Kessel traded to Penguins

[ZBBM]

And I'd keep Bozak on the top line.

And that right there is the difference between actually rebuilding a team and doing it from your armchair. Keeping a player in a position he hasn't earned sends a terrible message throughout an organization. Rewarding failure doesn't inspire success.

There's a difference between putting your team in a position to lose and trying to lose. If you care at all about developing the young players on or about to be on the roster, you don't do the latter.

I'm glad you said that because I got jumped on a few weeks back when I pointed out that tanking means the latter while many use the word loosely and wrongly to mean the former. Buffalo didn't tank last year. They put themselves into a position to lose. Teams almost never tank in the actual sense.

 

[dappleganger]

This implies that the leafs accepted the trade and the players didn't waive? I'm not sure I believe that - not the waiving thing, that they were actually ok with the original proposal.

I think the implication is that it was Kunitz and Scuderi in addition to the prospects and picks.

So the Leafs were going to get everything they got and Kunitz and Scuderi but they wouldn't waive so they said they'd retain some salary instead?

 

[Joe S.]

This implies that the leafs accepted the trade and the players didn't waive? I'm not sure I believe that - not the waiving thing, that they were actually ok with the original proposal.

I think the implication is that it was Kunitz and Scuderi in addition to the prospects and picks.

Oh ok... I didn't realize that...

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And I'd keep Bozak on the top line.

And that right there is the difference between actually rebuilding a team and doing it from your armchair. Keeping a player in a position he hasn't earned sends a terrible message throughout an organization. Rewarding failure doesn't inspire success.

There's a difference between putting your team in a position to lose and trying to lose. If you care at all about developing the young players on or about to be on the roster, you don't do the latter.

I'm glad you said that because I got jumped on a few weeks back when I pointed out that tanking means the latter while many use the word loosely and wrongly to mean the former. Buffalo didn't tank last year. They put themselves into a position to lose. Teams almost never tank in the actual sense.

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

 

[herman]

And I'd keep Bozak on the top line.

And that right there is the difference between actually rebuilding a team and doing it from your armchair. Keeping a player in a position he hasn't earned sends a terrible message throughout an organization. Rewarding failure doesn't inspire success.

There's a difference between putting your team in a position to lose and trying to lose. If you care at all about developing the young players on or about to be on the roster, you don't do the latter.

I'm glad you said that because I got jumped on a few weeks back when I pointed out that tanking means the latter while many use the word loosely and wrongly to mean the former. Buffalo didn't tank last year. They put themselves into a position to lose. Teams almost never tank in the actual sense.

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

Positioned to lose:
- Less talent on the team
- Play all the minutes evenly regardless of situation

Trying to lose:
- deliberately injure your goalie
- shoot the puck at your own net
- pass it to Crosby/Ovechkin/Kessel/etc.

Something like that?

Positioning to lose strikes me as a managerial effort (roster building, player deployment, expectation setting). Rewarding the process of the play, rather than the final result.

To me, trying to lose is a player-level decision and that'll get you shipped out pretty quick.

 

[L K]

And I'd keep Bozak on the top line.

And that right there is the difference between actually rebuilding a team and doing it from your armchair. Keeping a player in a position he hasn't earned sends a terrible message throughout an organization. Rewarding failure doesn't inspire success.

There's a difference between putting your team in a position to lose and trying to lose. If you care at all about developing the young players on or about to be on the roster, you don't do the latter.

I'm glad you said that because I got jumped on a few weeks back when I pointed out that tanking means the latter while many use the word loosely and wrongly to mean the former. Buffalo didn't tank last year. They put themselves into a position to lose. Teams almost never tank in the actual sense.

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

I think it's more a distinction between a team playing poorly in the way the Leafs did last year in the second half and simply giving up and a team that tries really hard but isn't good enough to win. 

I mean one of the things that bothered me about Buffalo and Arizona last year wasn't just how bad they were but how rarely they were even competitive in games.  I think the same criticism can be applied to the Leafs in the second half.  I mean, I'm glad it happened in hindsight because we got Marner instead of drafting a guy like Zacha but it was unwatchable. 

I think the goal is to have a team that is actually competitive in most games but just can't win because they lack goalscoring/the ability to shut down a Phil Kessel rather than simply a team that goes down 3-0 in the first period and loses most games 5-2 or 4-1.

The Sabres put up some halfway decent efforts against the Leafs at times but they were abysmal in most games.  Very little effort, very little competitiveness in games. 

 

[Kin]

So the Leafs were going to get everything they got and Kunitz and Scuderi but they wouldn't waive so they said they'd retain some salary instead?

The way I understand it from the various things I've read is that the picks/prospects package Toronto would have received would have been less good(so, like, the first and Harrington) with Scuderi and Kunitz but it was Toronto's agreement to retain salary that got Pittsburgh to add Kapanen into the deal.

