Tank Nation UNITE!!!

[LuncheonMeat]

It's not a foundation one can build a team around. I've never seen a hockey team win a league championship with a guy like this as a key figure. And I think that's what the Leafs have concluded.

I don't even know how one can argue against or for this.  How do you disprove or prove it?  I've also never seen a team win a Cup with a player like Kessel and a poor roster around him.  Any team that wins the Cup is going to have a very strong roster with multiple key players.  Chicago has Kane and Toews - which is "built around"?  Or is it Keith?  Who is LA built around? Doughty? Kopitar? Quick?

I don't want to re-hash to old Yzerman argument, but again "I never saw a team built around Yzerman win the Cup...until they surrounded him with multiple Hall of Famers for years on end."

Why is Kessel labeled as unable to win with because he's not surrounded by better players?  I mean, Rick Nash was criticized his entire career, was unable to wring success out of poor rosters in Columbus by himself...goes to New York and they're in the Cup finals and have a chance to do so again.  Rick Nash: streaky, an Olympian, predominantly a pure goal scorer, a total of 4 playoff games in 9 seasons.  Suddenly he's a key cog in a Cup contender.

It's incredibly unfair to heap so much on Kessel's shoulders.  Fact is, no one could do more with these teams.  And it wouldn't be their faults either.

There's no need to build ridiculous narratives about being unable to win with "a guy like that."  Just say what it actually is - unable to win with a roster like that.

Your Rick Nash argument is exactly why I'm hopeful the Leafs can grab a good return for Kessel.  Scorers of his caliber don't come available very often, and he should shine on a team where he isn't the best/only good player.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It's not a foundation one can build a team around. I've never seen a hockey team win a league championship with a guy like this as a key figure. And I think that's what the Leafs have concluded.

I don't even know how one can argue against or for this.  How do you disprove or prove it?  I've also never seen a team win a Cup with a player like Kessel and a poor roster around him.  Any team that wins the Cup is going to have a very strong roster with multiple key players.  Chicago has Kane and Toews - which is "built around"?  Or is it Keith?  Who is LA built around? Doughty? Kopitar? Quick?

I don't want to re-hash to old Yzerman argument, but again "I never saw a team built around Yzerman win the Cup...until they surrounded him with multiple Hall of Famers for years on end."

Why is Kessel labeled as unable to win with because he's not surrounded by better players?  I mean, Rick Nash was criticized his entire career, was unable to wring success out of poor rosters in Columbus by himself...goes to New York and they're in the Cup finals and have a chance to do so again.  Rick Nash: streaky, an Olympian, predominantly a pure goal scorer, a total of 4 playoff games in 9 seasons.  Suddenly he's a key cog in a Cup contender.

It's incredibly unfair to heap so much on Kessel's shoulders.  Fact is, no one could do more with these teams.  And it wouldn't be their faults either.

There's no need to build ridiculous narratives about being unable to win with "a guy like that."  Just say what it actually is - unable to win with a roster like that.

Your Rick Nash argument is exactly why I'm hopeful the Leafs can grab a good return for Kessel.  Scorers of his caliber don't come available very often, and he should shine on a team where he isn't the best/only good player.

And to go further, even if Kessel was an elite 2-way scoring winger (but then if he was he would've never been dealt...anyway) I don't think it changes anything about the team.  There's only so much influence a winger can have defensively on a team's fortunes.  If Kessel is significantly better defensively but still has Bozak as his C I doubt the team finishes any better and if so, only marginally.

Kessel's been part of lines where they outchanced the opposition while on the ice over the course of a season.  It happened 3 straight seasons in Boston.  In 09-10 with the Leafs when he played just over half the season with Matt Stajan he had the best scoring chance for % of his career (he and Stajan were actually really good that season until Stajan was dealt - they had a 57% CF%).

 

[Al14]

So if the Leafs can't work out a good deal for top tier prospects and/or picks, do they keep him or just take what they can get and move on? Same with Phaneuf?

In order to totally bottom out, finish last for a few seasons, I'd be prepared to get as much as you can by trading both Kessel and Phaneuf ASAP.  Let's just move on from these 2 leading our flawed core.

I'm not sure waiting to trade either will garner much more in trades at a later date.  Especially with Phaneuf IMHO.

