Kessel signs long term extension (8 yrs, 64M, 8M AAV)

[Kin]

Would we have done worse and have given up Hall?

Why is that a question? Kessel was a 30 goal scorer that year and was the team's leading scorer by a legitimate margin. How in the world could the argument be made that the team wouldn't have been worse without him?

 

[Jalili]

Obviously... but when you get into that territory it's impossible to discuss.

Would we have done worse and have given up Hall?
Would we have chosen Seguin anyway?
Would we have taken Hamilton with our second 1st rnd pick?

And if you leave it at just 3 high draft picks... then yeah. I still do the trade because draftpicks will top out at Kessel in most cases and that's just a chance. A slim chance at that... but we'd have him already no chance and guaranteed. There's no discussion there.

You only have a discussion because Boston got to pick Seguin. That's all. If it was say Finn, Biggs, and Conner Brown or something.... who cares right?

Yeah but to be fair, the Leafs did hand the Bruins a 2nd overall pick in a draft that was primarily known for having 2 players that everyone knew would go 1-2.

So it's not as if the Bruins could have just as easily ended up with some 2nd or 3rd tier prospect like Biggs.

 

[bustaheims]

Why is that a question? Kessel was a 30 goal scorer that year and was the team's leading scorer by a legitimate margin. How in the world could the argument be made that the team wouldn't have been worse without him?

Well, why I wouldn't ever say they'd be significantly better, not having a high-end talent like Kessel in the line up would likely have meant serious differences to the playing style and would certainly have meant many differences to ice time distribution, etc. While they obviously wouldn't have been a more talent team, it's not outside the realm of possibilities that they may have been slightly more successful - maybe finishing with the 3rd or 4th overall pick instead of the 2nd.

 

[Kin]

Well, why I wouldn't ever say they'd be significantly better, not having a high-end talent like Kessel in the line up would likely have meant serious differences to the playing style and would certainly have meant many differences to ice time distribution, etc. While they obviously wouldn't have been a more talent team, it's not outside the realm of possibilities that they may have been slightly more successful - maybe finishing with the 3rd or 4th overall pick instead of the 2nd.

That assumes a coach who is capable of maximizing the talent he has in which case he'd be able to do it with or without Kessel.

 

[bustaheims]

That assumes a coach who is capable of maximizing the talent he has in which case he'd be able to do it with or without Kessel.

To an extent, sure, but it also takes into account the difference having a player like Kessel in lineup makes to the other players on the roster. It changes their decision making on the ice, changes the pressures on them, the roles they're used in, etc. It's not like taking a 4th liner out of the lineup. Taking Kessel off that roster - and, also, removing whatever impact the looming issue of that 1st round pick had on the players - means significant changes. It's really impossible to say there's no way that wouldn't have potentially had some measure of positive impact on the team's success that season.

 

[losveratos]

Obviously... but when you get into that territory it's impossible to discuss.

Would we have done worse and have given up Hall?
Would we have chosen Seguin anyway?
Would we have taken Hamilton with our second 1st rnd pick?

And if you leave it at just 3 high draft picks... then yeah. I still do the trade because draftpicks will top out at Kessel in most cases and that's just a chance. A slim chance at that... but we'd have him already no chance and guaranteed. There's no discussion there.

You only have a discussion because Boston got to pick Seguin. That's all. If it was say Finn, Biggs, and Conner Brown or something.... who cares right?

Yeah but to be fair, the Leafs did hand the Bruins a 2nd overall pick in a draft that was primarily known for having 2 players that everyone knew would go 1-2.

So it's not as if the Bruins could have just as easily ended up with some 2nd or 3rd tier prospect like Biggs.

Nope... because we traded for Kessel they got the 2nd overall. If we didn't trade for Kessel it doesn't mean that pick would have been ours.

 

[Kin]

It's not like taking a 4th liner out of the lineup.

