Confirmed with Link: Artturi Lehkonen (50% Retained) Traded to Colorado for a 2024 2nd Round Pick & Justin Barron

[Estimated_Prophet]

It was a good trade for both teams. Barron still has time to right the ship. Regardless, it was fair value for Lehkonen. What more could we have gotten for Leks?

Congratulations, you have entered the correct answer!

 

[yianik]

It’s not about writing him off but he doesn’t seem to have a sense of urgency in his game and sounds entitled. He claimed he was very happy with his camp when it was a mixed result at best. He could have just left the question for others to answer since he’s not the best judge of his own performance.

He was fighting for a spot this camp but you couldn’t tell on account of a lackadaisical disposition.

The talent, size and handedness are there — don’t know if it’s just immaturity on his part or whether the kind of attitude several have flagged, is part and parcel of what he’ll be or maybe it’s just a phase.

Wifi told this story last year of when he was on a chartered flight early on in the season sitting with another young guy, and he was able to order a steak. As he ate his steak he said to the other guy something to the effect of man, what are we doing on a private flight eating steak, look at us, how can this be happening ?

Wifi and Barron seem far apart in attitude. Last year I read Barron was miffed at being sent down. Disappointed would be okay, miffed means undeserved so has grounds for upset. Not good. Barron clearly thinks he belongs in the NHL and no, he does not seem to recognize he has some short comings that have to be fixed. I think youth have to be given slack, but this is a very poor, entitled attitude he has and even as a young guy it is a problem.

Hope he gets it because he has talent.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

It was a good trade for both teams. Barron still has time to right the ship. Regardless, it was fair value for Lehkonen. What more could we have gotten for Leks?

It WAS a good trade for both teams. If Barron sucks then it is an awful trade for us and a pro scouting failure. If Barron is good then it goes back to being a good trade for both teams.

If the prospect we trade for is a bust then we lost the trade, clearly, this shouldn't be hard to admit.

To answer your question, we probably could have gotten a 1st + for Lehk, Barron + 2nd was seen as being equal to a 1st +. We also could have traded him for a better prospect straight up, but we were desperate for a RHD. I don't know who was available and what was on the table, but if the end result is Bust + 2nd round pick in 2024 we got fleeced, similar to the Collberg vs Vanek trade

 

[Habnot]

I guess the 2 rounder we will receive from the Avs is meaningless. Not too long ago we turned one of those 2nd tounder (Kulak trade) into Lane Hutson.

I swear this board never ceases to amaze me. It takes five years to analyze a trade like this, not hot takes after a game.

I loved Leks with the Habs, but he's a support player on an elite team. He could never have the same impact on a rebuilding team.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

It WAS a good trade for both teams. If Barron sucks then it is an awful trade for us and a pro scouting failure. If Barron is good then it goes back to being a good trade for both teams.

If the prospect we trade for is a bust then we lost the trade, clearly, this shouldn't be hard to admit.

To answer your question, we probably could have gotten a 1st + for Lehk, Barron + 2nd was seen as being equal to a 1st +. We also could have traded him for a better prospect straight up, but we were desperate for a RHD. I don't know who was available and what was on the table, but if the end result is Bust + 2nd round pick in 2024 we got fleeced, similar to the Collberg vs Vanek trade

Using your logic, had we traded Lehkkonen for 4 x 1st round picks, and if all 4 picks busted, then we would have gotten fleeced.

Great logic buddy!

 

[MasterD]

I guess the 2 rounder we will receive from the Avs is meaningless. Not too long ago we turned one of those 2nd tounder (Kulak trade) into Lane Hutson.

I swear this board never ceases to amaze me. It takes five years to analyze a trade like this, not hot takes after a game.

I loved Leks with the Habs, but he's a support player on an elite team. He could never have the same impact on a rebuilding team.

Exactly. Lehkonen is a very good player, but not someone needed on a team like this year's Habs.

Barron is still very young, let's give it time. And if he busts, he busts. We'd still not win a Cup this year or next with a Lehkonen.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

Using your logic, had we traded Lehkkonen for 4 x 1st round picks, and if all 4 picks busted, then we would have gotten fleeced.

Great logic buddy!

It would be a scouting failure, we weren't trading for an unknown draft pick, Barron was specifically targeted by the Habs management. If he sucks, then the idea of the value we were trading for was way off.

