Confirmed Trade: [MTL/NSH] Alexandre Carrier for Justin Barron

[Treb]

It seems like you’re rationalizing things in retrospect. Not a mind reader but Colorado had Makar when they drafted him, so you’re safe there about not projecting him as a top pairing D. But he was taken with a 1st so you can probably expect there was some hope he’d be a 2nd pairing. When he was traded, Montreal didn’t have anything close to a Makar. But it kind of seems like a feeble assumption to think they traded Lehkonen for a guy they were hoping would be a 3rd pairing D.

You’re assuming I’m referring to Michkov when I’ve been banging the drum about Montreal needing the high end 1C. That was a F heavy draft, no?

I don't know what kind of value you think Lehkonen had, but the majority of people (Habs fans and others) were saying Barron+2nd was solid value. Barron disappointed, but a prospect is a prospect, it's always a gamble. At the time of the trade, Barron was seen as a future #4-6 D, which has no impact on whether Montreal would select a potential top pair D in the 2023 draft.

What #1C would you be talking about? I see a bunch of potential wingers and 2C drafted after Reinbacher, but all the blue chips Cs were drafted before. I don't think any of Leonard, Danielson or Dvorsky will be a better C than Suzuki.

I don't understand your obsession in having a loser in this trade.

 

[biturbo19]

I don't know what kind of value you think Lehkonen had, but the majority of people (Habs fans and others) were saying Barron+2nd was solid value. Barron disappointed, but a prospect is a prospect, it's always a gamble. At the time of the trade, Barron was seen as a future #4-6 D, which has no impact on whether Montreal would select a potential top pair D in the 2023 draft.

What #1C would you be talking about? I see a bunch of potential wingers and 2C drafted after Reinbacher, but all the blue chips Cs were drafted before. I don't think any of Leonard, Danielson or Dvorsky will be a better C than Suzuki.

I don't understand your obsession in having a loser in this trade.

Yeah. With hindsight, it's easy to say the Lehkonen deal was bad...but at the time, he was very much seen as a sort of middle-6 winger at best. Traded for a pretty generous package.


Just turns out that Barron wasn't all that good and they didn't necessarily use that 2nd to maximum advantage. But that's what happens with futures deals. Sometimes they don't pan out.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Are you talking about that supplemental draft where the Habs had first choice of a Quebec born player?

That draft produced one decent player in it's entire existence (Rejean Houle) because any player worth a damn was already signed to what was called a "C-Form" before those drafts would take place.

That draft is a common myth for producing the pipeline of talent that came through the organization.

You're absolutely right about the players available in the draft prior to the first universal amateur draft, but you forgot about Marc Tardif, who, in my opinion, was a better player than Houle...

 

[BLONG7]

I don't know what kind of value you think Lehkonen had, but the majority of people (Habs fans and others) were saying Barron+2nd was solid value. Barron disappointed, but a prospect is a prospect, it's always a gamble. At the time of the trade, Barron was seen as a future #4-6 D, which has no impact on whether Montreal would select a potential top pair D in the 2023 draft.

What #1C would you be talking about? I see a bunch of potential wingers and 2C drafted after Reinbacher, but all the blue chips Cs were drafted before. I don't think any of Leonard, Danielson or Dvorsky will be a better C than Suzuki.

I don't understand your obsession in having a loser in this trade.

If..........the guys go back and look at Lekky's stats, he had two seasons he couldn;t score in a soccer net....he had a huge goal in the playoffs, yes, but he was just ok with us.
It was a good gamble, based on what we need, and the rebuild having just started.

Lekky was not Zach Hyman, ask leaf fans how painful that one was.

 

[JianYang]

You're absolutely right about the players available in the draft prior to the first universal amateur draft, but you forgot about Marc Tardif, who, in my opinion, was a better player than Houle...

Well I learned something new then. I didn't know tardiff came from that source.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Well I learned something new then. I didn't know tardiff came from that source.

Sam Pollock was a genius for persuading his colleagues to allow him to keep that privilege in the 1st year of the universal amateur draft.

And to debunk the myth that the privilege allowed the Canadiens to dominate the NHL, read the two parts of the article linked below:

The Truth Behind the Canadiens' "First Choice of Quebecers" Rule: Part 1

The Truth Behind the Canadiens' "First Choice of Quebecers" Rule: Part 2

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Not a zero sum game. Not sure how to explain that to you.

You can rationalize every bad trade by saying its not a zero sum game.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

You can rationalize every bad trade by saying its not a zero sum game.

What's the logic behind that word salad ?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You can rationalize every bad trade by saying its not a zero sum game.

Uh…. no.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Do you not realize that Lehkonen was viewed as a third/fourth liner around the league? It was considered a massive overpay from Colorado. Most said we'd be lucky to get a third round pick by itself.

There were no first line talents aside from michkov left when the Habs picked. The forward top end talent were picked 1-4.

You're being intentionally obtuse trying to create a narrative that isn't there.

Go look up what Hagel was traded for just a few days before. Then come stepping up with your lame rhetoric again.

 

[John Mandalorian]

I don't know what kind of value you think Lehkonen had, but the majority of people (Habs fans and others) were saying Barron+2nd was solid value. Barron disappointed, but a prospect is a prospect, it's always a gamble. At the time of the trade, Barron was seen as a future #4-6 D, which has no impact on whether Montreal would select a potential top pair D in the 2023 draft.