Yes, exactly. It's not like that at all. It's like taking the team's best player, by a significant margin, out of the lineup. I appreciate the Dumb and Dumber "So you're saying there's a chance" approach to probability but that's like saying that we can't assume Burke would have used the 2nd overall pick on Seguin because he might have drafted a big box of Skittles.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes, exactly. It's not like that at all. It's like taking the team's best player, by a significant margin, out of the lineup. I appreciate the Dumb and Dumber "So you're saying there's a chance" approach to probability but that's like saying that we can't assume Burke would have used the 2nd overall pick on Seguin because he might have drafted a big box of Skittles.

No, it's really not like saying that at all, nor do I appreciate the reductio ad absurdum. Without Kessel, the Leafs would have been a very different team. A less talented team, sure, but, not necessarily a less successful team. Not having Kessel on the roster changes so much about that team that the only things you can really definitively say are that they would have still been a bad team and one that wouldn't make the playoffs. Anything past that is pure conjecture.

 

[Kin]

No, it's really not like saying that at all, nor do I appreciate the reductio ad absurdum. Without Kessel, the Leafs would have been a very different team. A less talented team, sure, but, not necessarily a less successful team.

Alright. We're just going to have to disagree then on the role talent plays in the success of a hockey team.

 

[Jalili]

Obviously... but when you get into that territory it's impossible to discuss.

Would we have done worse and have given up Hall?
Would we have chosen Seguin anyway?
Would we have taken Hamilton with our second 1st rnd pick?

And if you leave it at just 3 high draft picks... then yeah. I still do the trade because draftpicks will top out at Kessel in most cases and that's just a chance. A slim chance at that... but we'd have him already no chance and guaranteed. There's no discussion there.

You only have a discussion because Boston got to pick Seguin. That's all. If it was say Finn, Biggs, and Conner Brown or something.... who cares right?

Yeah but to be fair, the Leafs did hand the Bruins a 2nd overall pick in a draft that was primarily known for having 2 players that everyone knew would go 1-2.

So it's not as if the Bruins could have just as easily ended up with some 2nd or 3rd tier prospect like Biggs.

Nope... because we traded for Kessel they got the 2nd overall. If we didn't trade for Kessel it doesn't mean that pick would have been ours.

I guess it could have been the 1st overall pick instead, but that comes back to the same principle idea about giving a team the 1st or 2nd overall pick in a draft that has 2 marquee prospects that will go 1-2.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I disagree with the second part. Giving up Seguin, Hamilton, and Knight is not a fact. The team gave up three high draft picks. That's a fact and I think it's an important one in any discussion of the trade.

It's an extremely important point. If the trade isn't made, that has ripple effects that impacts every team in the league to some extent. There's absolutely no guarantee the Leafs end up with the 2nd overall pick that year - never mind the fact that there's no way to know they would have drafted Knight with the 2nd rounder or Hamilton with the 1st rounder in the next draft, regardless of where it would have landed.

And there's certainly no way to know that Burke wouldn't have made some other trade, making the team possibly better or possibly worse, in the absence of a Kessel deal.

 

[losveratos]

I disagree with the second part. Giving up Seguin, Hamilton, and Knight is not a fact. The team gave up three high draft picks. That's a fact and I think it's an important one in any discussion of the trade.

It's an extremely important point. If the trade isn't made, that has ripple effects that impacts every team in the league to some extent. There's absolutely no guarantee the Leafs end up with the 2nd overall pick that year - never mind the fact that there's no way to know they would have drafted Knight with the 2nd rounder or Hamilton with the 1st rounder in the next draft, regardless of where it would have landed.

And there's certainly no way to know that Burke wouldn't have made some other trade, making the team possibly better or possibly worse, in the absence of a Kessel deal.

I think that's the most important part of the discussion. Burke went on the record numerous times saying he wanted to trade the 1st to improve the team and that he thought he could do it because of Hanson, Bozak, and Gus all being found wallets atm.

Maybe he would have traded for an even better player or a couple of players that would now or at the time have been better than kessel. Maybe 3 trades instead of 3 for 1 in kessel. It could have been a very very different hockey team.

 

[Redleaf]

No.  The correct answer to that discussion is, we don't know and will never know.  But it's pointless to get into an argument over it.