You should be able to agree with that, right? What I'm saying really isn't a hot take

 

[Junohockeyfan]

It would be a scouting failure, we weren't trading for an unknown draft pick, Barron was specifically targeted by the Habs management. If he sucks, then the idea of the value we were trading for was way off.

You should be able to agree with that, right? What I'm saying really isn't a hot take

I can't agree with that for 2 x reasons:

1. The book on Barron is not complete
2. The value of a trade involving prospects and picks is based on the value of the prospect and picks at the time of the trade. Not after. (see my example of the 4 x 1st round picks)


Had the Habs traded Lehks for an established NHL player, and that player did not produce, then the Habs would have gotten fleeced.

Similarly, if the Habs traded Suzuki for a 7th round pick. And that pick became a Connor McDavid quality player.... did the Habs win that trade?

 

[The Real Timo]

This still hurts.

 

[the valiant effort]

I appreciate that he is spending his prime years on a great team instead of further toiling away here during the rebuild. The guy, a tireless soldier, got to play exactly one playoff series in front of a full Bell Centre during his time here. The fact that we got an intriguing D prospect and a 2nd rounder in exchange for him is a great bonus

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Thought it was a good deal at the time, but also argued at the time the Lehk’s is the type you like to have around for a rebuild. The right example for the kids etc, I think there was value in both plays. I guess management thought the acquisition of a new asset was worth more than the current player and his leadership, mentorship. I think both arguments have merit. I probably would have tried to keep Lehks’s, but I get why they didn’t.

 

[Runner77]

Wifi told this story last year of when he was on a chartered flight early on in the season sitting with another young guy, and he was able to order a steak. As he ate his steak he said to the other guy something to the effect of man, what are we doing on a private flight eating steak, look at us, how can this be happening ?

Such a cool story about Jackeye. Wish I had seen where that came from. The guy is totally grounded and will never forget how far he came. Credit to him and his parents.

Thx for sharing.

 

[26Mats]

In HuGo's first season they were looking for a king's ransom for Anderson, like a top 10/15 pick.

He had crazy value from his playoff performance, value he will never demonstrate again unless we get back into the playoffs.

If we are reviewing the fire sale though, the Toffoli trade is an interesting one. On paper we did very well when the trade was made, but we completely lost the trade after the fact by drafting Mesar. It was a good trade that they lost, if that makes sense.


He practices with Crosby and Mack, he thinks that should be enough

I think the Toffoli trade was good, but the scouts (and Hughes) probably screwed up the pick. But maybe if we don't have the 26th puck, Mesar falls to 33 and we pick Mesar at 33 and lose Beck. So maybe that first got us Beck.

Then Toffoli goes and has a career year, but only has the trade value to get a 3rd and an unproven 25 year old.

 

[Milhouse40]

I'm suuuuuuuuure no one would have turn crazy nuts on management for the 5 years at 4.5M for 35pts 3rd liner Lehkonen.....in a rebuild.

Barron is 21 years old......47 games in the NHL.....1st game this year.
Not to mention the 2nd round pick

Way too early to judge the return we have but it's already sure there was no way fans would put this contract in the good signing category of Hugues.

 

[Kimota]

This still hurts.

Why? He would still be the average inconsistant Lekh with us. It was the same with Eller. Why are we rising mediocre players to legendary status.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

I can't agree with that for 2 x reasons:

1. The book on Barron is not complete
2. The value of a trade involving prospects and picks is based on the value of the prospect and picks at the time of the trade. Not after. (see my example of the 4 x 1st round picks)


Had the Habs traded Lehks for an established NHL player, and that player did not produce, then the Habs would have gotten fleeced.

Similarly, if the Habs traded Suzuki for a 7th round pick. And that pick became a Connor McDavid quality player.... did the Habs win that trade?

Sure, there is still plenty time for the trade to turn back around for us, by no means have I written off Barron. No matter what the Avs are fine because they got a Stanley Cup out of it.

Thinking of what the other team got out of the trade is rather pointless, it should only be about what we got in return. We were expecting a young top-4 RHD, if we don't get that, then they would've been better off trading Lehks somewhere else for something different. If Barron sucks it is on the management for trading for him.

Enough of the excuses for management. Are you seriously saying that even if Barron busts that it isn't Hughes fault and that they still made a good trade, because they thought Barron was going to be good when they traded for him?

And your argument is silly but if the Habs traded Suzuki for a 7th rounder, with the ASSUMPTION that they would be getting a McDavid level player out of the deal, that would be an amazing trade for the Habs

 

[Tyson]

He wasn't horrible against the Caps.

