Canadiens Analysis
Trade Talk: The Canadiens Will Have To Adapt To Losing Barron
Now that the dust has settled following the Montreal Canadiens trade that sent Justin Barron to the Nashville Predators in exchange for Alexandre Carrier, it’s time to discuss some issues and boons that may arise without Barron in the mix.
The first thing I’d like to address is the pushback from some regarding the original trade to acquire Barron from the Colorado Avalanche. Many were upset that I said it was a bad trade, and thus, a mistake.
I understand the power of tribalism, but if we remove emotion from the equation, it was a trade that did not work out, and since the Canadiens were hoping Barron would be in the NHL by now, it did not meet the intended results.
By definition, that is a mistake.
In the professional sports landscape, mistakes are par for the course. Mitigating the damage made by the inevitable mistakes is what matters most, and there’s no doubt Kent Hughes and Co. did a good job recouping value by acquiring Carrier.
The ultimate sin would be ignoring mistakes, but thankfully, Hughes did not take that route.
Frankly, I’m surprised Nashville agreed to the deal, but much like it was in the Yaroslav Askarov dossier, their handling of Carrier was confusing, at best.
I need to meditate on Barry Trotz choosing not to trade Alexandre Carrier last deadline, signing him to a 3-year extension and then trading him for a 23-year-old that may not become anything close to Alexandre Carrier as an NHL defenseman…
— Greg Wyshynski (@wyshynski) December 19, 2024
Justin Barron’s Impact
Even though Hughes made the correct decision by cutting his losses and avoiding the fallacy of being pot committed, it doesn’t mean Barron did not bring any value to the table for the Montreal Canadiens.
Justin Barron, acquired by NSH, is a developing bottom pairing offensive defenceman with a good shot. #Preds pic.twitter.com/lqRswJAFjr
— JFresh (@JFreshHockey) December 19, 2024
He was one of the best offensive blueliners on the team, and though his time with the Canadiens was tumultuous, they will miss his shot production, which ranked third among all defencemen this season.
Justin Barron’s 6th goal of the year gives the #GoHabsGo the win in overtime!! pic.twitter.com/eeLU16e0pC
— Marc Dumont (@MarcPDumont) December 19, 2023
Barron was taking 4.2 shots per 60 at 5v5, which was more than certain forwards, including Juraj Slafkovsky, Jake Evans, and Patrik Laine. When we consider the Canadiens just set a record for the longest streak of games (31) without reaching at least 30 shots, losing Barron’s shot production is far from ideal.
The main player I would task with shooting more often is also the youngest player in the lineup, but Slafkovsky’s low shot output has been a problem since he entered the league, which suggests the uptick will probably have to come from multiple players rather than just one source.
Montreal Canadiens Goal Production
We have to recognize Carrier is much more reliable in his own zone, and that the Canadiens also have significant issues in their own end, but if the team is to improve, they will have to compensate for the loss of Barron’s offensive impact. Only then will Carrier’s improved defensive play provide heightened value.
We should probably point out Barron’s goal production was very healthy considering his inconsistent usage. Last season, only Johnathan Kovacevic (6) scored more 5v5 goals than Barron (5) on the Canadiens’ blue line. Kovacevic also featured in 14 additional games.
With Lane Hutson in the mix, the overall impact of Barron’s loss is mitigated, but even when both players were in the lineup, the Habs struggled to generate shots and score goals, which connotes the team’s forwards will have to pick up the slack, as they’re the ones in a situation that’s conducive to rectifying the issue by taking more shots.
There it is. Lane Hutson’s first NHL goal gives the #GoHabsGo a 1-0 lead. There was a race to the net to get the puck between Caufield and Matheson. pic.twitter.com/nvNgWfHO1c
— Marc Dumont (@MarcPDumont) December 15, 2024
All Montreal Canadiens statistics are 5v5 unless otherwise noted, via Natural Stat Trick.
Read This Next
Recommended
I thought Barron was worst at handling the puck at the opponent’s blueline. He hobbled the puck a lot, even when he successfully kept the puck in at the line, it would often look sloppily executed. He’d lose the puck and be flat footed, leading to solid chances against as well as many odd man rushes. Simply put, that is an undesirable problem to have as an offensive defenceman. He is bigger than Carrier, but not overly physical anyhow. I know nothing about Carrier, so I’ll have to wait and see.
I’ve said this many times before and I’ll say it again: this is the best Habs site. I really believe that, and I’ll keep coming back. But I have to be honest, that whole section at the top is one of the big reasons everyone hates the media, and specifically, Montreal hockey media.
