Here's how you trade Kessel....

[Bullfrog]

To a degree, yes. But Kessel is still a valuable asset and there had better something of good value coming back.

 

[mr grieves]

Is there where Kessel trade talk is moving..? If so, a really nice article -- covering comparable trades and the timing of the rebuild -- on MLHS. Whole thing's worth a look, but the bottom line:

It just seems all too Leafy. Business as usual. In a league where goal scoring is trending down and Kessel is still young enough to grow with a new core of players, moving him has to be a homerun. It can?t be for a few mystery boxes and a hope and a prayer; two good players and then some hope ?as Rick Nash returned?is the standard. If the goal is to simply get him off the team and start changing the roster composition and culture, there are a collection of other players with big contracts that are objectively worse than Kessel?s who should go out the door first.

link: http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/06/15/trading-phil-kessel-on-value-timing-and-the-maple-leafs-rebuild/

Also, I wonder if there's a concern that keeping Kessel might adversely effect the team's draft position over the next couple years (as we rebuild, wait for the 4 top ten picks to develop/mature), perhaps the greater urgency should be in moving Bernier, whose possible bounce back year would prove much more damaging.

 

[Kin]

The goal of trading Kessel is to stockpile young assets. Trading guys like Bozak and Lupul, if they even can do those things, won't help much in that regard. That they're "objectively worse" than Kessel is the whole point.

For a guy who talks a lot about "typical Leaf behaviour" the idea of a rebuild where you don't trade anyone sure does hit those marks for me. That guy is arguing against a rebuild. There would be nothing more typically Leaf-like than thinking they can build on this rotten foundation without one.

 

[herman]

The goal of trading Kessel is to stockpile young assets. Trading guys like Bozak and Lupul, if they even can do those things, won't help much in that regard. That they're "objectively worse" than Kessel is the whole point.

For a guy who talks a lot about "typical Leaf behaviour" the idea of a rebuild where you don't trade anyone sure does hit those marks for me. That guy is arguing against a rebuild. There would be nothing more typically Leaf-like than thinking they can build on this rotten foundation without one.

I think he was arguing more against trading Kessel for the sake of trading Kessel, rather than arguing against the rebuild in general. Something about trading him only when the deal is right, which it might never be...

 

[Kin]

I think he was arguing more against trading Kessel for the sake of trading Kessel, rather than arguing against the rebuild in general. Something about trading him only when the deal is right, which it might never be...

The team today, despite doom and gloom talk, already has three top 10 picks that are 25 or younger in Morgan Rielly, William Nylander, and Nazem Kadri. They are about to add a fourth this year. They also have a 26-years-old James Van Riemsdyk and Jonathan Bernier, who is 27, along with other young players on the NHL team such as Jake Gardiner, Peter Holland and Richard Panik, as well as a few promising prospects. They aren?t starting from scratch and they have a reasonable, young, productive core to try and add to and build around.

How is that not arguing against a rebuild?

 

[mr grieves]

The team today, despite doom and gloom talk, already has three top 10 picks that are 25 or younger in Morgan Rielly, William Nylander, and Nazem Kadri. They are about to add a fourth this year. They also have a 26-years-old James Van Riemsdyk and Jonathan Bernier, who is 27, along with other young players on the NHL team such as Jake Gardiner, Peter Holland and Richard Panik, as well as a few promising prospects. They aren?t starting from scratch and they have a reasonable, young, productive core to try and add to and build around.

How is that not arguing against a rebuild?

So which of those are the "rotten foundation" again? Rielly? Kadri? Nylander? Whoever the 4th pick is?

 

[Kin]

So which of those are the "rotten foundation" again? Rielly? Kadri? Nylander? Whoever the 4th pick is?

No. You're right. It's Lupul and Bozak. Trade those two for 6th round picks and they're the Blackhawks.

 

[herman]

Perhaps my definition of rebuild is off. Advocating to keep 7/23 roster players seems pretty rebuildy to me, granted not the scorched earth rebuild that Shanahan was given permission to move towards.

My keep list is shorter (Rielly, Nylander).

 

[Kin]

Perhaps my definition of rebuild is off. Advocating to keep 7/23 roster players seems pretty rebuildy to me, granted not the scorched earth rebuild that Shanahan was given permission to move towards.

My keep list is shorter (Rielly, Nylander).

When they consist of the bulk of core that, realistically, is too good to ever really be in contention for the first overall pick? I like Nylander and I'm confident that Marner or Strome or whoever can be a good player but building this team around "good" prospects is what they've been doing for years.

