Kessel traded to Penguins
- Thread starter GhostofPotvin29
- Start date
L K
Active member
I don't know about that. I mean, sure, young players might be exposed but if the Leafs are going to take inferior players as return simply because they are younger that seems to be a pretty stupid mentality. I think most of us have said it this year, take the BPA. If the BPA is 20-22 instead of 18-19 the Leafs should take the better player. We don't have the depth of elite level players to be thumbing our noses at talent.
I do understand the concept of a losing team and a losing mentality but I would hope that is where Babcock should be stepping in to mentor Rielly through that period. Rielly really had some up and down play last year but he pretty much entirely escaped any criticism for the most part. I don't expect that to change during at least the next 1-2 seasons before we really have to worry.
I do understand the concept of a losing team and a losing mentality but I would hope that is where Babcock should be stepping in to mentor Rielly through that period. Rielly really had some up and down play last year but he pretty much entirely escaped any criticism for the most part. I don't expect that to change during at least the next 1-2 seasons before we really have to worry.
Kin
New member
L K 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.
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.
L K said:
There's really only so much Babcock can do though. Eventually, it'll just be a grind. And if the rebuild isn't as speedy as we hope, if we're talking 4 or 5 years before the team is really good again, then we'll be talking about Rielly's options as a UFA and his willingness to re-up in an environment where all he's known has been chaos and losing.
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.
L K
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
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:
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)
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.
Jolly good show chaps
Member
If we could get a Hanifin for Rielly I guess we do it. If not he stays for now.
Kin
New member
L K said:
Well the problem, and I concede that this doesn't really raise to that level but is instead just an element of strategy that may be on the team's mind, is that to my mind the Leafs right now should be asking themselves two questions with every move they make:
1. Do we have the players who are going to be our answer to Toews-Kane-Keith or whoever?
2. If the answer to 1 is no, does this decision make it more or less likely that we find those players?
So, you're right, the impact of a really good young defense on this team would be limited but we're not going after the #6 pick here. We need top flight, best in the league sort of players. To my mind, making decisions that improve this team immediately without actually adding those sorts of players is overall a detriment to the process.
L K said:
Yeah, except it's not going to be one season. It might be three or four or five. And by limiting a player's exposure to the NHL club in that time, you're limiting their exposure to a rebuild.
I actually think the worst case scenario with Rielly is he becomes a good, not great player who isn't too keen on sticking around and so the Leafs are faced with a similar situation to Boston this year with Hamilton where they have to trade him from a position of relative weakness(although, admittedly, not a cap created one).
Highlander
Active member
Can't they just exclude Edmonton for the next five frikken years.
Kin
New member
Kind of an interesting perspective on Kessel's fitness habits from Jeff Marek yesterday. He anonymously quoted a Leafs assistant coach(past or current, he didn't specify) talking about how Kessel's eating habits weren't so much a problem for Kessel and his performance but that they had a bad effect on other players who saw Phil eating stuff they'd like to be eating and still playing well and so they tended to imitate him a little in that regard.
Now, I don't know how true/fair that is but given that at the very least I don't think Marek would make that quote up I do feel we have to acknowledge that the perception of Kessel in that regard is out there and will impact how other teams see him. Current establishment hockey dogma may be bogus or ill-considered but it does still exist and will effect a player's value.
Now, I don't know how true/fair that is but given that at the very least I don't think Marek would make that quote up I do feel we have to acknowledge that the perception of Kessel in that regard is out there and will impact how other teams see him. Current establishment hockey dogma may be bogus or ill-considered but it does still exist and will effect a player's value.
Nik the Trik said:
Sure. Any of us who work in a group environment know well the impact of those who choose to cut corners. The fact that Phil is super talented makes it justifiable for those who are impressionable, and irritating as hell for those that don't.
If the dogma is, "We're all in this together", then I don't think it's bogus and I'm not surprised it affects his value.
He'll score a bunch for sure, but if he doesn't grow up he'll be gone after a few seasons. If Rutherford sticks around, he may be tolerated longer. However, he didn't sell the farm so he may not be so protective of Kessel.
Just my thoughts based on my dismay of the last few seasons ( and then some)
Kin
New member
Mostar said:
Except "cutting corners" implies that he's not doing as well as the people who do things another way when the opposite is true. If I worked with someone who by means of their natural talent was able to get better results than me with less effort, resenting them for it would get me nowhere. So ultimately my response to that would reflect far more on me than him.
mr grieves
New member
I'm not sure I buy the timing thing as a reason to prefer an inferior but younger prospect over a better but older one (even with the 3rd rounder tossed in). Don't defensemen take longer to develop and hit their primes? If Nylander, Marner, and the 2016 pick (if a forward) are in their primes in 6-7 years, then adding a 20-21 year old defenseman now seems consistent with the plan.
But if there were a concern about timing, seems you could just move a young, cost-controlled, well-pedigreed, high-ceiling guy like Pouliot for someone similar but younger. I think that's the principle behind BPA: get the best level of skill that you can, since you can move that for more as your team's needs change.
But if there were a concern about timing, seems you could just move a young, cost-controlled, well-pedigreed, high-ceiling guy like Pouliot for someone similar but younger. I think that's the principle behind BPA: get the best level of skill that you can, since you can move that for more as your team's needs change.
Wendel's Fist
New member
The Leafs got owned on this trade. Might as well have asked Jim Rutherford if he wanted breakfast in bed for 1 or 8 years.
I'm sure Jim was aware of how well Kessel could potentially play with better players surrounding him. He would have just had to watch the Olympics from just over one year ago.
I'm thinking the Leafs better get a real GM in place before they trade anyone else.
I'm sure Jim was aware of how well Kessel could potentially play with better players surrounding him. He would have just had to watch the Olympics from just over one year ago.
I'm thinking the Leafs better get a real GM in place before they trade anyone else.
mr grieves
New member
Nik the Trik said:
What this has to do with that, I don't see. Wasn't your premise (all of a page back) that they might've preferred Kapanen plus futures to the other 2 anyway?
mr grieves
New member
Wendel's Fist said:
One thing not mentioned here (I don't think) is that while the league was told Dubas was handling the trade negotiations, the press conferences and subsequent reporting suggest Rutherford negotiated the deal with Shanahan. Not sure what to make of that.
Kin
New member
mr grieves said:
Yes. And while I know the very concept of nuance tends to not really get to you often the idea is that Kapanen's age and distance from the NHL might be a factor in why they would prefer him, not that it would be the entire story that caused them to prefer a clearly inferior prospect.
Coco-puffs
New member
Nik the Trik said:
I think everyone is trying to analyze why the Leafs "prefered" Kapanen over Maata or Pouliot. What evidence is there to suggest that is actually what the Leafs wanted? My bet was they asked for one of them to be included and got a very quick NO.
From the Penguins perspective, the trade for Kessel is to make the team compete for cups NOW. As such, moving Maata/Pouliot who are NHL players or NHL-ready does not make sense- especially in light of losing Martin and (most likely) Erhoff to FA. Harrington on the other hand is a bit further down the depth chart and still needs some work to be in a cup-contending lineup. Kapanen is a couple of years away. From their perspective, Maata and Pouliot were probably untouchables for Pittsburgh. Kapanen- being their best Forward prospect- was hard to give up; but it made sense to give him up in order to get Kessel to win now.