Kessel traded to Penguins

[Leaflifer]

We can debate the exact reasons - whether it was his supposed lack of training during the summer, unwillingness to change his game as requested by the coach, potential bad influence on young players, etc.

Seems like a pretty fair and balanced list of reasons you put down there, and I'm sure they are backed up by facts.

Do you have any fact-based reasons you'd like to contribute? I didn't think so.

We can debate the exact reasons Chris' post has troubles - he's wrong, he's intellectually inferior, he's drinking, etc.

See how I can just throw whatever out there and it doesn't have to be even 1% true, but I've directed the reader to think that way because of how it's been written.  There's tons of reasons Kessel could have been dealt that have nothing to do with what you wrote (for example, he didn't fit into a rebuilding team trying to stockpile picks/prospects) but by only listing very negative qualities that may or may not be true, you've directed it to be only about the negative reasons.  It's what guys like Simmons do - hint, dance around these things without outright saying they think so, or without outright providing evidence of it.  But still making the reader think it.

And obviously I don't believe any of the above!  I'm sure you're a great, smart dude.

I dunno....after all the uncertainty regarding Kessel's influence before the trade, the fact that he was run out of town for a bag of peanuts is enough for me.

Some other reasons could be he decided he wanted out, or the Leafs desperately want to finish last and feel he will stand in the way of a high pick next year. Those explanations would need some serious support.

Shanny talked a lot about getting rid of the non-players....the ones who didn't train hard enough, etc...and then proceeded to dump Kessel. That, combined with years of murmuring, is enough for me.

I an happy to see him gone.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

We can debate the exact reasons - whether it was his supposed lack of training during the summer, unwillingness to change his game as requested by the coach, potential bad influence on young players, etc.

Seems like a pretty fair and balanced list of reasons you put down there, and I'm sure they are backed up by facts.

Do you have any fact-based reasons you'd like to contribute? I didn't think so.

We can debate the exact reasons Chris' post has troubles - he's wrong, he's intellectually inferior, he's drinking, etc.

See how I can just throw whatever out there and it doesn't have to be even 1% true, but I've directed the reader to think that way because of how it's been written.  There's tons of reasons Kessel could have been dealt that have nothing to do with what you wrote (for example, he didn't fit into a rebuilding team trying to stockpile picks/prospects) but by only listing very negative qualities that may or may not be true, you've directed it to be only about the negative reasons.  It's what guys like Simmons do - hint, dance around these things without outright saying they think so, or without outright providing evidence of it.  But still making the reader think it.

And obviously I don't believe any of the above!  I'm sure you're a great, smart dude.

I dunno....after all the uncertainty regarding Kessel's influence before the trade, the fact that he was run out of town for a bag of peanuts is enough for me.

Some other reasons could be he decided he wanted out, or the Leafs desperately want to finish last and feel he will stand in the way of a high pick next year. Those explanations would need some serious support.

Shanny talked a lot about getting rid of the non-players....the ones who didn't train hard enough, etc...and then proceeded to dump Kessel. That, combined with years of murmuring, is enough for me.

I an happy to see him gone.

I'm sure there were a combination of many factors, one of which likely being his skill, which resulted in him being dealt before some other players.  But, like everyone else, that's just a guess.

Consider:

16. At the end of the day, Kessel was traded because he was Toronto?s most marketable player they were willing to deal. He could get the best return, including cap space. Nothing else excited them and bringing back the same group was unacceptable to Brendan Shanahan. There?s no doubt this was unfulfilled potential for him and for the team. He?s a lightning rod, a polarizing figure and is responsible for that. But the toughest thing the Maple Leafs lose is a talented player who (for the most part) could ignore the market noise. You need guys like that in Canada, who either embrace it (Subban) or tune it out (Sedins). That?s hard to find. And I think there are some charities who will really miss him. He did a lot, very quietly.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-players-like-kessel-tough-to-find/

 

[hockeyfan1]

Those of you still wringing your hands about the return on this deal need to accept a  simple fact - to Leaf management, the most important thing was to get Kessel out of the organization. We can debate the exact reasons - whether it was his supposed lack of training during the summer, unwillingness to change his game as requested by the coach, potential bad influence on young players, etc. But everything management said pointed to them wanting Kessel gone, and they accomplished that task.