People disagreed with you so it just must be because of emotionality and tribalism, eh? It couldn’t possibly be that maybe you’re wrong? Or maybe they just have a different perspective? It must be some type of flaw in the reader to push back on what you’re saying, right?
The condescension, arrogance, pomposity, and “we media figures obviously know more than the fans” type of attitude required to write that is truly astounding (not to mention the fact that you’ve lived with text-based electronic communication mediums for decades and still haven’t learned that reading into what people type can lead to great misunderstandings/overreactions… there’s a whole Key and Peele skit about it).
I don’t know if you’re responding to me specifically, or just everyone who disagreed, but, can we upload pictures? If so, I’ll upload the pictures of my brain scans that show dysregulation in several networks in my brain including the salience network, and greatly diminished function/activity in my limbic system. For anyone who is unfamiliar with neuroscience, the result is that I can’t actually feel most human emotion. I can’t connect with other humans, I can’t feel love, can’t feel happiness… but I also can’t feel hatred, anger…. Or emotional bias that would result in tribalism. So when I give my take on something I’m often called robotic because I’m only capable of assessing facts. A huge shortcoming in many ways, but advantageous in others… like right now.
Now, I still get things wrong, and maybe I’m wrong about the Lehkonen trade, but flatly being unwilling to accept that I could be wrong and just taking shots at readers of the articles I write to pay the bills is… something I wouldn’t do.
Btw, if we’re so wrong, what are the trades for veteran depth defensive forwards with a career high of 31pts on expiring contracts who received MORE than what amounts to a 1st AND 2nd? Surely you have several you can post so we can all accept you’re right and we’re just emotional?
Hockey clubs essentially use expected value equations to judge trades. So, the sum of all the probabilities of all the outcomes, times the respected values of those outcomes. So for draft picks, there are probabilities that each one becomes a certain level of nhl player, and you’d multiply that by the value of such a player, then sum all of these products. And they’ll trade based on these values (obviously it’s a bit more complicated cuz they account for team fit, position, salary etc, but you get the point). You can’t magically go back in time and pretend like those numbers were different at the time of the trade. You also can’t pretend like we know for sure there were better options on the table, cuz we aren’t on the gm calls. You also can’t look at the trades in a vacuum. A rebuilding team looking to get younger, open roster spots for kids, get picks and prospects, bolster the RD… it all matters.
IF I were to take your approach, I’d say the emotionality is apparent in those who think it was a bad trade. Likely holding on to the fact he produced more once he left our team and the Habs struggle for offense, coupled with the fact that he scored the cup winning goal, and the conference clinching goal that got us to the final. But I won’t…. I’ll simply point out that this defensive forward (by the way, people should go check his defensive metrics on that cup run… they were some of the worst on the Avs) on an expiring contract who didn’t fit our rebuild timeline and never broke 31 pts got us a a young 1st rd RHD and a 2nd rd pick. That’s OBVIOUSLY good value. If not, please post the myriad examples that counter my argument, as surely they must exist.
Another way to look at it… this defensive forward got us a top 4 RHD (carrier) and a 2nd. I take that all day every day.
Now, despite this disagreement, I truly mean it when I say thank you for your hard work and for this site. I look forward to continuing to be a frequent reader.
Just to make it clear for everyone thinking lehky was a world beater, at 5v5, during the Avs cup run he was:
7th in the team in Corsi
Tied for LAST in on ice g%
8th in on ice xG%
Defensive metrics:
13th in on ice HDSAA/60
11th in on ice SAA/60
12th in on ice xGA/60
These are literally terrible relative to the rest of his team. I thought we all loved him as a defensive player? I did love his defense but we need to stop acting like he won them the cup…. Anyone can score a game winning goal. That doesn’t mean they are amazing players.
I love lehky. If he had been a few years younger, and not on an expiring contract, maybe we keep him if there are other options on the table for trades… but we need to be realistic here. Yes he’s been better offensively, but he plays with RIDICULOUSLY good players, and it’s not like he’s scoring 40g and 80 pts here…
Lehkonen has been excellent for the Avs, and we all know it. Beyond scoring the Cup winning goal, and taking up the mantle as the second-line centre in that run, his stats have been very good in the playoffs.
Just check out his playoff stats and tell me he hasn’t been very good for the Avs, with a straight face: https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerreport.php?fromseason=20212022&thruseason=20232024&stype=3&sit=ev&stdoi=oi&rate=n&v=p&playerid=8477476
I’m not sure why you’re trying to pretend he did not make an immediate impact, but all of this ignores Barron could never even establish himself as a regular NHLer, let alone a key player on a Stanley Cup winning team.
