Phil Kessel
- Thread starter GhostofPotvin29
- Start date
Saint Nik said:
No, they aren't spare parts, but I will be satisfied (enough) with the deal if Kessel winds up being the most valuable player in it -- something that is far from certain at the moment. The guys that are hardest to get are the top-end guys. 2nd and 3rd line players (which one might expect, if one were quite lucky, for those picks to turn out as) are more easily obtained commodities.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
But, and not that the trade itself is the most interesting thing in the world at this point, Kessel wasn't traded for Seguin, Hamilton and Knight. He was traded for those picks. I don't see how the trade, on the Leafs' end, is determined by whether or not Boston drafts well.
I realize it is foolish for me to attempt an explanation ... but this just goes to show I'm a fool.
In the previous paragraph of your post, which I didn't quote in its entirety, you said this:
The words "That's the standard" are ambiguous unfortunately. "That's" is an ambiguous reference. I assumed (part of) the standard you were referring to was that one should not be satisfied with a pure goal-scorer who has a slump unless that player is also a PPG player.
If the point of your post, as you later said, was to say that "Kessel needs to improve in order for the team to improve", well then, I certainly agree with that. There's no disagreement there. You seemed to be arguing with cw and I can't imagine cw not wanting Kessel to improve or grow; in fact he mentioned the possibility of using him in new ways such as on the penalty kill, which would require some growth. So certainly, one of the most likely ways for the team to improve is for Kessel to improve. A substantial improvement from other players that play big minutes on the team would also help a lot.
When I said this:
you interpreted my first sentence incorrectly.
"It is not the case that (everyone thinks Kessel has to be a PPG scorer)." ===> universal agreement does not exist
is different from
"Everyone does not (think Kessel has to be a PPG scorer)." ===> universal agreement does exist
I intended to say: there are differences in opinion. Some posters' opinions align with the idea that Kessel has to be a PPG scorer to have significant value, other posters' opinions do not. The second sentence, which you didn't quote, was my attempt to clarify my meaning. It emphasized the idea of differences of opinions. That was what I was trying to get at, which is quite the opposite of everyone thinking one or everyone thinking the other.
As an example, I'd be pretty happy with 40 goals, 70 points and a 10-game goalless streak from Kessel. That kind of player is pretty rare. I believe that kind of player, especially with mediocre linemates, and even if their defense is pretty suspect, is likely to be pretty valuable. Perhaps you agree with that, perhaps you don't. Of course, even if I was happy with that, I'd still of course want him to improve further! Being satisfied that a certain level of play contributes positively isn't in contradiction with hoping for further improvement.
Again, this is all in the name of clarifying my own position a little. To be honest, our opinions are often fairly similar. You, Nik, do find a particular joy in finding the differences, putting a knife in, and twisting.
Saint Nik said:
In the previous paragraph of your post, which I didn't quote in its entirety, you said this:
The words "That's the standard" are ambiguous unfortunately. "That's" is an ambiguous reference. I assumed (part of) the standard you were referring to was that one should not be satisfied with a pure goal-scorer who has a slump unless that player is also a PPG player.
If the point of your post, as you later said, was to say that "Kessel needs to improve in order for the team to improve", well then, I certainly agree with that. There's no disagreement there. You seemed to be arguing with cw and I can't imagine cw not wanting Kessel to improve or grow; in fact he mentioned the possibility of using him in new ways such as on the penalty kill, which would require some growth. So certainly, one of the most likely ways for the team to improve is for Kessel to improve. A substantial improvement from other players that play big minutes on the team would also help a lot.
When I said this:
you interpreted my first sentence incorrectly.
"It is not the case that (everyone thinks Kessel has to be a PPG scorer)." ===> universal agreement does not exist
is different from
"Everyone does not (think Kessel has to be a PPG scorer)." ===> universal agreement does exist
I intended to say: there are differences in opinion. Some posters' opinions align with the idea that Kessel has to be a PPG scorer to have significant value, other posters' opinions do not. The second sentence, which you didn't quote, was my attempt to clarify my meaning. It emphasized the idea of differences of opinions. That was what I was trying to get at, which is quite the opposite of everyone thinking one or everyone thinking the other.
As an example, I'd be pretty happy with 40 goals, 70 points and a 10-game goalless streak from Kessel. That kind of player is pretty rare. I believe that kind of player, especially with mediocre linemates, and even if their defense is pretty suspect, is likely to be pretty valuable. Perhaps you agree with that, perhaps you don't. Of course, even if I was happy with that, I'd still of course want him to improve further! Being satisfied that a certain level of play contributes positively isn't in contradiction with hoping for further improvement.
Again, this is all in the name of clarifying my own position a little. To be honest, our opinions are often fairly similar. You, Nik, do find a particular joy in finding the differences, putting a knife in, and twisting.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
I don't think that there's anything particularly ambiguous about using "that" to refer to what was said immediately preceding the that. It'd be pretty confusing for anyone to use "that" to refer to anything else but, heck, like you say it's not the world's biggest deal.
And I think you misinterpreted that argument anyway. I meant to say that a PPG player is about the level at which a player is probably above criticism re: their offensive output.
princedpw said:
Ok, but if we're agreed that Kessel needs to improve in order for the team to improve, which I'm guessing that we're all in favour of, then we can't really be satisfied with his play, can we?
When I said this:
princedpw said:
Fair enough and my bad on that but you are entirely off base with what I was saying about a point per game scorer. All I was doing there was highlighting the difference in criticism a guy like Kessel is going to face over his offensive slumps vs. a guy like Sundin, Ovechkin and Kovalchuk. Not that a player has to be a PPG player to have significant value.
Boston Leaf
New member
no matter how its sliced and diced his overall hustle, backcheck and defensive work was extrememly encouraging to see. 
maplesyrup
New member
Kessel just turned 24 and has "only" played 376 NHL games. Most of have an idea of the kind of player he is but I still think there is a lot of room for him to continue to grow/evolve. There is still ample opportunity for Kessel to emerge as the significantly better piece of the trade in my opinion. Like we said when the deal went down, none of us will know for sure until several years afterwards. Tic Toc.
Pucken Chronic
New member
Why can't I like this guy? Has nothin to do with the trade. Has nothing to do with him being a Yank. Just something about his face or something irritates me. I want to like him, I think he's a better player then he gets credit for, I feel sympathy for all the crap he's had to put up with since becoming a Leaf .... but still. Maybe after his 123 goal season I'll get over it and he'll grow on me.