass leader, who captained that Ben Groulx squad.

He was a bulldog back then. If you were the captain of a Ben Groulx team, you had to.

I am biased since he’s a Piques guy. So in my mind there is no doubt that this was a trade that will prove fruitful for us.

 

[morhilane]

People are like yeah but Carrier is not really good. Barron was ? He's way worse. Not all obviously but a part of our fanbase seem to think we traded Bobby Orr for Douglas Murray

Those comments are from people who aren't watching anyone playing.

My favorite comments are those who are saying "what happens if Barron turn into a star". Good for him and the Preds, but the Habs are trading the Barron of now, the one who's been stalling the last 2 season, who get sit so MSL can play the 2 inches shorter more physical dmen who's main quality at the draft was "greek god body".

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Hughes still needs a win in his gambles. The 3 biggest gambles he took was that Lehky, Newhook and Dach trades. It's not looking good. Maybe he should stop gambling and invest instead...Rack the picks even more.

Package a few picks to get ahead in the 1st round.
Matheson has to go.
Savard...not sure. Depends again on the value.
Find a way for Dvorak.
Waive Primeau. Go and Get Fucale.
Trade Armia.
Package a few kids from the prospect pool with picks to get ahead even more.

He has tons of wins. Monahan got firsts coming and going. That’s insanely good.

Kulak traded for a second - Hutson.

Toffoli for a first and Heineman

Petry for Matheson and then Petry for free and another pick trading him away again

I still disagree that the Lek trade was a loss. The 2nd we got for Lek that was leveraged with the Monahan 1st for Hage.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No player is 'evidently' bad when you trade for him, otherwise trades would never happen,

The fact of the matter is the player we traded for, thinking he would be good for the team, did not pan out.

This was a mistake and is a blemish on Hughes record however you want to slice it.

However you slice it?

We got Hage out of that trade. Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

People are like yeah but Carrier is not really good. Barron was ? He's way worse. Not all obviously but a part of our fanbase seem to think we traded Bobby Orr for Douglas Murray

I don’t like giving up on young talent but something had to give.

We’ve got three young RDs coming soon. They weren’t all going to be here. They made the eval and Baron was sent packing. We got what we needed in the form of a steady guy who can eat minutes. It was badly needed on the right side and makes us a lot better back there. Also opens the door to trading Matheson.

 

[417]

Hughes still needs a win in his gambles. The 3 biggest gambles he took was that Lehky, Newhook and Dach trades. It's not looking good. Maybe he should stop gambling and invest instead...Rack the picks even more.

I don't know if it's not looking good, too early to judge with Newhook and Dach and once more, if Hage hits it's all moot, but again, that's the nature of the game. When you're a shitty team and you're trading for players who aren't established and it's mostly a "upside" trade, that's what happens...it's really not any different from the draft.

They took a gamble on Slaf, on Hutson...seems to be working out OK.

Cheques and Balances at the end of the day.

Package a few picks to get ahead in the 1st round.
Matheson has to go.
Savard...not sure. Depends again on the value.
Find a way for Dvorak.
Waive Primeau. Go and Get Fucale.
Trade Armia.
Package a few kids from the prospect pool with picks to get ahead even more.

I don't anticipate any of these players to be with the Habs much longer, though the Primeau/Fucale is an odd one.