Even if we accept that Lehkonen wasn’t that good (which isn’t true), it doesn’t change that it was a bad trade, as the Canadiens did not get the intended results. It’s the very definition of a mistake (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake)
And that’s perfectly fine. Mistakes are normal.
Being unable to admit you made a mistake, on the other hand, is not normal.
Thankfully, Hughes’s pride did not stop him from moving on from his mistake, and that’s the real takeaway here. Many GMs compound the issue by hoping that they can one day justify their decision, rather than having it labelled as a mistake, but that’s an archaic way of doing business. And it just leads to more asset value loss.
I never once said lehkonen hasn’t been good for the Avs. My point about his performance were threefold:
1. Most people praise his defence, and in the cup run, RELATIVE TO HIS TEAMMATES (something I think you clearly missed with the stats I posted) his defence was actually quite bad. Did it help? Yes. But almost all other players on his team helped much more in that regard.
2. He’s never been a great offensive producer, and still isn’t. He clearly benefits from the team around him
3. His level of performance, even if it has been good, certainly wasn’t worth more than what we got at the time, and for trades with veterans you can’t try to sell on expected future performance that they don’t have a track record of achieving…. We can’t try to trade Dvorak right now saying “he’ll score you 50 goals” just like Hughes could be like “Lehkonen will get you 30g/70pt pace when he plays”… this isn’t hard man.
You can throw dictionary definitions around all you want, ignoring the fact that there are colloquial ones, or usages in common parlance, but it won’t achieve what you expect. This is very simple:
1. Post trades for similar players with better value returns. Multiple trades, which must exist since you’re so confident. If they exist, I’ll acknowledge that the market may have been there for a better return, and concede. Because the market is a variable we can’t just ignore…
2. If we trade Cayden Primeau right now for 50 first round picks and 10 prospects drafted in the first round, was the trade a “mistake” if all 60 assets turn into busts?
The answer is a resounding “NO”. Because, for the umpteenth time, YOU CANT JUDGE A TRADE WITH HINDSIGHT AND PRETEND THAT THE EXPECTED VALUES AT THE TIME WERE DIFFERENT (don’t worry, the caps are for effect, not me yelling with tons of emotion). Besides, if you’re willing to be like “well this is what happened AFTER the trade” why stop at their current level of play? Seems arbitrary, especially since GMs acquire assets and flip them all the time. Barron turned into carrier. Meaning Lehkonen turned into a top 4 RHD and a 2nd rounder…. Is that a “mistake”?
Honestly, I don’t see how your point isn’t conceded after answer the question about Primeau. The answer should be an obvious “not a mistake”, and once that happens, we establish that what player eventually turn into doesn’t impact whether trades are “mistakes” or not. You’re getting very hung up on the definition and trying way too hard to be a philosopher. It’s simple man: sometimes smart/good decisions just don’t turn out. There are infinite variables in life and we can’t control or even know them all. Things are what they are. Walking around thinking that random occurrences are “mistakes” is needlessly negative. Barron had a certain probability of hitting, the probability was baked into the trade decision, he didn’t hit, oh well, move on… doesn’t mean getting him and a 2nd for a depth player was a mistake.
You want a mistake? Go read Preds fan boards… they realllly think carrier for Barron was a “mistake” lol.
Great points. As an Avs fan, I can tell you that Colorado acquired a top two-way player who was just beginning the prime of his career. That’s why they locked him up long term. I’ll say it again – – players like Lehkonen do not grow on trees. They are few and far apart. You do everything as an organization to keep them. From the PK to getting the dirty goals in front of the net to his overall speed and locker room presence – – it was, quite frankly, a heist of major proportions.
Probably only second to the Avs acquisition of Patrick Roy and Raymond Bourque. We know how that worked out, albeit much different circumstances. All trades do not go as planned. And hindsight is better than 20-20. But in building a team that can compete for a Stanley Cup year in, year out, you do not trade players like Lehkonen. Just my opinion.
Lekkonen has a Stanley cup. Simething that no current habs player has . Lekkonen was huge in the cup finals
Savard?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was a good trade… that’s great for Lehkonen, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
They’re wrong, because a mistake is when you do not get the intended results after a decision. Thus, it was literally a mistake. And the fact that Hughes moved on supports that.
I figured it would be easier to clear up why suggesting something was a mistake is not a big deal. If we can’t ever admit we’re wrong, we will never grow. And If I’m being honest, I have a healthy distrust of those who can’t acknowledge such a simple concept. That’s a much bigger issue than making mistakes.
Mistakes are inevitable. And there’s very little good to be had in failing to admit mistakes happen. But if you do admit it, then the situation can improve.