 

[Peter D.]

So if the Leafs can't work out a good deal for top tier prospects and/or picks, do they keep him or just take what they can get and move on? Same with Phaneuf?

I'd apply the former to Kessel and the latter to Phaneuf.

I'd keep Kessel around 100 times over Phaneuf. 

 

[freer]

So if the Leafs can't work out a good deal for top tier prospects and/or picks, do they keep him or just take what they can get and move on? Same with Phaneuf?

I'd apply the former to Kessel and the latter to Phaneuf.

I'd keep Kessel around 100 times over Phaneuf.

Why his 30 goals a season, have done nothing for the team. And defensive play IMO is the worst on this team. Get what we can

 

[cw]

It's not a foundation one can build a team around. I've never seen a hockey team win a league championship with a guy like this as a key figure. And I think that's what the Leafs have concluded.

I don't even know how one can argue against or for this.  How do you disprove or prove it?  I've also never seen a team win a Cup with a player like Kessel and a poor roster around him.  Any team that wins the Cup is going to have a very strong roster with multiple key players.  Chicago has Kane and Toews - which is "built around"?  Or is it Keith?  Who is LA built around? Doughty? Kopitar? Quick?

I don't want to re-hash to old Yzerman argument, but again "I never saw a team built around Yzerman win the Cup...until they surrounded him with multiple Hall of Famers for years on end."

Why is Kessel labeled as unable to win with because he's not surrounded by better players?  I mean, Rick Nash was criticized his entire career, was unable to wring success out of poor rosters in Columbus by himself...goes to New York and they're in the Cup finals and have a chance to do so again.  Rick Nash: streaky, an Olympian, predominantly a pure goal scorer, a total of 4 playoff games in 9 seasons.  Suddenly he's a key cog in a Cup contender.

It's incredibly unfair to heap so much on Kessel's shoulders.  Fact is, no one could do more with these teams.  And it wouldn't be their faults either.

There's no need to build ridiculous narratives about being unable to win with "a guy like that."  Just say what it actually is - unable to win with a roster like that.

I'm sure there are numerous instances of Cup winners having marginal players on them. Anders Eriksson, an ex-Leaf, is one example we raised on this site years ago as he won a Cup with the Wings in '98 or so.

And there was unfair/inaccurate criticism of Yzerman.

Could Phil Kessel play on a Cup winner? Absolutely. Nearly any half decent NHLer can, as guys like Anders Eriksson proved.

But in this cap era, we're kind of stuck building around 2-3 really key/elite guys and then a core around them of pretty good players.

I have a problem expecting Kessel is a key/elite figure we can reliably base our Cup hopes on when he plays as he has and quits as he has this season. I think a guy you build around has to deliver more.

Kessel would be a fine addition as a peripheral scorer - if that was the final piece a team needed, for example. But at $8 mil/yr, he's relied up on more than a peripheral scoring talent in a cap system. After this season, I question his character for that role.

 

[Kin]

They did shop him. They nearly traded him at the draft - before they made any offer. But it fell apart when they debated which 1st round pick or something like that.

The Bruins were always aware of the cap situation they were in. They were also aware of where on the pecking order Kessel fell among their young players. Again, the Bruins could not afford to keep their young players together. That squeezed Kessel out.

Boston confirmed that they tried to trade Kessel at the draft (with the Leafs for Kaberle & a 1st rnd pick) - before discussions of Kessel's contract were started with his agent. And that was before the Kessel camp made the so-called request that the Bruins trade him.

When did they do that? Where? In the pages of a newspaper notorious for badmouthing former Boston players and defending management once players are out the door? Or did they do that at the time?

 

[Chris]

So if the Leafs can't work out a good deal for top tier prospects and/or picks, do they keep him or just take what they can get and move on? Same with Phaneuf?

I'd apply the former to Kessel and the latter to Phaneuf.

I'd keep Kessel around 100 times over Phaneuf.

I'd tend to agree but, none of us have enough information to really make the call. We (I) like to joke about Phil's conditioning and training habits, work ethic, etc, but none of us really know how hard he works out during the summer, what he eats, if he really was one of the best conditioned players in training camp. There were rumors he was injured a while back, was/is that true? If so, why is he playing at all.