What #1C would you be talking about? I see a bunch of potential wingers and 2C drafted after Reinbacher, but all the blue chips Cs were drafted before. I don't think any of Leonard, Danielson or Dvorsky will be a better C than Suzuki.

I don't understand your obsession in having a loser in this trade.

I’m not trying to retroactively bump up his trade value and say the Avs should have traded more. But Avs are/were data driven and he had good analytics. It was well known at the time the Avs had been scouting him. And again, look at what Hagel got a few days before.

 

[SlafySZN]

Yeah. With hindsight, it's easy to say the Lehkonen deal was bad...but at the time, he was very much seen as a sort of middle-6 winger at best. Traded for a pretty generous package.


Just turns out that Barron wasn't all that good and they didn't necessarily use that 2nd to maximum advantage. But that's what happens with futures deals. Sometimes they don't pan out.

They did use the 2nd in their advantage. It helped trading up in the draft to get Michael Hage.

 

[Ezpz]

Go look up what Hagel was traded for just a few days before. Then come stepping up with your lame rhetoric again.

Hagel had two extra years at 1.1 and had already beaten lehkonens career high by quite a bit in only 55 games. If hagel were an expiring rfa he would have been significantly less valuable to Tampa.

Not to mention one to one hagel is a better player. You're comparing your current view of Lehkonen to the lowest possible view of hagel. Lehkonen was not seen as a huge get going into the trade deadline and no amount of meandering logic is going to make it retroactively true.

 

[Treb]

I’m not trying to retroactively bump up his trade value and say the Avs should have traded more. But Avs are/were data driven and he had good analytics. It was well known at the time the Avs had been scouting him. And again, look at what Hagel got a few days before.

We know Lehkonen is a good player, but all you just said is irrelevant to his trade value 2.5 years ago.

We know the Avs did a good job targeting him when his league-wide value was lower than the value he has now.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Yeah. With hindsight, it's easy to say the Lehkonen deal was bad...but at the time, he was very much seen as a sort of middle-6 winger at best. Traded for a pretty generous package.


Just turns out that Barron wasn't all that good and they didn't necessarily use that 2nd to maximum advantage. But that's what happens with futures deals. Sometimes they don't pan out.

What are you talking about? they used the 2nd round pick to get a far better player than Lehkonen Barron or the player that was picked (George). Hage should be a 1b centre.

Go look up what Hagel was traded for just a few days before. Then come stepping up with your lame rhetoric again.

Your post is ridiculous. Hagel was always a better player than Lehkonen. Lehkonen was shit offensively and is still overrated because he plays on a line he shouldn't be on. Also value can be skewed when an idiot GM is involved in a trade.

 

[Miller Time]

Go look up what Hagel was traded for just a few days before. Then come stepping up with your lame rhetoric again.

What a terrible comp. If you can't understand why Hagel had considerably more value in trade at the time it speaks volumes about the flaws in your assessments.

 

[OldCraig71]

There is less drama in our end when comparing Carrier to Barron which we desperately needed. He defends well, makes a good first pass, and plays a steady low-event game. It's only 2 games but his impact is very visible.

 

[JianYang]

There is less drama in our end when comparing Carrier to Barron which we desperately needed. He defends well, makes a good first pass, and plays a steady low-event game. It's only 2 games but his impact is very visible.

Too early to say much defensively. I've seen players step into a situation and play well early on, but you need a larger stretch of games to see what you really got. It was also 2 games against a bad red wings team.

I will say that I like his motor, though.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Your post is ridiculous. Hagel was always a better player than Lehkonen. Lehkonen was shit offensively and is still overrated because he plays on a line he shouldn't be on. Also value can be skewed when an idiot GM is involved in a trade.

Thank you.

 

[OldCraig71]

Too early to say much defensively. I've seen players step into a situation and play well early on, but you need a larger stretch of games to see what you really got. It was also 2 games against a bad red wings team.

I will say that I like his motor, though.

I just said it's only 2 games but his impact is visible.

 

[JianYang]

I just said it's only 2 games but his impact is visible.

Just putting into context that both games happened to be against a bad team, so I put even less emphasis on it than I normally would.

 

[OldCraig71]

Just putting into context that both games happened to be against a bad team, so I put even less emphasis on it than I normally would.

We aren't in a position to call opposing teams bad lol. You should have said a team comparable to ours if I am nitpicking your post as you did mine.

 

[JianYang]

We aren't in a position to call opposing teams bad lol. You should have said a team comparable to ours if I am nitpicking your post as you did mine.

I've never said the Habs are good. Shouldn't that be a given?

When you play other teams that are not very good, you have a better chance of looking better than if you play a team that is firing on all cylinders and primed to win today.

 

[OldCraig71]

I've never said the Habs are good. Shouldn't that be a given?

When you play other teams that are not very good, you have a better chance of looking better than if you play a team that is firing on all cylinders and primed to win today.

You know what, you are 100 percent correct.

 

[malcb33]

The revisionist history in this thread is hilarious.

It seems like a lot of people only started watching Lehkonen after he was traded to the AVS. While he was always good defensively, his offence certainly wasn't what you see now. He was a 3rd line defensive winger in Montreal.

Many also seem to think the full trade was Lehkonen for Barron straight-up. While I understand the 2nd rounder wasn't the exact pick used to select Hage, it was a major part of it. Does Hage count as part of this trade, or does that not fit the narrative people are trying to create?