 

[Kin]

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

I agree it's a fine distinction but I think it's there all the same. It's like running a 100 meters with a 50 pound weight on your back vs. sort of half-heartedly jogging 100 meters. The time might ultimately be the same but they reflect different goals.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

I agree it's a fine distinction but I think it's there all the same. It's like running a 100 meters with a 50 pound weight on your back vs. sort of half-heartedly jogging 100 meters. The time might ultimately be the same but they reflect different goals.

Alright, I can see it more that way.  Seems to be degrees of trying to lose then, either free falling or with a parachute - you're going down either way.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I mean, what's the difference between putting yourself in a position to lose and trying to lose?  If I actively put myself in a position to do something then by doing that I am trying to do that thing.  If you put yourself in a position to lose then how are you not also trying to lose?

I don't really see this as something that requires a distinction.

I agree it's a fine distinction but I think it's there all the same. It's like running a 100 meters with a 50 pound weight on your back vs. sort of half-heartedly jogging 100 meters. The time might ultimately be the same but they reflect different goals.

Alright, I can see it more that way.  Seems to be degrees of trying to lose then, either free falling or with a parachute - you're going down either way.

There's a psychological difference too. Trying your hardest and being unable to win vs being able to win but not trying. You don't want to get it in people's heads in any way that it's okay to not try 100% of the time.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think a lot of folks had him behind Maatta and Pouliot. Some might argue Maatta isn't a prospect because he's in the NHL but he's only 20.

Well yeah he's been a regular NHL player for 2 seasons now so yes Maatta isn't a prospect anymore. He's also as virtually untouchable as any other Pittsburgh Penguin is.

Several of these numbers you cite like 11th or 13th are for a draft year - not overall prospect rankings. I haven't seen ESPN's nor ever relied on it. And Kapanen's stock has fallen since he was drafted. So how ESPN gets him that high has me quickly suspicious of their assessment. Any ranking that has him inside the top 40 overall would be suspect to me.

I think that I was pretty clear about them being draft rankings. I was just showing how highly rated he was just a year ago. As for ESPN vs. HF, again I'll take the opinion of a paid scout/analyst over the collection of people writing at HF, who are mostly just fans who haven't even watched a small fraction of the games as Cory Pronman (who wrote up ESPNs rankings). They're a fine resource to have especially considering that there isn't a lot of attention paid to prospects in the media post-draft, but they shouldn't be considered the bible.

To me, a "top flight" prospect is a guy who has a high probability of contributing at a top 6/top 4 level in the NHL. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of many, Kapanen isn't a high probability of making top 6 in the NHL - I'd rate his chances now as less than average from where he was picked because his stock has fallen some since he was drafted ... less than roughly 33% chance of making it in the NHL as a top 6 player. (I don't mean them trying him there - I mean him making a career playing there).

Virtually every scouting service out there had Kapanen as a top-6 winger with a very high offensive upside at the time of the draft. Did he have a Nylander-like post draft season? No. But few 18 years do. During training camp there was a lot of talk about him actually making the Penguins team. They were very impressed by his play. In the end they decided not to rush him and returned him to Finland where he played on a pretty bad team and had some ups and downs. That's not uncommon for 18 year olds playing in a European mens league. But he ended up leading his team in scoring during the playoffs (they were eliminated in 6 games). Then he came to finish his season in the AHL where he scored 5 points in 7 playoffs game. Again pretty good for a player his age playing in a brand new league/team.

I don't see how a season like that decimates a young players upside. Is he a lock to become a top-6 forward in the future? No, but you can say that about almost any prospect. You (seemingly arbitrarily) wrote that he only has a 33% chance of becoming a top-6 player like it was a bad thing. There's actually systems out there that attempt to nail down the chances of a prospect becoming an impact NHLer and 33% is a pretty good number to have for these kids.

 

[pnjunction]

Positioned to lose:
- Less talent on the team
- Play all the minutes evenly regardless of situation

Trying to lose:
- deliberately injure your goalie
- shoot the puck at your own net
- pass it to Crosby/Ovechkin/Kessel/etc.

Something like that?

Positioning to lose strikes me as a managerial effort (roster building, player deployment, expectation setting). Rewarding the process of the play, rather than the final result.

To me, trying to lose is a player-level decision and that'll get you shipped out pretty quick.

I know it's a complicated issue but when it put this way it just seems cruel... "We're going to intentionally drain all the experienced talent out the team to make the chances of winning as low as we can...but you don't you dare give up on any of these games that we are positioning the team to lose or you're a bum."