If he's not injured, then it is certainly apparent from his play that he's given up this season, save for the occasional inspired shift. And that is something I don't like to see from a professional athlete getting paid $8 million a year. Is his quitting a by-product of a poisonous atmosphere throughout the team, or is he a major source of it? Does he want to be in Toronto any more? These are all issues management should have a better handle on, so I won't fault them if they decide to just trade him for whatever they can get this summer.

 

[cw]

They did shop him. They nearly traded him at the draft - before they made any offer. But it fell apart when they debated which 1st round pick or something like that.

The Bruins were always aware of the cap situation they were in. They were also aware of where on the pecking order Kessel fell among their young players. Again, the Bruins could not afford to keep their young players together. That squeezed Kessel out.

They kept Sturm ($3.5 mil, traded in '10-11), Ryder ($4 mil) & Wideman ($3.875) who they traded in Mar '10 for example and had about $1.5 mil in cap space. Kessel was on the IR to start the '09-10 season.

So they could have paid Kessel nearly $5 mil and kept him if they dumped Sturm or Ryder (who they would abandon fairly shortly afterwards).

Like most contenders, they had cap space issues but it wasn't something they couldn't overcome. Where there's a will, there's a way. Team find room for their elite talent they want to keep. They just didn't want to keep Phil badly enough. 

Boston confirmed that they tried to trade Kessel at the draft (with the Leafs for Kaberle & a 1st rnd pick) - before discussions of Kessel's contract were started with his agent. And that was before the Kessel camp made the so-called request that the Bruins trade him.

When did they do that? Where? In the pages of a newspaper notorious for badmouthing former Boston players and defending management once players are out the door? Or did they do that at the time?

TSN reported it on draft day (as did others). Chiarelli confirmed it during the discussion of the Leafs trade for Kessel. Kaberle was to replace Wideman with Chara. In July 2009, after the draft, was when Kessel requested a trade.

 

[Al14]

So if the Leafs can't work out a good deal for top tier prospects and/or picks, do they keep him or just take what they can get and move on? Same with Phaneuf?

I'd apply the former to Kessel and the latter to Phaneuf.

I'd keep Kessel around 100 times over Phaneuf.

I'd tend to agree but, none of us have enough information to really make the call. We (I) like to joke about Phil's conditioning and training habits, work ethic, etc, but none of us really know how hard he works out during the summer, what he eats, if he really was one of the best conditioned players in training camp. There were rumors he was injured a while back, was/is that true? If so, why is he playing at all.

If he's not injured, then it is certainly apparent from his play that he's given up this season, save for the occasional inspired shift. And that is something I don't like to see from a professional athlete getting paid $8 million a year. Is his quitting a by-product of a poisonous atmosphere throughout the team, or is he a major source of it? Does he want to be in Toronto any more? These are all issues management should have a better handle on, so I won't fault them if they decide to just trade him for whatever they can get this summer.

$8.0M is his cap hit!  He's actually getting paid $10.0M for this season!!!

 

[Kin]

Like most contenders, they had cap space issues but it wasn't something they couldn't overcome. Where there's a will, there's a way. Team find room for their elite talent they want to keep. They just didn't want to keep Phil badly enough.

Right because, again, they wanted to keep Kessel but not "badly enough" that it overcame every single other thing they wanted to do. Likewise, Chicago could have kept Andrew Ladd and Dustin Byfuglien if they'd "really wanted to" but they similarly made the decision to prioritize other players when they were crunched by the cap.

The difference between the two situations is that there's pretty compelling argument right now that Boston has actually made pretty bad decisions on who they cut loose and for what reasons they do it and, as a result, there's a lot of talk about there being a management change in Boston right now.

TSN reported it on draft day (as did others). Chiarelli confirmed it during the discussion of the Leafs trade for Kessel. Kaberle was to replace Wideman with Chara. In July 2009, after the draft, was when Kessel requested a trade.

Chiarelli, when discussing the trade after the fact, actually said that there were "significant offers", plural, made to Kessel and that it was Kessel's who had no interest in negotiations.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm sure there are numerous instances of Cup winners having marginal players on them. Anders Eriksson, an ex-Leaf, is one example we raised on this site years ago as he won a Cup with the Wings in '98 or so.

