Leafs Draft 21st Overall - Overall Draft Order

[Corn Flake]

I haven't seen Feschuk's article, but would I trade Kessel to COL for their pick, to get Jones?  That's a tough one, but I'd sure as hell think about it.  I've come to believe that (aside from solid goaltending) having a truly epic physical d-man (Pronger, Chara, Stevens) or epic positonal/skating dman (Lids, Nieds) is the ticket to multi-year contender status.  Is Jones that?  He very well might be.

But the other part of the equation is whether Lupul can pick up a substantial piece of the scoring slack if Kessel were traded.

Anyway, Kessel is not untouchable.  But he proved a lot of people like me wrong, and his value is probably at or very near its peak.

I would not trade him for Jones.  Would I trade him for McKinnon?  Probably.  I still think that would be a gamble. As much as I love McKinnon and think he's the next Tavares, is it really beneficial at all? It sets the team back several years as far as their best player being a dominant player.

And with Gardiner and Rielly in the fold, why would I go chasing the positional/skating d-man when we have two guys who could very well already be that?

To me, the only reason I move a Kessel is if I'm getting a bona fide superstar centre in the making who is a franchise level guy, which if that player reaches his peak is only going to be a small notch better than Kessel.  So it's a huge gamble.

 

[Boston Leaf]

Unless the trade brought multiple good assest why do it? So trade Kessle to get a pick to have somone possibly turn out to reach Kessles potential and scoring ability? Phil is still very young. We havent come close to tapping his full potential. Wonder how he would be with a true #1 center?

 

[ZBBM]

I haven't seen Feschuk's article, but would I trade Kessel to COL for their pick, to get Jones?  That's a tough one, but I'd sure as hell think about it.  I've come to believe that (aside from solid goaltending) having a truly epic physical d-man (Pronger, Chara, Stevens) or epic positonal/skating dman (Lids, Nieds) is the ticket to multi-year contender status.  Is Jones that?  He very well might be.

But the other part of the equation is whether Lupul can pick up a substantial piece of the scoring slack if Kessel were traded.

Anyway, Kessel is not untouchable.  But he proved a lot of people like me wrong, and his value is probably at or very near its peak.

I would not trade him for Jones.  Would I trade him for McKinnon?  Probably.  I still think that would be a gamble. As much as I love McKinnon and think he's the next Tavares, is it really beneficial at all? It sets the team back several years as far as their best player being a dominant player.

And with Gardiner and Rielly in the fold, why would I go chasing the positional/skating d-man when we have two guys who could very well already be that?

To me, the only reason I move a Kessel is if I'm getting a bona fide superstar centre in the making who is a franchise level guy, which if that player reaches his peak is only going to be a small notch better than Kessel.  So it's a huge gamble.

Unless the Kessel of the last 25 games and the playoffs was an aberration.  (Admittedly, it's harder NOT to give him the benefit of the doubt now.)

Your points about Gardiner & Rielly well taken.  I was thinking of Jones more in the physical mold.  You have a Pronger/Nieds, or a Stevens/Nieds -- then you've got a shot year after year.  It's just too damn bad Phaneuf never turned into that kind of elite dman.

 

[Kin]

Unless the trade brought multiple good assest why do it?

I can't speak for anyone but myself but whenever I've seen the possibility of trading Kessel brought up it's always been in the context of whether or not the Leafs are going to be capable of building a contender around him in his peak yeas. Clearly opinions vary on that but that is the fundamental question being asked.

 

[ZBBM]

Unless the trade brought multiple good assest why do it?

I can't speak for anyone but myself but whenever I've seen the possibility of trading Kessel brought up it's always been in the context of whether or not the Leafs are going to be capable of building a contender around him in his peak yeas. Clearly opinions vary on that but that is the fundamental question being asked.

Yes.

Am I 100% sold on the "new" Kessel?  No, but clearly he's shown he's capable of elevating his game, and that's one less doubt that we doubters can doubt about him.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Cox wrote a piece yesterday about the Leafs moving up in the draft to take Sean Monahan.  And how would they do that, you ask?  Of course!  Jake Gardiner!

Beyond nutty.  IF, and that's a big IF, Gardiner is moved, it beter be, has to be, must be for a legitimate, bonafide young NHL blue chipper.  Not the reasonably high-percentage crapshoot that is the first round of the NHL draft.

Feschuk's article today is way, way worse.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

I saw excerpts of Feschuk's article where someone already tore it apart.  Honestly the media in this town constantly shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to having any sort of knowledge or credibility when it comes to hockey moves.