I thought your post implied that you thought Burke could have built top 5 protection into the deal but chose not to.

Partially yes and partially no.  I don't think Burke ever tried to build protection into the pick.  I know Chiarelli has made comments before about not wanting protection on the picks, but those were comments made after the fact.  To say that he would have still done the deal with top-5 protection in place would have been throwing Burke under the bus for taking a worse deal than necessary.  Hockey GMs don't really do that so I personally choose to take those comments with a grain of salt.

Even us fans would have asked to include that clause in the trade, but Burke and his team of former GMs forgot to ask/didn't bother asking? I think it's pretty apparent that it was asked for and rejected outright, or it would have been part of the deal that went down. It pretty much goes without saying Boston didn't want any part of that clause in the trade, and Burke was forced to take it or leave it, with the pick left unprotected.

 

[pnjunction]

Phil is a great player but wasn't the deal worse than an offer sheet?

This could be wrong but for 2009-2010 I found

$4,520,151 - $6,026,867 - 2010 1st round pick, 2010 2nd round pick, 2010 3rd round pick

makes it seem like we could've offer sheeted him and the 2011 1st would be a 2010 3rd instead?

Either Burke bent over or there is some other reason to offer more than the sheet? 

Pick protection might've been a reason to do a different deal instead, but Burke didn't get any...it's almost like Chiarelli pushed Burke further and further and he forgot to check the offer sheet brackets before signing that rip-off.

 

[Kin]

I think that's the most important part of the discussion. Burke went on the record numerous times saying he wanted to trade the 1st to improve the team and that he thought he could do it because of Hanson, Bozak, and Gus all being found wallets atm.

Well, I think it's the most important part of the discussion in the sense that Burke having terrible judgment at the time seemed to be guiding his decision making process.

Again, he went into the season with Gus, who'd never played a minute in the NHL, and Toskala as his two goalies, with his leading returning scorer being Jason Blake and an organization that only had 2 first round picks in their system from the last 5 years and didn't think they needed to rebuild or seem to think that missing the playoffs was a strong possibility.

 

[losveratos]

Phil is a great player but wasn't the deal worse than an offer sheet?

This could be wrong but for 2009-2010 I found

$4,520,151 - $6,026,867 - 2010 1st round pick, 2010 2nd round pick, 2010 3rd round pick

makes it seem like we could've offer sheeted him and the 2011 1st would be a 2010 3rd instead?

Either Burke bent over or there is some other reason to offer more than the sheet? 

Pick protection might've been a reason to do a different deal instead, but Burke didn't get any...it's almost like Chiarelli pushed Burke further and further and he forgot to check the offer sheet brackets before signing that rip-off.

Didn't boston say they'd match the offer sheet if signed? If Burke did that then no Kessel. It's not like we could have stopped them. Once we give the offer sheet... that's the trade or they keep him.  Burke was worried they'd just sign the contract because a 1st, 2nd, 3rd wasn't enough or they knew they could get more and they were right.

 

[losveratos]

I think that's the most important part of the discussion. Burke went on the record numerous times saying he wanted to trade the 1st to improve the team and that he thought he could do it because of Hanson, Bozak, and Gus all being found wallets atm.

Well, I think it's the most important part of the discussion in the sense that Burke having terrible judgment at the time seemed to be guiding his decision making process.

Again, he went into the season with Gus, who'd never played a minute in the NHL, and Toskala as his two goalies, with his leading returning scorer being Jason Blake and an organization that only had 2 first round picks in their system from the last 5 years and didn't think they needed to rebuild or seem to think that missing the playoffs was a strong possibility.

While I agree that it wasn't great timing (who can choose when to sign a top player on another team?) and he was wrong about the rest of the team. He was right about Kessel being worth the struggle to get.

 

[Kin]

While I agree that it wasn't great timing (who can choose when to sign a top player on another team?) and he was wrong about the rest of the team.