I know there was a lot of back and forth about this issue late in the season, but the guy flat out quit on the team. You can't have your star and highest paid player (and yes, that matters) do that. I know some will argue "what do you expect when management says they're going to rebuild", well I expect someone like that to keep giving maximum effort.  Many here expected that, and it's pretty obvious management did as well.

Yes, the return wasn't as good as I had hoped. I wanted another high 1st round pick, preferably this year. But, under the circumstances...good enough.

Well said.  To the point. 

I agree, as well.  While none too happy about the returns, they got what they could and most importantly, accomplished the task they wanted to do in the first place, which was to rid the team of Kessel and part of the contract.  Mission accomplished.

 

[Kin]

It's just as reasonable to think that his value will go back up and waiting could have been the better option.  You may lose the Pittsburgh opportunity, or you may not and Pittsburgh may up the offer.  Or you deal with someone else next summer.  Unless you feel NHL GM's are immune to recency bias, this was a big time sell low.

It's not that I think they're immune to it but I definitely think it plays less of a role in how teams value players than you seem to.

I've made long posts about this before but where my opinion re: the urgency to trade Kessel lies in these statements that I think you'll agree are all pretty true:

A) Kessel having a big year and increasing his value is not a sure thing
B) If Kessel does have a big year, it's likely to negatively affect the team's draft position
C) Whatever gains in value Kessel would make in having a big year would be offset, at least somewhat, by his being a year older and the team trading for him getting one less year of his prime.
D) The people entrusted to run the team certainly didn't seem to want Kessel on it

I don't put a ton of stock in D in a practical sense, I don't entirely buy the idea that Kessel was a "bad influence" in any meaningful way but C does matter in that it plays a role in how Kessel is perceived around the league and I think the lack of interest in trading for Kessel reflects that. That really wasn't likely to change if Kessel came back and had a good year.

Likewise, I think if we look at the returns when similar players were traded the idea that trading Kessel coming off a better year would lead to significantly higher returns is a little overblown. Could you have maybe done a bit better? Maybe, but that's really not worth the risk or the effect on the tank.

As for Lupul, Michael responded in this thread that Shanny and Babcock wanted him gone so he had to go no matter what.  I definitely realize no one wants him.  At the same time I'm positive you could still trade him; you just have to get bent over and eat half his cap space or something like that.  Lupul is unlikely to bounce back very much, whereas Kessel, I'd say, has a very good shot at it.

But Lupul doesn't have to bounce back much. Just enough so that you don't have to get "bent over" if you want to trade him. And Michael saying that doesn't necessarily make it so.

With Kessel, you're arguing that he'll "bounce back" to a point where the team will do substantially better in a trade offer than two good prospects and a first round draft pick which probably requires Kessel to not only score at or near his prime but fundamentally requires him to alter perception of him around the league which I genuinely don't think he's capable short of contributing to a successful team which was not going to happen in Toronto for years.

So I do actually believe that Lupul putting together a season that lifts him from largely untradeable to tradeable is more likely than Kessel having a season that sees him fetching a return that's significantly better than what just about any player has been traded for in recent memory.

If that is actually true and they couldn't just reduce the prospect package coming back, it just kicks back to the previous point.  Don't make the trade at all.  It just means PIT values that 1.25MM as well as I think a team should.

But realistically not trading Kessel isn't an option. They're rebuilding. This is what a rebuild is. A rebuild really isn't about holding onto individual assets in the hopes of maximizing their value, it's about starting fresh and building chiefly around the team's own draft picks.

 

[Chris]

We can debate the exact reasons Chris' post has troubles - he's wrong, he's intellectually inferior, he's drinking, etc.

See how I can just throw whatever out there and it doesn't have to be even 1% true, but I've directed the reader to think that way because of how it's been written.  There's tons of reasons Kessel could have been dealt that have nothing to do with what you wrote (for example, he didn't fit into a rebuilding team trying to stockpile picks/prospects) but by only listing very negative qualities that may or may not be true, you've directed it to be only about the negative reasons.  It's what guys like Simmons do - hint, dance around these things without outright saying they think so, or without outright providing evidence of it.  But still making the reader think it.