When you add that 7/23 to the positions that are going to largely be inconsequential(like who the back-up goalie and 4th line centre are) you're really advocating that the bulk of the roster largely stay unchanged and you're not really identifying an actual avenue for the team to add the sort of pieces that they'll realistically need to compete. How do the Leafs add the franchise defenseman they're going to need? Or the top of the league #1 Center? By keeping that group together and picking 6th next year?

Christ, we went through this with Burke. You're not going to build a contender on 8th overall picks.

 

[herman]

Perhaps my definition of rebuild is off. Advocating to keep 7/23 roster players seems pretty rebuildy to me, granted not the scorched earth rebuild that Shanahan was given permission to move towards.

My keep list is shorter (Rielly, Nylander).

When they consist of the bulk of core that, realistically, is too good to ever really be in contention for the first overall pick? I like Nylander and I'm confident that Marner or Strome or whoever can be a good player but building this team around "good" prospects is what they've been doing for years.

When you add that 7/23 to the positions that are going to largely be inconsequential(like who the back-up goalie and 4th line centre are) you're really advocating that the bulk of the roster largely stay unchanged and you're not really identifying an actual avenue for the team to add the sort of pieces that they'll realistically need to compete. How do the Leafs add the franchise defenseman they're going to need? Or the top of the league #1 Center? By keeping that group together and picking 6th next year?

Christ, we went through this with Burke. You're not going to build a contender on 8th overall picks.

Thanks, Nik. Indeed, my definition of a true rebuild was off.

If we want to move everything not nailed down at the NHL level (which is only Babcock, it would seem), we're definitely going to have to eat some sub-optimal deals.

 

[Kin]

I mean, it's just the definition of the word. Bernier was the team's #1 goalie last year. JVR, Kadri and Kessel were the team's #1, 2 and 4 scorers last year. If you're "rebuilding" a house...would you keep the equivalent to all that?

I'm genuinely sorry for the people who apparently think this terrible team is going to be a powerhouse in two years if they don't trade anyone of consequence but when we look at whether or not Kessel can "contribute" to a rebuilt team...we're talking 4 or 5 years out. Not 2 or 3. And that 4 or 5 year figure is if things go well. If they luck out at a lottery or two.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I mean, it's just the definition of the word. Bernier was the team's #1 goalie last year. JVR, Kadri and Kessel were the team's #1, 2 and 4 scorers last year. If you're "rebuilding" a house...would you keep the equivalent to all that?

I'm genuinely sorry for the people who apparently think this terrible team is going to be a powerhouse in two years if they don't trade anyone of consequence but when we look at whether or not Kessel can "contribute" to a rebuilt team...we're talking 4 or 5 years out. Not 2 or 3. And that 4 or 5 year figure is if things go well. If they luck out at a lottery or two.

You mean 4 or 5 years till they're in the playoffs and looking for deep runs? If so, the 2-3 year hope is that the light at the end of the tunnel can be seen. If the team is young and improving, missing the playoffs 3 years from now won't be nearly as bad (for my sanity anyway) as it would be if they keep this core for 3 more years and missed the playoffs every year between now and then.

 

[Kin]

You mean 4 or 5 years till they're in the playoffs and looking for deep runs? If so, the 2-3 year hope is that the light at the end of the tunnel can be seen. If the team is young and improving, missing the playoffs 3 years from now won't be nearly as bad (for my sanity anyway) as it would be if they keep this core for 3 more years and missed the playoffs every year between now and then.

I think a realistic goal for two or three years from now is to look like the Panthers or the Stars and saying "Boy, if things keep going down the right path...they've got the pieces in place to be a Chicago or LA so long as they supplement it well". 4 or 5 years I think is what you're looking at to get into legitimate contention.

But again, that's if things go well in terms of who they draft and where. They also need the patience for some bad breaks in that respect.

 

[mr grieves]

I'm genuinely sorry for the people who apparently think this terrible team is going to be a powerhouse in two years if they don't trade anyone of consequence but when we look at whether or not Kessel can "contribute" to a rebuilt team...we're talking 4 or 5 years out. Not 2 or 3. And that 4 or 5 year figure is if things go well. If they luck out at a lottery or two.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, and certainly encouragingly, the present brain trust has been preaching intelligent drafting, patient development, and coordination of the AHL and NHL teams, which I take to mean they envision a path to contending not contingent on winning multiple lotteries.