And there was unfair/inaccurate criticism of Yzerman.

Could Phil Kessel play on a Cup winner? Absolutely. Nearly any half decent NHLer can, as guys like Anders Eriksson proved.

But in this cap era, we're kind of stuck building around 2-3 really key/elite guys and then a core around them of pretty good players.

I have a problem expecting Kessel is a key/elite figure we can reliably base our Cup hopes on when he plays as he has and quits as he has this season. I think a guy you build around has to deliver more.

Kessel would be a fine addition as a peripheral scorer - if that was the final piece a team needed, for example. But at $8 mil/yr, he's relied up on more than a peripheral scoring talent in a cap system. After this season, I question his character for that role.

Kessel as a peripheral scoring talent? He was top 10 in scoring each of the previous three seasons. I would imagine he'd be expected to be the primary scorer on most teams.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove with Anders Eriksson. That a bad player can play on a good team?

I wouldn't really fault Kessel if he's had some motivation issues this season. This team is brutal.

 

[TML fan]

Edited: Was going to get involved, but then realized that this conversation is like Stephane Robidas and Kessel after a powerplay.....Old and Tired.

 

[MetalRaven]

I'm sure there are numerous instances of Cup winners having marginal players on them. Anders Eriksson, an ex-Leaf, is one example we raised on this site years ago as he won a Cup with the Wings in '98 or so.

And there was unfair/inaccurate criticism of Yzerman.

Could Phil Kessel play on a Cup winner? Absolutely. Nearly any half decent NHLer can, as guys like Anders Eriksson proved.

But in this cap era, we're kind of stuck building around 2-3 really key/elite guys and then a core around them of pretty good players.

I have a problem expecting Kessel is a key/elite figure we can reliably base our Cup hopes on when he plays as he has and quits as he has this season. I think a guy you build around has to deliver more.

Kessel would be a fine addition as a peripheral scorer - if that was the final piece a team needed, for example. But at $8 mil/yr, he's relied up on more than a peripheral scoring talent in a cap system. After this season, I question his character for that role.

Kessel as a peripheral scoring talent? He was top 10 in scoring each of the previous three seasons. I would imagine he'd be expected to be the primary scorer on most teams.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove with Anders Eriksson. That a bad player can play on a good team?

I wouldn't really fault Kessel if he's had some motivation issues this season. This team is brutal.

I think the crux of the great debate we are currently seeing is exactly what you touched on here. I personally believe the motivational issues with Kessel go much further back then just this season and have little or nothing to do with winning/losing. He seems unwilling to do the "hard things" involved with being a hockey player. He seems to have a very lackadaisical attitude towards defense, retrieving the puck, 1 on 1 battles, going into corners (not sure about this one myself never bothered to really look into it and just offering it here as a regularly criticized thing about Kessel) Thats just on the ice. There also seems to be quite a number of off ice issues that all seem to point to a player that just doesn't want to work.

Can we realistically win with a player (not the only player), who is going to be expected to be a major part of the core, one of the 2-4 elite players we are going to be able to get due to cap restrictions, with his attitude? (On ice especially but with a little nod to Off-ice)

BOS had this decision to make because of financial reasons but ultimately decided to spend their money elsewhere. They decided for one reason or another that other players were more important to winning the Cup. I think the Leafs will make (have come to) the same decision only we have a lot more time to move him. I do believe that another GM will take a shot on him as he can score 30 goals and I think we will get fair value for him.

 

[cw]

I'm sure there are numerous instances of Cup winners having marginal players on them. Anders Eriksson, an ex-Leaf, is one example we raised on this site years ago as he won a Cup with the Wings in '98 or so.

And there was unfair/inaccurate criticism of Yzerman.

Could Phil Kessel play on a Cup winner? Absolutely. Nearly any half decent NHLer can, as guys like Anders Eriksson proved.

But in this cap era, we're kind of stuck building around 2-3 really key/elite guys and then a core around them of pretty good players.

I have a problem expecting Kessel is a key/elite figure we can reliably base our Cup hopes on when he plays as he has and quits as he has this season. I think a guy you build around has to deliver more.