Article: "Trade Kessel!!!1"

*Nonis trades Kessel*

Next Article: "Leafs lack legit 1st line scoring option now that they have traded Kessel."

Article: "Draft is coming up. Leafs should trade best young player for a pick so they can draft this kid I just read about this morning."

:

He's a pathetic, smug writer who litters his articles with insults like these:

Somewhere, Leafs forward Phil Kessel is on a golf course saying: ?Harder? That?s a joke, right??

I put nothing into his opinion, it's less than worthless.

 

[Zee]

I commented on Feschuk's story with a very succinct "We should trade Feschuk"

 

[ZBBM]

I just read Feschuk while lunching (yes, I have an iron constitution) and truth be told, I didn't think it was such a bad article (stupid cheap shots on Kessel aside, I agree with you there Potvin).

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

His other main point, that "great efforts" and first-round appearances are no longer good enough, is a clich? but it also happens to be true.

I also read Cox's latest.  Monahan might be good to get, but after watching Gardiner jet around in the playoffs, he's not the guy I'd be willing to give up just now, at least not for Monahan.

 

[Zee]

I just read Feschuk while lunching (yes, I have an iron constitution) and truth be told, I didn't think it was such a bad article (stupid cheap shots on Kessel aside, I agree with you there Potvin).

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

His other main point, that "great efforts" and first-round appearances are no longer good enough, is a clich? but it also happens to be true.

I also read Cox's latest.  Monahan might be good to get, but after watching Gardiner jet around in the playoffs, he's not the guy I'd be willing to give up just now, at least not for Monahan.

I agree with Gardiner thoughts.  Everyone is hyping up Rielly as a Gardiner replacement, but until we see Rielly do it at the NHL level, he's just another prospect.  We've seen Gardiner able to play and dominate out there, so the Leafs know what they have in him.

 

[Corn Flake]

I just read Feschuk while lunching (yes, I have an iron constitution) and truth be told, I didn't think it was such a bad article (stupid cheap shots on Kessel aside, I agree with you there Potvin).

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

His other main point, that "great efforts" and first-round appearances are no longer good enough, is a clich? but it also happens to be true.

I also read Cox's latest.  Monahan might be good to get, but after watching Gardiner jet around in the playoffs, he's not the guy I'd be willing to give up just now, at least not for Monahan.

Wow so going forward a first round exit would not be good enough.  Progress would be good. Brilliant thought there, Dave.  Kessel and his 4 goals in 7 games vs. his nemesis is sure the one area we need more from.  :

Perimeter, my rear end.  Let's get the goal chart up of where he scored in the playoffs. I don't recall any of his goals being outside 15'.  As for net-front.. he's as close to the net as you want your high skill guys. You have a JVR to stand in front and take a pounding. You need Kessel moving his feet, not standing still. 

I don't think he watched the playoffs. or if he did, he doesn't know what he's watching. He should go back to writing about basketball.

 

[Corn Flake]

I just read Feschuk while lunching (yes, I have an iron constitution) and truth be told, I didn't think it was such a bad article (stupid cheap shots on Kessel aside, I agree with you there Potvin).

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

His other main point, that "great efforts" and first-round appearances are no longer good enough, is a clich? but it also happens to be true.

I also read Cox's latest.  Monahan might be good to get, but after watching Gardiner jet around in the playoffs, he's not the guy I'd be willing to give up just now, at least not for Monahan.

I agree with Gardiner thoughts.  Everyone is hyping up Rielly as a Gardiner replacement, but until we see Rielly do it at the NHL level, he's just another prospect.  We've seen Gardiner able to play and dominate out there, so the Leafs know what they have in him.

I would trade Gardiner to get McKinnon but anyone other than that, forget it.  But it's still a huge risk to take, just one I am willing to.  But for Monahan? Come on.

We need to follow the plan that most successful teams do... you keep Gardiner, let him emerge and become what he can be, bring up Rielly when the time is right and let him develop.. if Rielly outplays Gardiner over a large enough body of work to say he really is the better player, THEN you move him. 

It's like when the Leafs had Berard AND Kaberle.... we were spoiled with two fantastic puck moving d-men with ridiculous skill and offensive ability.  We all know how the Berard story ended but if the injury hadn't happened, I could see a time where BB ended up moved for a top end young forward as Kaberle was the better overall d-man. 

If you are moving anyone for a pick like he suggests, it would be Rielly and not Gardiner. Move a question mark for a question mark.  I still wouldn't do it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

I don't even get this criticism.  It's a net front league?  What does that even mean?  He's been one of the most prolific scorers in this "net front" league, and has shown the ability to maintain that in the playoffs.  He advocates getting a worse player simply because he's bigger, and that in his mind means better.