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Virtually every scouting service out there had Kapanen as a top-6 winger with a very high offensive upside at the time of the draft. Did he have a Nylander-like post draft season? No. But few 18 years do. During training camp there was a lot of talk about him actually making the Penguins team. They were very impressed by his play. In the end they decided not to rush him and returned him to Finland where he played on a pretty bad team and had some ups and downs. That's not uncommon for 18 year olds playing in a European mens league. But he ended up leading his team in scoring during the playoffs (they were eliminated in 6 games). Then he came to finish his season in the AHL where he scored 5 points in 7 playoffs game. Again pretty good for a player his age playing in a brand new league/team.

I don't see how a season like that decimates a young players upside. Is he a lock to become a top-6 forward in the future? No, but you can say that about almost any prospect. You (seemingly arbitrarily) wrote that he only has a 33% chance of becoming a top-6 player like it was a bad thing. There's actually systems out there that attempt to nail down the chances of a prospect becoming an impact NHLer and 33% is a pretty good number to have for these kids.

Here's one 2014 write up on him from Future Considerations:

 

[Jay-Mar]

Kessel was a phenomenal scorer but that's where it ended. He was nothing more than a one trick pony that could not contribute to your team in any other way. His defence was horrible as most point out but the one thing that infuriated me the most was him laying there on the bench with his head buried in his arms gasping for air. What example is that to your teammates who look for inspiration from your leaders at critical times?

 

[herman]

Positioned to lose:
- Less talent on the team
- Play all the minutes evenly regardless of situation

Trying to lose:
- deliberately injure your goalie
- shoot the puck at your own net
- pass it to Crosby/Ovechkin/Kessel/etc.

Something like that?

Positioning to lose strikes me as a managerial effort (roster building, player deployment, expectation setting). Rewarding the process of the play, rather than the final result.

To me, trying to lose is a player-level decision and that'll get you shipped out pretty quick.

I know it's a complicated issue but when it put this way it just seems cruel... "We're going to intentionally drain all the experienced talent out the team to make the chances of winning as low as we can...but you don't you dare give up on any of these games that we are positioning the team to lose or you're a bum."

I like the way Nik put it earlier: a 100m race with a 50-lb weight running your hardest vs a 100m race at a lazy jog.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Kessel was a phenomenal scorer but that's where it ended. He was nothing more than a one trick pony that could not contribute to your team in any other way. His defence was horrible as most point out but the one thing that infuriated me the most was him laying there on the bench with his head buried in his arms gasping for air. What example is that to your teammates who look for inspiration from your leaders at critical times?

When people say all he could do is score are they just ignoring his playmaking ability?  His ability to gain the zone with the puck?

What does him gasping for air have to do with it?  Is that not a sign that he was trying his hardest if he's gasping for air?  People act like he's the only player in the league that needs to catch their breath on the bench.

 

[Kin]

Phil Kessel and Maple Leafs fans deserve better than the Toronto media

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Phil Kessel and Maple Leafs fans deserve better than the Toronto media

If anybody other than Simmons wrote that article in any other publication other than the Toronto Sun they'd probably be fired instantly. Biggest load of garbage I've ever read.

 

[Jay-Mar]

Kessel was a phenomenal scorer but that's where it ended. He was nothing more than a one trick pony that could not contribute to your team in any other way. His defence was horrible as most point out but the one thing that infuriated me the most was him laying there on the bench with his head buried in his arms gasping for air. What example is that to your teammates who look for inspiration from your leaders at critical times?

When people say all he could do is score are they just ignoring his playmaking ability?  His ability to gain the zone with the puck?

What does him gasping for air have to do with it?  Is that not a sign that he was trying his hardest if he's gasping for air?  People act like he's the only player in the league that needs to catch their breath on the bench.

A player who is in some sort of shape will not be dieing on the bench after most shifts. Even during practices he was the last one coming onto the ice and first one off.

Take away Phil toe drag and his Avenue to the net is gone. Block his ability to cut across the top of the circles and his 2nd best opportunity to score is gone. Phil is predictable and his playmaking occurs because everyone is expecting him to shoot so when it's a pass everyone is surprised.

 

[hobarth]

Kessel was a phenomenal scorer but that's where it ended. He was nothing more than a one trick pony that could not contribute to your team in any other way. His defence was horrible as most point out but the one thing that infuriated me the most was him laying there on the bench with his head buried in his arms gasping for air. What example is that to your teammates who look for inspiration from your leaders at critical times?

Shouldn't his state of exhaustion be construed as a player who left it all on the ice and be an inspiration to his team mates?

I have no idea who's going to score for TO next year but I do think that none of us are going to be satisfied by all hustle, no results. Did Kadri get a single goal on the PP last year? How many of JVR's and Bozak's goals were assisted by Kessel or more precisely because of Kessel.

Kessel may have been a one trick pony but he was an excellent one.

It was a curious trade, lottery protected draft choice for an elite scorer, as it was unfolding I'm surprised there wasn't more riders against say Kapanen getting 20 goals, the trade would then be nullified or Harrington becoming an everyday player, in Shany some trust.