Nik the Trik said:
Except there's obviously a limit on that. None of us would have been happy if the main piece of a Kessel deal had been traded for a pretty good 25 year old. Some team's JVR-equivalent. Most people wanted Kessel traded for the best possible picks and prospects, not players who would help the team win next year.
Well sure. There clearly has to be a limit. I'd probably put it in the 22, 23 at max range as it would fit along the 4-5 years until the conference is worth looking at. 26-28 would still be in that sweet spot of high quality performance and would provide an element of experience to augment the 2016-2018 draft picks that would be just breaking into the NHL.
In the context of the question we were talking about the Kessel trade and a 20 year old Olli Maata.
Nik the Trik said:
And I think most of us, with regards to Kessel, have actually been pushing that the Leafs get the best collection of assets available, not the one piece with the highest ceiling. If Pittsburgh valued Maata or Pouliot more than Kapanen but were willing to go Kapenen and Harrington and throw in the third rounder then so long as the Leafs still think highly of Kapenen I can understand why they'd lean in that direction.
That's fair. I think I'm arguing for the same thing, just not expressing it well. We want the best package and three quality prospects of high quality may well be the better asset than one slightly higher quality player. My use of BPA was flawed. What I really was referring to was just taking the best package not best player whether they are all 18/draft picks or a guy who is 20-22.
I think there is a fair argument that Maata was never going to be available unless the Leafs did something like eat half of Kessel's salary anyway. So from my standpoint I think maybe it's a moot point. And if the Leafs truly feel that a 3rd + Harrington + Kapanen was actually better than Pouliot, well, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt until assets fail to develop and we can look back on the drafting and question the decisions (or praise them if the Dubas/Hunter system actually works)
We don't want a super talented puck moving defence the next couple of years. Eventually, yes, but for right now the Leafs should be setting their sights on the team they eventually want to have.
I guess I don't see the problem here. I mean no matter how mobile our defense is with/without the puck it's going to be limited by the mediocrity of our forward group. I'm not so convinced that playing well collectively in the AHL provides enough of an incentive to overcome playing well individually at the NHL level.
As for UFA years, the clock is ticking on Rielly whether he plays in the AHL or NHL. So we are hopefully not having to worry about this by having him locked into a long-term contract after 1-2 year bridge signed in the offseason makes that worry irrelevant. Rielly is one of the few guys in the system that I wouldn't be opposed to signing to a long-term deal that would push him to 30 or beyond after getting a 1 or 2 year bridge deal signed this coming offseason.
In the worst case scenario, Rielly does demand a trade out of Toronto. I think it's just an inevitable reality that someone is going to want out of a rebuilding situation and you can't really avoid it simply by delaying their exposure to the NHL level. Mind you, I don't we have seen that kind of player in the NHL nearly as much as we see it in the NBA where a team missing the playoffs for one season is enough to demand a trade.