Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor
posted at 4/2/2012 8:18 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Today (March 30th 2012) Tyler or Taylor
[QUOTE]Depends on how you look at the Kessel trade, but I still call it a huge bruise for the Leafs. They wanted a franchise centrepiece, and they got a guy who hadn't matched his Bruins totals until this year. They got a guy who was a secondary player floundering around looking for a centre to "get him the puck". (He's not a spot shooter; anyone can get the puck to him - a lack of competent passing defensemen was probably more of a drag on Phil). What they wanted was a player who would kick-start their rebuild. They went backwards with him. Saying "they didn't expect to be that bad" is partly a shot a Kessel's impact - it's a big shot, really, because they gambled that with Kessel, they'd improve enough that a first round pick wouldn't be an immediate impact player. Lose. The Bruins had a player who was talented but ultimately a poor, poor fit for a team that was building based on a close-knit, group commitment, team toughness model. I can't go as far as saying ditching Phil was addition by subtraction, but having him and his mercurial talents playing a key role - and eating up any salary dollars that might have brought in Horton, then later Peverley and Kelly - would have made the Bruins a lesser team. And even in 2010, when the picks were just numbers and not names, the Bruins, for all their regular-season woes, were a goal away from making the ECF. I can't honestly say I think Phil would have out-performed Satan in that playoff (13 games 5-5-10 and +4; game winner in OT vs. Miller). So the real "loss" of Kessel was...sorry, I'm coming up blank. Instead, they got potential franchise players at two of the three position groups (premature to suggest this for Hamilton, but humour me). Win. Would the Leafs be farther ahead this year with Seguin, Hamilton, Knight and $5.5M to sign someone else...maybe someone who plays net?
Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]
Good thoughts book. Couple things. Think the B's could have easily afforded Satan, if 81 was still on the team. Think Seguins cap hit is around 3.5, so the leafs would have about 2, not 5.5.
Before I go on...i'm not an 81 lover, and I'm really happy with the trade...I just don't agree with the "bounty to date", that seems prevalent here.
I really don't think he was a poor, poor fit. It's not like PC didn't really, really want him back. He just wanted to pay about 3.5, not 5.5(didn't blame him). When we choose to remember that, it makes things a little different. 81 was just a kid, and most teams excercise a little patience with those they feel are more skilled in the scoring department. As far as the close knit, group commitment thing, in PK's situation, that's more PR than reality. Again, his age. If anyone understands the culture of pro sport, the tight knit thing is about mutual respect for ones abilities, not pizza and sleepovers. Veterans take no guff from young guys. They're usually neither liked or disliked that much, because of their inexperience coupled with their age. I can't picture big wheel Bruins saying, "I don't like PK. Get him off the team". Seems more like they'd say "Phil who?..does that little runt need straightened out"
A lot of pro athletes hardly know some of their teamamtes. That "bond" is professional, and sometimes stays at the rink. We've all played with people we don't warm up to, and sometimes we're thrilled to have them on our team.
Then we have this "wanted out of town" hurt. I think most would be surprised to learn there are many, many players who would prefer to be somewhere else. When a team fails to sign someone, the natives are usually subdued if they hear "he didn't want to play for us".
Again, just opinion here, but if PK would have approved a deal for around 3 mil per....he probably would still be here. If PC agreed to 5.5, he'd still be here. By now, Chara, Thornton, Bergeron, and a few others would have made him understand the lay of the land. Or else.