 

[Kin]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, and certainly encouragingly, the present brain trust has been preaching intelligent drafting, patient development, and coordination of the AHL and NHL teams, which I take to mean they envision a path to contending not contingent on winning multiple lotteries.

It'll give them a real leg up on all of the teams advocating stupid drafting, that's for sure.

 

[Bill_Berg]

You mean 4 or 5 years till they're in the playoffs and looking for deep runs? If so, the 2-3 year hope is that the light at the end of the tunnel can be seen. If the team is young and improving, missing the playoffs 3 years from now won't be nearly as bad (for my sanity anyway) as it would be if they keep this core for 3 more years and missed the playoffs every year between now and then.

I think a realistic goal for two or three years from now is to look like the Panthers or the Stars and saying "Boy, if things keep going down the right path...they've got the pieces in place to be a Chicago or LA so long as they supplement it well". 4 or 5 years I think is what you're looking at to get into legitimate contention.

But again, that's if things go well in terms of who they draft and where. They also need the patience for some bad breaks in that respect.

Ya, that's the goal, but there are no guarantees. They may miss a Kane or Towes, or there may not be the opportunity to take one of those guys, or if they do they may get hurt, they may not get enough of them, etc...

But if you're going to miss the playoffs year after year, you have to doing something with those years. We may be here in 5 years complaining about bad luck, but that's much better than complaining about bad drafting and bad trading, although I suppose there will always be someone complaining about the latter.

 

[mr grieves]

I'm pretty sure the vultures are circling around the Leafs right now, and whatever they get for Kessel or Phaneuf, or Bozak, will be the best deal that the Leafs could muster up.

I guess that's a pretty obvious statement, but I'm quite prepared to be underwhelmed by the returns.  It's not like we're dealing with guys that only have a year or 2 to go on their contracts.

I'm more interested in the market value of Kadri or JVR.

That's where I'm at, and it took me awhile to get there. Meaning, I'm now prepared to be underwhelmed by the return but understand that there are limits on the market. I think the return will not be good value, but if it's the best they can get, then they should take it. This team needs to load up on prospects and picks and bottom out in the standings.

"Not good value but the right decision if it's what the market will bear" is the sort of thinking that gets you to sign David Clarkson.

As for "this team needs to load up on picks," haven't you been around here for the last several years? In the last 4 drafts and this one (if no picks move), the Leafs will have drafted more times in the top 10 (thrice) than all but 2 teams (Edmonton @ 5 and Colorado @ 4; they're tied with Florida, Winnipeg, Columbus), and more times in the top five (twice) than all but 2 ( Edmonton @ 4 and Florida @ 3; tied with NYI, Columbus, Colorado, and Carolina). The Leafs certainly have been, despite their best (?) efforts, reaping the benefits of bottom feeders. So, this isn't a "rebuild" where the team is starting out with a bunch of players at the tail end of their primes and no high end prospects. There are a few already in the system.

If moving parts that will likely still be quality players in 3-5 years (I'm thinking of Kessel, Kadri, JvR, Gardiner) will net them more picks in the top half of a deep draft's first round, then by all means, move them.

But if we're talking about late first round picks, then you're looking at taking steps backward, I think. You're trading the talented parts of the roster for unknowns that have a 40% chance of not ever playing 100 NHL games. In 5 years, it's likely that Kessel will be a 60-65 point player (elite guys hang around 75-80% of peak into their mid-30s, I think); in five years, there's a good chance the late first rounder that they've traded him for will only be a marginal NHLer.

So, if that's the centerpiece we're imagining (and 'underwhelming return' suggests it is), I still haven't come around to abandoning fair market value for anyone over 23.

If the benefit of trading guys like Kessel and JvR isn't what you actually get for them, then it must be in improving the team's draft position. But how much better will their position be without Kessel, Kadri, Gardiner, and JvR? Well, if we're already trading Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul, and Bernier (all of whom I think should be moved), there's good reason to think this team will be worse than last year's anyway: the defense will be downgraded, the secondary scoring will be nonexistent, the top line will be more exposed, and the risk of a goaltender bouncing back (real threat to draft position, IMO) will be eliminated. Whether they keep a few pieces of this roster, even the best ones, the Leafs are bottom feeding until Nylander and the #4 start to come along, until a few Marlies develop into productive NHLers, etc.

