Leafs @ Hurricanes - Feb. 20th, 7:00pm - SNO, TSN 1050

[louisstamos]

I've wondered about whether Kessel has a lingering injury problem. He looks like he's laboring out there, and like he's conserving his energy for one offensive attempt per shift. Can't recall if he's looked that way in past years, but it could explain a lot.

Horachek mentioned recently Kessel has been dealing with some sort of injury but it wasn't disclosed what it is.

If he wasn't playing so bad, I'd suggest sitting him then if he's injured.

I'm sure he wants to keep his iron man streak going if he can...

 

[moon111]

Most winning teams have that one top player.  And you build around them.  The Brian Burke era took allot of nothing and built a surrounding cast around nobody.  Had there been that one young stud player, the Leafs would be in really great shape.

Name a team that has had success that are built around one top player?

Detroit wasn't a very good team.  Ivan Boldirev was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Yzerman was a franchise player.  Without him, Detroit would of been good enough to stay out of the bottom 10 and good picks for years.  You need a Yzerman. 

Pittsburgh wasn't a very good team.  Warren Young was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Lemieux was a franchise player...

Dallas wasn't a very good team.  Their 2nd highest scorer was Russ Courtnall, they built a team featuring Mike Modano. 

Tampa Bay wasn't a very good team.  Their top two scorers were Tucker and Clark.  But Lecavalier was a franchise player at the time.  They won the Cup...

A guy like Phil Kessel is a 'support' player.  And a damn good one.  But I would never expect someone like Luc Robitaille being the player to build around.  And definitely not Bozak.  Had the Leafs dipped just once to get a good pick, it could of made a huge difference.  Picking 10th overall is a waste.  You want you team to be dead last or a contender.  Leafs were neither.

 

[Frank E]

I've wondered about whether Kessel has a lingering injury problem. He looks like he's laboring out there, and like he's conserving his energy for one offensive attempt per shift. Can't recall if he's looked that way in past years, but it could explain a lot.

Horachek mentioned recently Kessel has been dealing with some sort of injury but it wasn't disclosed what it is.

If he wasn't playing so bad, I'd suggest sitting him then if he's injured.

I'm sure he wants to keep his iron man streak going if he can...

Yeah, well, fine by me.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Most winning teams have that one top player.  And you build around them.  The Brian Burke era took allot of nothing and built a surrounding cast around nobody.  Had there been that one young stud player, the Leafs would be in really great shape.

Name a team that has had success that are built around one top player?

Detroit wasn't a very good team.  Ivan Boldirev was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Yzerman was a franchise player.  Without him, Detroit would of been good enough to stay out of the bottom 10 and good picks for years.  You need a Yzerman. 

Pittsburgh wasn't a very good team.  Warren Young was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Lemieux was a franchise player...

Dallas wasn't a very good team.  Their 2nd highest scorer was Russ Courtnall, they built a team featuring Mike Modano. 

Tampa Bay wasn't a very good team.  Their top two scorers were Tucker and Clark.  But Lecavalier was a franchise player at the time.  They won the Cup...

A guy like Phil Kessel is a 'support' player.  And a damn good one.  But I would never expect someone like Luc Robitaille being the player to build around.  And definitely not Bozak.  Had the Leafs dipped just once to get a good pick, it could of made a huge difference.  Picking 10th overall is a waste.  You want you team to be dead last or a contender.  Leafs were neither.

I'm not removing the doubt that there will always be a top player.

Toronto had that in Mats Sundin for many years but they never gave the proper supporting cast. I'll also fully admit that Toronto has lacked a player of that calibre since then.

That being said, the pieces that were added around those teams you've listed(Detroit: Shannahan, Federov etc; Pittsburgh: Recchi, Jagr, Coffey; Dallas: Nieuwendyk, Hull; and Tampa added St. Louis and Richards) were all very significant. Many of those players in themselves can be named top calibre players.

I will fully agree with you that picking 10th doesn't do much to boost the roster. Nor does trading away the picks that you happen to finish worse. Mediocrity has always been this team's downfall.