And obviously I don't believe any of the above!  I'm sure you're a great, smart dude.

That's pretty weak stuff right there.

We all saw Kessel's performance the last half of the season. We all read the QUOTES from Horacheck, Shanahan, and others about some players being unwilling to change, about fitness and work ethic. Who do you think those were directed at? Panik? Booth? Holland?

I'm not even talking about the opinion pieces that have been written, I'm talking about direct quotes. I don't get into the "Kessel eats hotdogs and cookies" crap, but I do see him laboring to the bench after every shift like he's been shot.

It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

And yes, I'll grant that (1) Kessel had the greatest potential to upset the "tank" next year if he returned to form, and (2) he would bring the greatest return out of all the players from the core (Phaneuf, Bozak, Lupul, maybe JVR). But all those players are still around. There was supposedly a decent deal on the table for Phaneuf at the deadline, and the Leafs held off. That should also tell you something about how they view each player.

 

[Kin]

There was supposedly a decent deal on the table for Phaneuf at the deadline, and the Leafs held off. That should also tell you something about how they view each player.

Everything I've seen about that says that it was Detroit who backed away from that deal, not Toronto. The ones I've seen regarding what Toronto was actually offered basically amounted to Phaneuf being given away for free.

 

[mr grieves]

Those of you still wringing your hands about the return on this deal need to accept a  simple fact - to Leaf management, the most important thing was to get Kessel out of the organization. [...] But everything management said pointed to them wanting Kessel gone, and they accomplished that task.

Actually, it's those of us who are underwhelmed by the return who recognize this fact. We just don't think managing to get an elite goal scorer off your roster for B and C prospects -- but also to air out the room, save the children, and "be consistent in our messaging" -- is that much of an accomplishment.

 

[Kin]

Actually, it's those of us who are underwhelmed by the return who recognize this fact. We just don't think managing to get an elite goal scorer off your roster for B and C prospects -- but also to air out the room, save the children, and "be consistent in our messaging" -- is that much of an accomplishment.

Who do you think is presenting the Kessel trade as a great accomplishment? At best, there are some people who are excited by the return and recognize why it happened.

 

[mr grieves]

Actually, it's those of us who are underwhelmed by the return who recognize this fact. We just don't think managing to get an elite goal scorer off your roster for B and C prospects -- but also to air out the room, save the children, and "be consistent in our messaging" -- is that much of an accomplishment.

Who do you think is presenting the Kessel trade as a great accomplishment? At best, there are some people who are excited by the return and recognize why it happened.

Chris there. Steve Simmons. Sports talk. Few here, sure.

 

[Bender]

Couldn't you say the same thing about the original trade to get him?

To Leaf management, acquiring Kessel was the most important thing and they accomplished that task so stop wringing your hands about what they had to give up to get him

I don't actually beleive the above, but it sounds like a similar position.

What they gave up were largely unknowns though, and no protection on the picks.

There's protection on the picks.

I'm referring to acquiring Kessel. I'm saying I don't think you can just go "Oh well, this is what they wanted and they did it." I think the deal to GET Kessel can be criticized more than the trade to remove him.

 

[Kin]

Chris there. Steve Simmons. Sports talk. Few here, sure.

Yes, the return wasn't as good as I had hoped. I wanted another high 1st round pick, preferably this year. But, under the circumstances...good enough.

Congratulations. You're proving yourself to be less reasonable on this topic than Steve Simmons.

 

[pnjunction]

I'm referring to acquiring Kessel. I'm saying I don't think you can just go "Oh well, this is what they wanted and they did it." I think the deal to GET Kessel can be criticized more than the trade to remove him.

Yeah that's where I'm at, it's on Burke and Nonis that the team is just getting to a proper rebuild now and Kessel had to go for the reasons outlined by others here (basically there is no upside to keeping him, either his value or the value of our picks next year would suffer).

Ignoring the spare parts we basically got Kapanen and a protected pick for Seguin and Hamilton which is pretty crap but Burke set this in motion all those years ago.