But that was always the point about the Kessel trade. I don't think anyone who didn't or doesn't like the trade did so on the basis that Kessel wasn't a good player or wasn't going to be a good player or think that draft picks could never be used to strengthen a team. The reason the Kessel trade didn't make sense was because it was the wrong time and the wrong team.

I like Kessel, I've taken the very controversial stance that his presence on the team makes them better, but the upside of that trade and of Burke's strategy in general was building a middle of the pack team that had significant and glaring holes and a cap situation that didn't really reflect their accomplishments. That's what's come about. That's not Kessel's fault and he deserves credit for his role in taking the team this far but not liking that trade was always about how the Leafs were going to take that next step.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Really good article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-secrets-of-kessels-success-include-unique-stick-and-deceptive-strength/article16677523/

Some highlights:

He is, they say, ?powerful? ? enough to belt a golf ball more than 350 yards, manhandle a leg press or blow away from them on the ice in practice.

And if that?s ?out of shape,? they?d like to be signed up.

?Extremely powerful,? Leafs netminder James Reimer said of Kessel?s deceptive gifts. ?It?s just sneaky, strong power. I don?t know what he does in the summer to work on it or if that?s just natural ability, but he?s got probably the strongest legs on the team.?

?He?s as strong a skater in the lower body as we have on our team,? added head coach Randy Carlyle, who credits Kessel?s strength and low centre of gravity with both his remarkable acceleration and quick, hard shot. ?I think he?s just got God-given talent.?

...

A good example is Kessel?s use of one of the most flexible and unique composite sticks in the NHL, with a fine-tuned kick point low, down near the blade, that allows the shaft to bend like a rubber band and that gives him one of the hardest-to-stop shots in the world.

...

While neither Kessel or the manufacturer likes to talk about its exact specifics, a quick highlight package of his goals is enough to see what makes it different. Unlike players in earlier eras, Kessel can shoot hard and accurately while still in stride, using his body weight, strength and the whip of the composite hockey stick ? combined with an uncanny accuracy ? to pick corners when netminders least expect it.

Over the years, he has also refined his passing accuracy using the highly customized S19 model, which he wraps in a candy-cane pattern with tape over the entire shaft for better grip.

NHL players say the exact type of stick Kessel uses is so difficult to control that most give up experimenting with it after a practice or two. Such a whippy stick complicates simple things such as stickhandling or winning battles along the boards, making it suitable for only the most precise player.

...

But Kessel?s shot wouldn?t be particularly useful if he wasn?t able to get it off regularly, something he manages to do more than almost any other player in the league.

The average 3.8 shots a game he has this season is typical of Kessel but elite by NHL standards, with Ovechkin the only player who regularly tops the four-per-game mark and only a handful of other players in Kessel?s ballpark.

With defences keying on blocking shots and trapping through the neutral zone, the fact Kessel can not only get the puck that often but hit the net with it is considered as remarkable a talent as anything else he does on the ice.

Factor in that his career average shooting percentage is a little above 11 per cent, and he can be expected to score at least once every nine shots ? or almost every second game.

 

[skrackle]

My feeling on the Kessel trade has always been that Brian Burke went 0-for-2 out of the gate as Leafs GM. Or perhaps 0-for-4, if you include the Komisarek signing and especially the decision that the Leafs were not in need of a complete rebuild.

Burke's Plan A was to sign the Sedins as UFAs and trade Kaberle for Kessel. Instant 1st line-maybe the best in the league. Pretty impressive for a team that had stunk for years, except it didn't happen. When both of these moves fell through, Burke felt the need to make a big splash one way or another, hence the trade that brought Kessel to the Leafs. An overpayment based on where the Leafs were at the time? I'd have to say yes.

That said, I'm glad Kessel is a Leaf. He's a great player. And maybe Burke did know what he was doing. His blueprint is still very much on this Leafs team, which has looked both great and awful so far this season. Burke is deserving of credit if the Leafs do well.

My feeling is that by not truly rebuilding, the Leafs continue to lack the dominant player that can put a good team over the top, into Cup contender status. On the other hand,  the Leafs do have speed, scoring and pretty good goaltending. Maybe that can be enough in today's NHL.