We can justify almost anything in this world, but eventually we hit the point of diminishing returns on semantics. The original Barron trade was a mistake, Hughes identified he made a mistake, and did a good job correcting it.
It’s very, very simple.
And if anyone is offended by one of the eternal truths in life, so be it.
But that would be a mistake.
AC will bolster the team’s defense.
Trading for a young D with promise is not a mistake just because it does not work out. That possibility was always known. A mistake would be failing to make a trade because it might not work out. Trades that do not work out are par for the course; of those, some are mistakes because they were failures waiting to happen, but others just didn’t work out which is always going to be the case some of the time with young players, even when they’re first rounders. I’m not angry that you called it a mistake, there’s no tribalism involved, but your wording would never be used by a professional writer making a professional analysis. That trade was the right trade to make, only now it brings in Hage and Carrier. Not bad.
A mistake is when you make a decision that does not work out how you intended. Therefore, the trade for Barron was a mistake. It’s literally the definition. You just worded it differently by saying “it didn’t work out”. Well, the goal is for the trade to work out, therefore, when it doesn’t work out, it’s a mistake.
I agree that failing to make a move due to being afraid of risk would also be a mistake, so, in that vein, the logic that was used to decide upon the trade wasn’t necessarily flawed, but their evaluation of the player was flawed, and that means they did not get the results they intended.
The Habs thought they acquired a player who be making a positive impact in the NHL relatively soon. That was a mistake. There’s no avoiding it.
We have to stop pretending like making mistakes is a terrible thing. If you never make a mistake, you aren’t living life. It’s intrinsically linked to how we, as humans, react to various situations.
No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, especially in professional sports, and if you don’t think tribalism has something to do with people being unable to admit a trade wasn’t good, well, I have to disagree, because there are endless studies showing the impact of tribalism in sports. The very fact that Hughes moved on should be proof that he acknowledges it “didn’t work out”, as you stated. He didn’t get the intended result, and he pivoted. That’s a good thing.
If Hughes was unable to admit he’s not perfect, you’d have a much bigger issue on your hands.
And for the record, the Habs traded the 26th overall pick along with that second-round pick, and a seventh-round pick, for the 21st overall pick. While there’s a link to Hage there, let’s be honest, the asset they acquired in the Monahan trade was the main piece, not the 57th overall pick. Though it did help facilitate the move up the draft board to get Hage, that much is true. And I think we can all appreciate that moving up when a talent like Hage is on the board, is rarely a mistake, so to speak.
I’ll chime in here! Maybe it’s a matter of semantics but I don’t think your definition is the “literal” definition. When I google it I get; “an action or judgement that is misguided or wrong”
IF you want to say “in hindsight” it was a mistake, I’d agree with that. Conversely, I would say trading Patrick Roy was a HUGE mistake!
I was sorry to see Lehky go but glad that he’d get to play on a contending team.
I HOPE it won’t be a “mistake” that the Habs gave up on Barron so early since he’s only 23. It could end up being a mistake!
I certainly won’t claim to know what the Habs know about his ceiling, or why it was important to make this move now and whatever you want to call it, it sure does now seem to have been a bad trade in hindsight but I wouldn’t have called it a mistake at the time.
Again with your “definition”…. If we got McDavid at 75% retention (by multiple teams, of course) for a 7th round pick, but then McDavid got injured and never played again, was the trade a mistake? “IT DIDNT HAVE THE INTENDED RESULTS!!” Except, that doesn’t actually matter because you’re looking at end performance results, but trades in the modern analytics era are conducted based on expected values…. With probabilities baked in. Your reference frame for assessing these things is the issue here. As is your misunderstanding of the correct application of “mistake” relative to the process that unfolds in modern sports decisions.
I said from Diane barron is a mistake ! Colorado fleeced the agent Hugo. Badly. But carrier seriously ? Noone knows him yet sone are calling him a saviour Really . Nashville couldn’t wait to trade him .! He will only make the habs d. Worse or the same
If lekkonen was still a habs player. A lot would still be calling him great ! Just like they did when Barton was still here now all of the sudden they both suck ! Typical some habs fans. I believe that barron will excel in Nashville. Away from M. S. L coaching system
So Hughes made this trade while he is in Russia?
Offensive because he was playing against 3rd and 4th lines. He doesn’t hit. He doesn’t block shots. Not good enough for the PP or PK. Never heard an announcer say”Hey that was a good defensive play by Barron.”. Struble and Xhekaj are both better defensively as a 3rd pair and they can both play on the PK. He was a 7th D at best and we have better talent in Laval. Carrier is a 4/5.
How will they have to adapt. They hardly used him