 

[Chris]

Actually, it's those of us who are underwhelmed by the return who recognize this fact. We just don't think managing to get an elite goal scorer off your roster for B and C prospects -- but also to air out the room, save the children, and "be consistent in our messaging" -- is that much of an accomplishment.

Who do you think is presenting the Kessel trade as a great accomplishment? At best, there are some people who are excited by the return and recognize why it happened.

Chris there. Steve Simmons. Sports talk. Few here, sure.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said I viewed it as a great accomplishment. I said that all the evidence suggests to me that management wanted to get rid of Kessel, and they accomplished that for an "acceptable" return.

Personally, I thought and hoped he'd fetch more. Not sure whether holding out for something better would have worked.

 

[Guilt Trip]

I think Colby Armstrong thought this was a criticism of Kessel that he was making?

That's some heavy back-pedalling there, Colby.

Here's more of the quote...the last line is the important one and that's what the Leafs had to ship him out...you can bet when he says a little, he's downplaying it for the media...

?I just felt with Phil, he was looked on to be kind of the Sidney Crosby of our team ? a leader,? former Leafs and Pens winger Colby Armstrong said on Sportsnet FAN 590 on Wednesday. ?We all see what (Kessel) does. He skates fast to the puck, he shoots the puck, he can make things happen. But when the game?s on the line, if he can get a goal for you, that?s about all he?s gonna do.?. ?As far as winning battles and the extra mile, it did become, for me as a teammate, a little bit frustrating at times.?

 

[Bender]

I think Colby Armstrong thought this was a criticism of Kessel that he was making?

That's some heavy back-pedalling there, Colby.

Here's more of the quote...the last line is the important one and that's what the Leafs had to ship him out...you can bet when he says a little, he's downplaying it for the media...

?I just felt with Phil, he was looked on to be kind of the Sidney Crosby of our team ? a leader,? former Leafs and Pens winger Colby Armstrong said on Sportsnet FAN 590 on Wednesday. ?We all see what (Kessel) does. He skates fast to the puck, he shoots the puck, he can make things happen. But when the game?s on the line, if he can get a goal for you, that?s about all he?s gonna do.?. ?As far as winning battles and the extra mile, it did become, for me as a teammate, a little bit frustrating at times.?

I'm sorry, but I found Colby Armstrong's inability to play hockey more frustrating than Kessel being top 5 in goal scoring since he came here.

 

[mr grieves]

Actually, it's those of us who are underwhelmed by the return who recognize this fact. We just don't think managing to get an elite goal scorer off your roster for B and C prospects -- but also to air out the room, save the children, and "be consistent in our messaging" -- is that much of an accomplishment.

Who do you think is presenting the Kessel trade as a great accomplishment? At best, there are some people who are excited by the return and recognize why it happened.

Chris there. Steve Simmons. Sports talk. Few here, sure.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said I viewed it as a great accomplishment. I said that all the evidence suggests to me that management wanted to get rid of Kessel, and they accomplished that for an "acceptable" return.

Well, I didn't initially say you thought it was a "great accomplishment." Nik said that, and I rose to the bait. Apologies. "Not much of an accomplishment" I'll stand by.

I think the fundamental difference fans will continue to have about this trade has to do with whether you believe the Leafs had to move Kessel. That management -- or at least Shanahan -- thought Kessel had to be moved is obvious. But that doesn't mean this return is acceptable any more than Clarkson's contract was acceptable (when management decided they had to have him) or Grabovski's buyout was acceptable (when management decided they had to have the cap space). Once management commits to those premises and once we buy them, the outcomes look reasonable -- it's just math and the market. But we don't need to buy those premises.

So, if you agree with management that Kessel had to be moved (before Pittsburgh signs a winger in the summer 2015 offseason), then the return can probably run from good to acceptable, especially when you factor in whatever benefits you think will accrue from his absence (development, draft position, culture, etc.). If you don't agree that there was an urgency to move Kessel now or even anytime in the near future, then the return is going to be mediocre to unacceptable. 