My point originally was simply that 'one' stud player does nothing to win you a stanley cup. Dipping once doesn't get you there. Chicago had to go to the well a couple times. So did the Penguins, the Red Wings, etc;

 

[Redleaf]

Most winning teams have that one top player.  And you build around them.  The Brian Burke era took allot of nothing and built a surrounding cast around nobody.  Had there been that one young stud player, the Leafs would be in really great shape.

Name a team that has had success that are built around one top player?

Detroit wasn't a very good team.  Ivan Boldirev was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Yzerman was a franchise player.  Without him, Detroit would of been good enough to stay out of the bottom 10 and good picks for years.  You need a Yzerman. 

Pittsburgh wasn't a very good team.  Warren Young was their 2nd highest scorer.  But Lemieux was a franchise player...

Dallas wasn't a very good team.  Their 2nd highest scorer was Russ Courtnall, they built a team featuring Mike Modano. 

Tampa Bay wasn't a very good team.  Their top two scorers were Tucker and Clark.  But Lecavalier was a franchise player at the time.  They won the Cup...

A guy like Phil Kessel is a 'support' player.  And a damn good one.  But I would never expect someone like Luc Robitaille being the player to build around.  And definitely not Bozak.  Had the Leafs dipped just once to get a good pick, it could of made a huge difference.  Picking 10th overall is a waste.  You want you team to be dead last or a contender.  Leafs were neither.

My point originally was simply that 'one' stud player does nothing to win you a stanley cup. Dipping once doesn't get you there. Chicago had to go to the well a couple times. So did the Penguins, the Red Wings, etc;

Doesn't that go without saying though? Even a Gretzky or Lemiuex couldn't have won anything without quality players around them.

What 'one' franchise player will do is lift and inspire the players around him. So, the value of getting someone like Mcdavid, creates a scenario where the team that is greater than the sum of its parts, because of his play.

 

[bustaheims]

Doesn't that go without saying though? Even a Gretzky or Lemiuex couldn't have won anything without quality players around them.

It should, but people keep coming back to the idea of building around a single player, and that's just not how it works. Successful team build around a high calibre core group of players. The average Cup winning team has something like 4 Hall of Fame quality players on its roster.

 

[Chris]

The big problem was that when they made the trade for Kessel, they didn't have any of those other players on the roster or in the system. Maybe they thought they'd picked one the previous year (Kadri). In any event, they had to trade the picks that could have provided those supporting/complementary players (ahem Seguin) to get Kessel. Wrong trade at the wrong time.

So now...assuming Kessel isn't traded before the deadline, say the Leafs win the lottery. Does the team then decide to keep Kessel and try pairing him with McDavid? Is McDavid the kind of player that can really elevate a team (I've never seen him play), and can he get to that point quickly enough that it is worth holding onto Kessel? Or do people just feel that we need to clear out everything (Kessel, Phaneuf, Bozak, JVR etc) and start as fresh as possible?

 

[moon111]

Doesn't that go without saying though? Even a Gretzky or Lemiuex couldn't have won anything without quality players around them.

It should, but people keep coming back to the idea of building around a single player, and that's just not how it works. Successful team build around a high calibre core group of players. The average Cup winning team has something like 4 Hall of Fame quality players on its roster.

All I'm saying is, if your team is right in the middle of the standings, you better figure out what direction you want to go.  If you're looking at a bunch of ho-hums, don't go sign an UFA that will improve your team to 20th in the standings.  You know you'll never find a #1 center for nothing, so maybe it's better to crash and burn and draft one.
The Leafs have made their team 'good' enough not to be worst for years and they're paying for it.

 

[bustaheims]

All I'm saying is, if your team is right in the middle of the standings, you better figure out what direction you want to go.  If you're looking at a bunch of ho-hums, don't go sign an UFA that will improve your team to 20th in the standings.  You know you'll never find a #1 center for nothing, so maybe it's better to crash and burn and draft one.
The Leafs have made their team 'good' enough not to be worst for years and they're paying for it.

Sure, but that's a completely different point that saying teams build around an individual player. It's always better to get the best possible talent available if you're not a Cup contender.