Canadiens Analysis
Canadiens Trade Analysis: Carrier Impact Beyond The Expected
The Montreal Canadiens have been a dominant team since the trade that saw defenceman Alexandre Carrier join the team from the Nashville Predators.
Beyond the actual wins, which have lifted the Habs out of the basement of the NHL standings, Carrier’s impact on the team’s underlying numbers has been impressive, while also creating a shockwave effect for various other players in the lineup.
The last time we checked-in on his results the numbers were jaw-dropping, however, as we noted, it was a very limited sample size. We’re circling back now that we have double the data available, which should give us a better overview of his long-term potential with the Canadiens.
Second-Pairing Impact
He’s no longer controlling north of 70 percent of the shots and scoring chances, that much was to be expected, but he’s still leading the Habs in a bevy of important underlying numbers. With Carrier on the ice, the Canadiens have a 55 percent control of the shots, and are nearing 60 percent in expected goals.
His defensive impact, in particular, has been key. Opposing teams take much fewer shots whenever Carrier is on the ice, owing to his solid positioning which forces players to the outside, and thus limits the scoring opportunities for opponents off the rush.
As for his defensive partner, Kaiden Guhle, the change since Carrier’s arrival has been impossible to ignore. I don’t love the idea of comparing Guhle’s stats prior to Carrier’s arrival with the Habs to the six games since the trade, because we’re dealing with a significant difference in TOI. It also must be said that Carrier is not the only reason the Canadiens have been playing well of late.
Alexandre Carrier today on what he’s noticed since joining the Habs:
“The chemistry of the guys. I think the guys are like brothers in this locker room…They’re enthusiastic, they’re happy, they’re excited…” pic.twitter.com/LRd8ojyzlY
— /r/Habs (@HabsOnReddit) January 2, 2025
With that in mind, here’s the lo-down on Guhle’s 5v5 stats since being paired with Carrier, a move that has allowed the 23-year-old to play on his natural side.
Without Carrier, Guhle controlled a little less than 25 percent of the shots. With Carrier, he is controlling over 54 percent of the shots. The same phenomenon comes into play when examining other important stats.
Without Carrier, he controlled 26 percent of the expected goals, and 33 percent of the high-danger chances.
With Carrier, Guhle is controlling over 56 percent of the expected goals, and 54 percent of the high-danger chances.
That’s not just an impressive change, it’s the hockey equivalent of trading a 1997 Sunfire for a brand-new Bugatti Veyron. Truthfully, Guhle’s improvements aren’t solely because of playing with Carrier. Much of it has to do with avoiding defensive partners who have traditionally struggled to produce above-replacement results.
First Pairing Impact
Going from one top pairing that generally hangs on for dear life to a very solid top-four hasn’t just made Martin St-Louis’ job easier, it has lowered the total chances the Montreal Canadiens allow, providing the same type of benefit to the goaltenders.
Interestingly, it’s the Lane Hutson and Mike Matheson pairing that has yielded the best numbers in the last stretch, not Carrier and Guhle.
They’re nearing a 60 control percent in shots, scoring chances, and expected goals, a consequence of spending less time defending and more time focused on what they do best, quickly driving the play toward the offensive zone.
Again, I am going to remind everyone we’re only discussing six games, which means the numbers are at risk of changing in a hurry.
But for now we can safely declare that trading Carrier for Justin Barron wasn’t just a great example of a general manager cutting his losses and pivoting quickly enough to recoup asset value, it also addressed one of the team’s greatest needs, a stalwart defensive presence who is capable of absorbing important minutes on a very young blue line that usually skews toward the chaotic side of things.
I’d go as far as suggesting Carrier is the exact type of player that most NHL teams desperately require, and that certainly includes the team that traded him to the Habs in the first place.
All Montreal Canadiens statistics are 5v5 unless otherwise noted, via Natural Stat Trick.
Read This Next
Recommended
Honest question to the people who didn’t like the Lehkonen trade: Assuming these results hold, does this change your opinion? I ask cuz I actually want to understand your approach. I’m legitimately curious, not trying to be antagonistic or anything.
It’s clear that even for veterans SOME of you approach grading trades based on end results as opposed to context at the time of the trade combined with expected value, which is how I grade them. For example, if we could trade Mailloux right now to Edmonton for McDavid, 2 first round picks, and a young A-level prospect, I would say that’s a fantastic trade for the Habs. If McDavid got injured and his career ended before ever wearing a Habs uniform, AND the prospect was a bust, AND both picks turned into busts, I would still say the trade was a fantastic trade. The reason for this is because there’s risk built into every decision and when I evaluate an action like this I do so based on expected value, which has the downside risk built into the equation. Even if if we take the injury variable out, and it’s Mailloux for 20 1st round picks and 5 A-level prospect, but ALL 25 assets are busts, I STILL say it’s a fantastic trade for the reasons I described. The end result is irrelevant to the value of the trade when it’s made. The expected value of a Mailloux is much less than the expected value of all those other assets, so obtaining a much higher EV in a trade is always fantastic. Sometime it simply doesn’t work out, which is unfortunate, but shouldn’t, in my view, be used to retroactively diminish our thoughts on the trade. This is especially true if the trade was made based on a tried and true process. Like a football team that always goes for 4th down and earns the top seed. Then goes for a 4th down in the playoffs and it leads to a loss. It wasn’t a bad decision (assuming you stuck to the same winning process you had before and it was, based on the probabilities, the correct call). It was a good decision, it just had an unfortunate outcome.