 

[Kin]

Well, I didn't initially say you thought it was a "great accomplishment." Nik said that, and I rose to the bait. Apologies. "Not much of an accomplishment" I'll stand by.

I asked you who you thought was presenting it as a great accomplishment. You could have pretty easily said nobody. "Great" or "not much of a" doesn't really matter. Nobody is pointing to this as some impressive achievement.

Regardless, you can be as pedantic about adjectives as you want but the fact remains that nobody is holding this up as an "accomplishment" in any sense other than it's purely literal one in that it is something the Leafs did.

The fact that nobody in the league really wanted Kessel much might raise it to that level but the Leafs didn't get a world beating return so, again, reasonable people here are not presenting it as anything other than a trade that happened.

I think the fundamental difference fans will continue to have about this trade has to do with whether you believe the Leafs had to move Kessel.

I don't believe the Leafs had to move Kessel. I think it was in the Leafs best interest to move Kessel and that the benefits to doing it now outweighed the theoretical gains holding onto him might bring.

That's all. The only people who are talking in absolutes here are the people who are unable to see the nuance.

 

[Chris]

I think the fundamental difference fans will continue to have about this trade has to do with whether you believe the Leafs had to move Kessel. That management -- or at least Shanahan -- thought Kessel had to be moved is obvious. But that doesn't mean this return is acceptable any more than Clarkson's contract was acceptable (when management decided they had to have him) or Grabovski's buyout was acceptable (when management decided they had to have the cap space). Once management commits to those premises and once we buy them, the outcomes look reasonable -- it's just math and the market. But we don't need to buy those premises.

So, if you agree with management that Kessel had to be moved (before Pittsburgh signs a winger in the summer 2015 offseason), then the return can probably run from good to acceptable, especially when you factor in whatever benefits you think will accrue from his absence (development, draft position, culture, etc.). If you don't agree that there was an urgency to move Kessel now or even anytime in the near future, then the return is going to be mediocre to unacceptable.

Well...management had a LOT more information available to them than any of us do. That doesn't necessarily mean they made the best decision. But they know what went on inside the locker room, how fit Kessel was or was not, what kinds of deals other teams were willing to make...all that. All we have is what we see on the ice, and what we read in the papers.

Could it simply be a case of Kessel being able to fetch the greatest return, making him the most logical place to start the rebuild? Perhaps. More likely it's a combination of that and the other factors I speculated on earlier. We'll probably never know the relative importance of these factors.

 

[L K]

I think Colby Armstrong thought this was a criticism of Kessel that he was making?

That's some heavy back-pedalling there, Colby.

Here's more of the quote...the last line is the important one and that's what the Leafs had to ship him out...you can bet when he says a little, he's downplaying it for the media...

?I just felt with Phil, he was looked on to be kind of the Sidney Crosby of our team ? a leader,? former Leafs and Pens winger Colby Armstrong said on Sportsnet FAN 590 on Wednesday. ?We all see what (Kessel) does. He skates fast to the puck, he shoots the puck, he can make things happen. But when the game?s on the line, if he can get a goal for you, that?s about all he?s gonna do.?. ?As far as winning battles and the extra mile, it did become, for me as a teammate, a little bit frustrating at times.?

I'm sorry, but I found Colby Armstrong's inability to play hockey more frustrating than Kessel being top 5 in goal scoring since he came here.

I honestly don't remember Colby Armstrong as a Leaf.  I know he played for us, was injured for part of it I think and that his play was really underwhelming.  I think he wasn't a great skater and that he wasn't nearly as physical as we were hoping he would be.  But that's honestly a guess because I don't remember him.  So really, I find it amusing that he's "frustrated that Kessel doesn't play like him" when to be honest I don't  really remember Colby playing like that either....and lo and behold 9G 17A in 76 games as a Leaf. 

 

[Kin]

But isn't that sort of just a repackaged "you didn't play the game" stuff that we hear directed at fans and writers? Armstrong's points may or may not stand on their own merits but if the guy's being paid as an analyst or whatever then his own shortcomings as a player are largely irrelevant.

Many of the best ex-players who go into the media were guys who weren't the best players themselves. I don't think that undermines what they say.