He looked poised and confident.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

I think the Toffoli trade was good, but the scouts (and Hughes) probably screwed up the pick. But maybe if we don't have the 26th puck, Mesar falls to 33 and we pick Mesar at 33 and lose Beck. So maybe that first got us Beck.

Then Toffoli goes and has a career year, but only has the trade value to get a 3rd and an unproven 25 year old.

The unproven 25 year old put up better seasons with the Devils than Lehkonen ever put up with Montreal.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Sure, there is still plenty time for the trade to turn back around for us, by no means have I written off Barron. No matter what the Avs are fine because they got a Stanley Cup out of it.

Thinking of what the other team got out of the trade is rather pointless, it should only be about what we got in return. We were expecting a young top-4 RHD, if we don't get that, then they would've been better off trading Lehks somewhere else for something different. If Barron sucks it is on the management for trading for him.

Enough of the excuses for management. Are you seriously saying that even if Barron busts that it isn't Hughes fault and that they still made a good trade, because they thought Barron was going to be good when they traded for him?

And your argument is silly but if the Habs traded Suzuki for a 7th rounder, with the ASSUMPTION that they would be getting a McDavid level player out of the deal, that would be an amazing trade for the Habs

You missed the point.

My premise: When you trade for prospects / picks, they are not guaranteed. Their value is based on when they were traded, not what they become after. Because you can't predict, even with scouting etc.

When trading an established NHL player for picks and prospects, the value of the trade is based on the return at the time of the trade. The Suzuki example highlights this. If the Habs traded Suzuki for a 7th round pick and that pick surprised everyone to become a superstar player, did the Hasb win that trade? Obviously not. It was a bad trade regardless of how the 7th rounder turned out.

At the time of the trade Barron was a well regarded prospect RHD. The alternative was to receive Hellesson from the Avs. Note that the Avs were devoid of bluechip prospects.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

It WAS a good trade for both teams. If Barron sucks then it is an awful trade for us and a pro scouting failure. If Barron is good then it goes back to being a good trade for both teams.

If the prospect we trade for is a bust then we lost the trade, clearly, this shouldn't be hard to admit.

this is wrong.

projectability has value that changes: at that time, he looked good.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

You missed the point.

My premise: When you trade for prospects / picks, they are not guaranteed. Their value is based on when they were traded, not what they become after. Because you can't predict, even with scouting etc.

this.

you're buying a $10 lotto ticket that's a chance at winning $100.

if you don't win that $100, it doesn't change that the lotto ticket was worth $10.

 

[TT1]

Traded Away: Ben chiarot, Lehkonen
Received: Barron, Newhook

Looks good to me and I think it will look a lot better 5, 10, and 15 years from now.

no it doesn't work like that, we traded Lehk for Barron and a 2nd, you have to evaluate the player we lost vs what we got in return

us fleecing for Chiarot or getting a good player in Newhook for what we gave up has nothing to do with the Lehk trade

 

[TT1]

I'm suuuuuuuuure no one would have turn crazy nuts on management for the 5 years at 4.5M for 35pts 3rd liner Lehkonen.....in a rebuild.

Barron is 21 years old......47 games in the NHL.....1st game this year.
Not to mention the 2nd round pick

Way too early to judge the return we have but it's already sure there was no way fans would put this contract in the good signing category of Hugues.

at the time we had Lehk he wouldn't have gotten anything close to 4.5M lol, we would have been able to lock him up for cheap long term, he got that $ after what he did for Colorado (basically being 1 of the big reasons why they won the Cup)

it would have been an extremely high value signing for us, he would have been with the team for 6-7 years and age-wise he was a perfect fit to help our young core, not to mention his character etc.

I said all this when we traded him btw, i was against trading him all together and got a lot of shit for it. What Lehkonen adds to the team in terms of character/work ethic/his playstyle goes far beyond what you can get for him in a trade, you don't move those type of players when they're still young.

 

[26Mats]

no it doesn't work like that, we traded Lehk for Barron and a 2nd, you have to evaluate the player we lost vs what we got in return

us fleecing for Chiarot or getting a good player in Newhook for what we gave up has nothing to do with the Lehk trade

It does, because just like draft picks when you trade for them you're adding to your pool. Not all draft picks will work out, just as not all prospects will. But you add to the pool, amd you don't expect everyone to pan out.

 

[DAChampion]

A great gamble. Better to acquire a Barron than a random late first.