It's a vague criticism that, not surprisingly, Feschuk has not backed up with anything.

 

[Corn Flake]

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

I don't even get this criticism.  It's a net front league?  What does that even mean?  He's been one of the most prolific scorers in this "net front" league, and has shown the ability to maintain that in the playoffs.  He advocates getting a worse player simply because he's bigger, and that in his mind means better.

It's a vague criticism that, not surprisingly, Feschuk has not backed up with anything.

Hey give him a break, he just made up that "net front" thing. Will take him a while to make some stuff up to back it up.  It's weird how many of the top 10 scorers from this year are 6' or under.  I guess these guys aren't aware of the new "net front" policy.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

I don't even get this criticism.  It's a net front league?  What does that even mean?  He's been one of the most prolific scorers in this "net front" league, and has shown the ability to maintain that in the playoffs.  He advocates getting a worse player simply because he's bigger, and that in his mind means better.

It's a vague criticism that, not surprisingly, Feschuk has not backed up with anything.

Hey give him a break, he just made up that "net front" thing. Will take him a while to make some stuff up to back it up.  It's weird how many of the top 10 scorers from this year are 6' or under.  I guess these guys aren't aware of the new "net front" policy.

Maybe Kessel plays too much of a "puck in the net" style, and not enough of just being in front of it.

 

[Corn Flake]

Maybe Kessel plays too much of a "puck in the net" style, and not enough of just being in front of it.

True true. We don't need that kind of silliness going on. Scoring is for those jerks in Detroit or wherever.  I for one am very appreciative of the Star's hockey dept. for managing to trade away our two best players in back to back articles, for virtually nothing of promise.  thank god they are looking after us or imagine where this franchise would be.

 

[ZBBM]

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

I don't even get this criticism.  It's a net front league?  What does that even mean?  He's been one of the most prolific scorers in this "net front" league, and has shown the ability to maintain that in the playoffs.  He advocates getting a worse player simply because he's bigger, and that in his mind means better.

It's a vague criticism that, not surprisingly, Feschuk has not backed up with anything.

Well, I took it to mean that the most important play takes place right in front of the net.  Which I don't think is true at all in the regular season, but is much more so in the playoffs, when the d tightens up considerably.

I don't remember all Kessel's goals against BOS but at least a couple of them were from in close.  I suspect Feschuk is implying with "net-front" the ability to score garbage goals in scrambles around the crease; I don't remember any goals like that from Kessel, so maybe that's where he's going with the criticism.

 

[Corn Flake]

Jeffler does a pretty good job dismantling the Feschuk piece...

http://theleafsnation.com/2013/6/7/why-you-dont-trade-phil-kessel

 

[mr grieves]

His main knock on Kessel, that he's a perimeter player in a net-front league, is on the road to being right, but it's only half-right.  Playoffs are where it all becomes net-front, and Kessel showed some willingness to go there against BOS.  But the unanswered question is whether he can truly expand his offensive game past the wrister and to include the ability to score from in close on a regular basis.

I don't even get this criticism.  It's a net front league?  What does that even mean?  He's been one of the most prolific scorers in this "net front" league, and has shown the ability to maintain that in the playoffs.  He advocates getting a worse player simply because he's bigger, and that in his mind means better.

It's a vague criticism that, not surprisingly, Feschuk has not backed up with anything.

Well, I took it to mean that the most important play takes place right in front of the net.  Which I don't think is true at all in the regular season, but is much more so in the playoffs, when the d tightens up considerably.

I don't remember all Kessel's goals against BOS but at least a couple of them were from in close.  I suspect Feschuk is implying with "net-front" the ability to score garbage goals in scrambles around the crease; I don't remember any goals like that from Kessel, so maybe that's where he's going with the criticism.

I don't know. I think Kessel's playmaking ability and the threat he poses away from in close probably gets the puck out the points and draws D away from the net thereby contributing to those garbage goals. It's weird to knock Kessel because he's not simultaneously playing where Phil Kessel plays and where JVR plays. It's not as if his numbers don't speak for themselves.

 

[Jalili]

Rielly for Monahan would make sense. Move one high-end prospect for another because he fits more of an organizational need. I could get on board with that.

 

[pmrules]

We need to follow the plan that most successful teams do... you keep Gardiner, let him emerge and become what he can be, bring up Rielly when the time is right and let him develop.. if Rielly outplays Gardiner over a large enough body of work to say he really is the better player, THEN you move him. 

I know they are similar type players, but why can't we keep both?