Dumping every player that could almost certainly be a useful part of the team in 5 years for a 60% chance at an NHL regular, the sort of player they can get off the waiver wire or in salary-dump trades, and another couple lottery tickets -- or whatever we want to call the difference between a 11.5% and 13.5% chance at 1st overall -- just seems too reckless to me.

 

[Kin]

"Not good value but the right decision if it's what the market will bear" is the sort of thinking that gets you to sign David Clarkson.

And "we don't need to rebuild around franchise players" is the sort of thinking that gets you one playoff appearance in 11 years. See how easy that is?

As for "this team needs to load up on picks," haven't you been around here for the last several years? In the last 4 drafts and this one (if no picks move), the Leafs will have drafted more times in the top 10 (thrice) than all but 2 teams (Edmonton @ 5 and Colorado @ 4; they're tied with Florida, Winnipeg, Columbus), and more times in the top five (twice) than all but 2 ( Edmonton @ 4 and Florida @ 3; tied with NYI, Columbus, Colorado, and Carolina).

But that's an obvious act of rhetorical trickery on your part. By only having a lower level as to what constitutes a valuable pick, you're equating where the Leafs have been drafting with where Edmonton and Colorado have. A top 8 pick is not the equivalent of a top 3 pick and by using the exact same rhetorical trick, I can just as easily say that the Leafs have, over that same time span, had exactly zero top 3 picks. So about as many as the teams who are already built. Being as it's undeniable that the best chance a team has of getting franchise players is in the top 3, the Leafs not having a single pick in that range for 25 years is a pretty obvious reason why they haven't had the kinds of prospects that you really build around.

But if we're talking about late first round picks, then you're looking at taking steps backward, I think. You're trading the talented parts of the roster for unknowns that have a 40% chance of not ever playing 100 NHL games. In 5 years, it's likely that Kessel will be a 60-65 point player (elite guys hang around 75-80% of peak into their mid-30s, I think); in five years, there's a good chance the late first rounder that they've traded him for will only be a marginal NHLer.

Right. So in five years there's a good chance that the Leafs are paying 8 million dollar a year for a 60 point forward who doesn't really contribute in any way other than his scoring.

See, the thing about a rebuild is that it actually requires some patience. Yes, there's a good chance that a player picked from 20-40 is only a marginal NHLer. But there's also a chance that the team will find really good, young and cheap players there. The best chance a team has of finding those sorts of players outside of the top 3 is by having as many picks as possible. Will it happen in the two years you've generously budgeted for your ideal retooling? No. But fans who advocate a rebuild are willing to wait until a smart front office staff hits on enough of those picks, regardless of where they are, to have players who can actually rival the players the best teams in the league are built around.

If the benefit of trading guys like Kessel and JvR isn't what you actually get for them, then it must be in improving the team's draft position. But how much better will their position be without Kessel, Kadri, Gardiner, and JvR? Well, if we're already trading Bozak, Phaneuf, Lupul, and Bernier (all of whom I think should be moved), there's good reason to think this team will be worse than last year's anyway: the defense will be downgraded, the secondary scoring will be nonexistent, the top line will be more exposed, and the risk of a goaltender bouncing back (real threat to draft position, IMO) will be eliminated.

Except just a little while ago you were talking about how likely it was that Kessel would increase his value by means of rebounding from his off year. So there's also reason to think that the team will be improved. Rielly's on the team. He's going to get better. So will Gardiner. Kadri will likely replace Bozak, a move you've argued for years would improve the team.

And to be as bad as the team will be ideally be, they have to be much, much worse. If they're tanking, why do it at 85%? Being that bad doesn't just improve their chances at the first pick, it improves their chances at the second pick, the third pick, the fourth pick and so on. It's a pretty indisputable fact that the best players in the draft are right at the top so why do anything that jeopardizes the Leafs chances at actually finding those players when it's abundantly clear now that in order to win you need those players. An 8 million dollar a year Phil Kessel at 32 years old is not better than what a smart front office can do with 8 million dollars of cap space five years from now, a better chance at franchise players at the top of the draft and more chances at the Claude Giroux-PK Subban types.

 

[freer]

JVR and Reilly are the only players who should be safe. I mean Nylander and Brown should be on the list.

As for Kadri replacing Bozak, IMO should not happen, he is a distraction on this team and should be gone besides IMO again, he is not that good. Yes has some exciting plays but, every player in the league has those.

 

[Highlander]

Would Edmonton trade us their first for Kessel, Phanuef, Bozak and our first and 2nd?