Kessel would be a fine addition as a peripheral scorer - if that was the final piece a team needed, for example. But at $8 mil/yr, he's relied up on more than a peripheral scoring talent in a cap system. After this season, I question his character for that role.

Kessel as a peripheral scoring talent? He was top 10 in scoring each of the previous three seasons. I would imagine he'd be expected to be the primary scorer on most teams.

He'd be at or near the top as a finisher. There's no denying he's an elite finisher. But he is scoring a lot from the periphery/outside.

In his 36 goal season in Boston, 29 or so were against non playoff teams. If you keep him to the outside and play him physically - make him battle for the puck - which he often won't do, he can be shut down fairly easily.

It's a nice skill to have on the roster but in the tougher games, those are the guys who tend to fade first when scoring gets tough.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to prove with Anders Eriksson. That a bad player can play on a good team?

I wouldn't really fault Kessel if he's had some motivation issues this season. This team is brutal.

I think it's a .500 or so hockey team playing .230. He's making about $120,000 per game this season. Imagine a couple of folks who forked out a few hundred to get scarce tickets a few months ago and the guy who is earning more money in less than 20 mins ice time than most folks earn in a year, is taking another night off. That won't compute for my sense of what is right. I won't accept that. I think it's disgraceful.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

There also seems to be quite a number of off ice issues that all seem to point to a player that just doesn't want to work.

Such as?

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I'm sure there are numerous instances of Cup winners having marginal players on them. Anders Eriksson, an ex-Leaf, is one example we raised on this site years ago as he won a Cup with the Wings in '98 or so.

And there was unfair/inaccurate criticism of Yzerman.

Could Phil Kessel play on a Cup winner? Absolutely. Nearly any half decent NHLer can, as guys like Anders Eriksson proved.

But in this cap era, we're kind of stuck building around 2-3 really key/elite guys and then a core around them of pretty good players.

I have a problem expecting Kessel is a key/elite figure we can reliably base our Cup hopes on when he plays as he has and quits as he has this season. I think a guy you build around has to deliver more.

Kessel would be a fine addition as a peripheral scorer - if that was the final piece a team needed, for example. But at $8 mil/yr, he's relied up on more than a peripheral scoring talent in a cap system. After this season, I question his character for that role.

Kessel as a peripheral scoring talent? He was top 10 in scoring each of the previous three seasons. I would imagine he'd be expected to be the primary scorer on most teams.

He'd be at or near the top as a finisher. There's no denying he's an elite finisher. But he is scoring a lot from the periphery/outside.

In his 36 goal season in Boston, 29 or so were against non playoff teams. If you keep him to the outside and play him physically - make him battle for the puck - which he often won't do, he can be shut down fairly easily.

I'm guessing that's where some of his frustration has come from since Horachek took over.  He was his most dangerous when he was flying the zone early, and using his speed to generate scoring chances.  The shift to a possession game, and Horachek's '5 men in one zone' approach doesn't really suit his style very well.  It means he has to battle for pucks, and although he has been involved along the boards a little more, it's really not something he seems to enjoy or excel at.

 

[rdowdall]

In his 36 goal season in Boston, 29 or so were against non playoff teams. If you keep him to the outside and play him physically - make him battle for the puck - which he often won't do, he can be shut down fairly easily.

It's a nice skill to have on the roster but in the tougher games, those are the guys who tend to fade first when scoring gets tough.

But he's a point per game player in the playoffs, which kind of goes against what you are saying.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I swear to god, I'm absolutely incredulous that any sane right minded person could be ready to 'take what ever you can get' for Phil Kessel and warning people that 'they're going to have to eat this or accept that'.

Gentlemen, this league is all about scoring, if you have a good team already and have the ability to add 30-50 goals to your lineup, you ask where the seller wants you to back up the dump truck full of cash.

If Kessel gets moved, it will be for a kings ransom or not at all.

 

[Kin]

In his 36 goal season in Boston, 29 or so were against non playoff teams. If you keep him to the outside and play him physically - make him battle for the puck - which he often won't do, he can be shut down fairly easily.

And in his 37 goal season in Toronto in 2011-2012, he scored 20 of those goals against playoff teams. And then in 2012-2013 he scored 9 of his 20 goals against playoff teams and then 4 in 7 games in the playoffs.

So how is that Boston season more relevant?