It seems to me that only evaluating trades based on end results would lead one to conclude that this fantasy Mailloux trade is bad, because the end result was the Habs got nothing in return for a player that should fetch at least SOMETHING. Is that the case? Would you guys actually reject these trades if they were offered? Would you make the trades then once all was said and done, regret doing so? In the real world case, does the fact that one asset we obtained (Barron) got turned into another (Carrier) factor in for you? Or do you only view the trades in isolation? Cuz if you look at end results, then carrier is actually the end result (so far) along with the 2nd that helped trade up for Hage. If carrier does NOT factor in, how do you set your boundary for what end result should be examined? Cuz if you trade for a pick, is the pick the end result? Or the player chosen with that pick?
I studied math and physics before switching to finance so I’m a numbers guy. But my electives were all in psychology/cog sci cuz the human mind is super interesting. That’s why I’m intrigued to hear answers, and appreciate anyone who gives me one. It would be very cool to hear your thoughts on this because I clearly think a bit differently than you do in this area
There is another consideration:
Some of you didn’t like the trade because you thought he (Lehky) was worth more off the bat. If you could post trades for similar players on expiring contracts and rebuilding teams that got more, please do! Cuz I can’t find any. Buuuuut the lekhy trade isn’t actually the point of my comment here. I legit just want to understand how people evaluate trades.
I was a huge Lehkonen fan but I never minded the trade. I had high hopes for Barron as a top 4 RD for the next 10yrs. Lehkonen was never going to put up the numbers he puts up now in Montreal so maķng that comparison is useless. He was a solid 3rd liner for Habs Both Roy and Heineman are more then capable of filling his shoes.
Yeah that’s very much how I felt. His production with the habs was not great at all (31pts max, and at the time of the trade he was on pace for a career high of like 40pts), and defensive players are not hard to find. So getting a 1st rd RD (Barron) and a 2nd always seemed like a good trade. But there’s a lot of people who hate the trade and no matter how much I try to understand it, I just can’t see how they come to that conclusion. Hopefully some respond to my post.
When Kent Hughes made the trade to acquire Justin Barron he seemed to believe that Justin was an NHL ready defenseman as he was immediately inserted into the lineup and played 44 games with the Canadiens before being demoted to the Laval Rockets.
But I think the trade has nevertheless worked out well for Canadiens even though Barron did not play as well as anticipated. By finishing very low in the standings they were able to draft Demidov. So all is well that ends well. Also they have Carrier now.
Lehkonen was very endearing. He was not a Dvorak type of offensive player, where it’s low-event hockey. He was a high-motor, well positionned, anticipating, stingy player. He also had very climatic moments in Montreal. So you won’t see me say he’s easy to replace. But I agree the love Montrealers had for him isn’t proportionnal to his stat profile. I loved him beyond rationality, and was glad he was traded, ’cause the guy deserved the opportunity to play for a contender at this point in his career.
I laugh at all the negativity about this trade , people think we traded a top end player. We all like Lek but he was a soon to be a free agent looking at good money on a team going nowhere . The trade was more fair for a 30 point player. Now he plays with 3 top 10 players in the game and has stats look better , oh what a surprise.
Barron now landed you Carrier and we used the second rounder on Hage .
Stop freaking out peeps, Hugo did well.
Any trade should be evaluated as a decision-maker would, i.e. to evaluate the trade at the moment of the trade and in context. Sure, how any traded player adapts to his new team does enter into play in my evaluation, but only the player obtained in a trade. If any such player’s performance improves shortly after the trade, I’ll give credit to the scouts and GM that identify a potential fit. However, I would credit any performance improvement that occurs after 20 games to the coaches and the player development staff. I will ignore how any player who was traded away improves as it doesn’t matter for the GM; there are so many reasons why any given player underperforms and very few are directly related to the GM.
For draft picks, there are models that assign value to the different picks. So I would not consider who gets drafted with any such pick because this is a different decision that should be judge independently. Furthermore, I would consider the expected draft rank at the time of the trade and not the actual draft rank.
For prospects, it’s more delicate. At first, I’d take an approach that is a blend of how I evaluate players and draft picks. I’ll consider where the prospect is in his development and where he would appear in a re-draft to assign a value to a prospect. Obviously, if the prospect plays in the AHL, I’ll also consider how he performs in his first 20 games.
Context is quite important. A trade that fills a need, be it immediate or future, is the most rewarding; e.g. given that Canadiens have so many NHL-ready LHD, even after trading Romanov and Harris, there is still a logjam. The trades intended to give the team a big 2nd-line center, Dach, and a scoring winger, Laine. Even if the player doesn’t work out, my assessment would be based on the probability of success; the risk reward analysis.
Not all trades are equal, some are made in a position of weakness or force. When the Flames traded Monahan to the Canadiens, Hughes was in a position of force as he was amongst the few with the cap space required. When Hughes traded Kovacevic in the summer, he was in a position of weakness as teams knew that the Canadiens would likely lose a player on waivers if a trade did not occur. For me, these are mitigating factors. I’ll accept a bad trade knowing the alternative was less desirable.
I may have a similar background to you, GHG55.