who cares?
I care cause i'd rather Kessel than JVR than Bozak
- bobbyisno1

Don't trade Kessel, don't get Matthews, so I think it's pretty significant.

Yes or no, they absolutely without question needed to use that pick or the deal doesn't get done when they already had the 31st pick too?


- Unholy_Goalie

Wasn't in question or relevant. Did they get Anderson for Kessel? Facts are (indirectly) yes they did.

Any more straw men?

Don't trade Kessel, don't get Matthews, so I think it's pretty significant.
- Blazed

Really, so with Kessel and without
JVR and Bozak they don't come in last?
How so?
They still would have been last.

Wasn't in question or relevant. Did they get Anderson for Kessel? Facts are (indirectly) yes they did.

Any more straw men?
- Blazed

If they didn't have 30th overall, 31st still gets Andersen. That's a fact.

Really, so with Kessel and without
JVR and Bozak they don't come in last?
How so?
They still would have been last.
- bobbyisno1

We're arguing some pretty obscure hypotheticals at this point but sure let's debate.

Pittsburgh acquired Kessel, it's a stretch and can't really be proved that they would accept JVR and Bozak in lieu.

Moving Kessel and Dion was essentially key in the fresh start needed in pulling a new group together. In my opinion they wouldn't have finished dead last with Kessel.

If they didn't have 30th overall, 31st still gets Andersen. That's a fact.
- Unholy_Goalie

Right, a completely irrelevant fact. The sky is blue, water is wet. Those are facts too.

Really, so with Kessel and without
JVR and Bozak they don't come in last?
How so?
They still would have been last.
- bobbyisno1

If they had bad enough goaltending and D, they're still last. Tanking is easy.

We're arguing some pretty obscure hypothetical's at this point but sure let's debate.

Pittsburgh acquired Kessel, it's a stretch and can't really be proved that they would accept JVR and Bozak in lieu.

Moving Kessel and Dion was essentially key in the fresh start needed in pulling a new group together. In my opinion they wouldn't have finished dead last with Kessel.
- Blazed

Well in my opinion if they traded JVR and Bozak before Kessel they would have still come dead last.
What would Kesel have had to play with?
And know what would he had to play with?
It's a no brainer.

If they had bad enough goaltending and D, they're still last. Tanking is easy.
- Unholy_Goalie

And they did.

Yes or no, they absolutely without question needed to use that pick or the deal doesn't get done when they already had the 31st pick too?


- Unholy_Goalie

This is how everyone breaks down trades. They look at the what pieces came in trade, then if some were traded for other assets, you count those. Practically everyone that tries to calculate how well trades worked for teams do this.
In this case, Andersen was acquired with a pick sent in return for Kessel.

Maybe you disagree with this whole process? I suppose considering how contrary you are in general, this shouldn't be a surprise.

Well in my opinion if they traded JVR and Boazak before kKessel they would have still come dead last.
What would Kesel have had to play with?
And know what would he had to play with?
It's a no brainer.
- bobbyisno1

You're literally the first person I've yet to debate with that is upset with how the direction chosen has turned out.

In theory there is a chance maybe it would've turned out better but that would have been most fortunate.

I think most would agree it was time to move on from their top players of the time.

Well in my opinion if they traded JVR and Bozak before Kessel they would have still come dead last.
What would Kesel have had to play with?
And know what would he had to play with?
It's a no brainer.
- bobbyisno1

This is a total assumption since there's really no way to prove it. Kessel is a far better player than JVR or Bozak.

This is how everyone breaks down trades. They look at the what pieces came in trade, then if some were traded for other assets, you count those. Practically everyone that tries to calculate how well trades worked for teams do this.
In this case, Andersen was acquired with a pick sent in return for Kessel.

Maybe you disagree with this whole process? I suppose considering how contrary you are in general, this shouldn't be a surprise.
- Thecakeisalie

They might nothave wanted to trade their first round pick without having the 31st, but they knew they had to get a goalie.

And they did.
- bobbyisno1

At the time, they needed to move Kessel to change the "culture" but they did so when his value was very low and didn't get enough in return. At least with Phaneuf, they kind of rebuilt his value a little and got rid of him without getting something equally bad in return.

At the time, they needed to move Kessel to change the "culture" but they did so when his value was very low and didn't get enough in return. At least with Phaneuf, they kind of rebuilt his value a little and got rid of him without getting something equally bad in return.
- Unholy_Goalie

And waiting would've increased his value?

You're literally the first person I've yet to debate with that is upset with how the direction chosen has turned out.

In theory there is a chance maybe it would've turned out better but that would have been most fortunate.

I think most would agree it was time to move on from their top players of the time.
- Blazed

But they didn't move on from their top players they threw Kessel under the bus.
Their only top player, if they get rid of JVR on that contract they would havegotten a far better return.
Trade Bozak while he still looked somewhat good and they get more assets.
And guess what you still have Kessel the only real talent the team had at the time.

But they didn't move on from their top players they threw Kessel under the bus.
Their only top player, if they get rid of JVR on that contract they would havegotten a far better return.
Trade Bozak while he still looked somewhat good and they get more assets.
And guess what you still have Kessel the only real talent the team had at the time.
- bobbyisno1

They didn't still want Kessel anymore, they traded the two leaders. Their best forward and best dman. So yes the did get rid of their top players.

This is how everyone breaks down trades. They look at the what pieces came in trade, then if some were traded for other assets, you count those. Practically everyone that tries to calculate how well trades worked for teams do this.
In this case, Andersen was acquired with a pick sent in return for Kessel.

Maybe you disagree with this whole process? I suppose considering how contrary you are in general, this shouldn't be a surprise.
- Thecakeisalie

And usually, it makes sense but in this case, it doesn't. They didn't trade Kessel for 5th overall and then trade 5th overall for Andersen. They got the 30th pick when they already had the 31st pick. They already had the value in the form of the 31st overall pick to get Andersen. Therefore, moving Kessel wasn't necessary to acquire Andersen.

What he's trying to say is that Kessel brought back a big enough haul in value that it allowed the Leafs to get Andersen but it's a false equivalency because they already had what they needed to get Andersen, with or without trading Kessel.

They might nothave wanted to trade their first round pick without having the 31st, but they knew they had to get a goalie.
- bobbyisno1

And they didn't have to trade that other 1st rounder, cause they were able to trade Pittsburgh's 1st, which they got in the Kessel trade.

It doesn't matter what the hypotheticals are, the reality is that the first acquired in the Kessel trade got us Andersen. There for, Andersen was (second hand) acquired due to the Kessel trade.

And usually, it makes sense but in this case, it doesn't. They didn't trade Kessel for 5th overall and then trade 5th overall for Andersen. They got the 30th pick when they already had the 31st pick. They already had the value in the form of the 31st overall pick to get Andersen. Therefore, moving Kessel wasn't necessary to acquire Andersen.

What he's trying to say is that Kessel brought back a big enough haul in value that it allowed the Leafs to get Andersen but it's a false equivalency because they already had what they needed to get Andersen, with or without trading Kessel.
- Unholy_Goalie

So you use this method most of the time when evaluating trades, but just not in this case? Sounds like you're making up your own rules for the argument.

They didn't still want Kessel anymore, they traded the two leaders. Their best forward and best dman. So yes the did get rid of their top players.
- Blazed

They didn'want Kessel?
They blamed him for the culture of the team when its clear now who is to blame.

If they didn't have 30th overall, 31st still gets Andersen. That's a fact.
- Unholy_Goalie

Yeah but the 31st pick is a bergeron. You never trade a bergeron straight up for Anderson.

And waiting would've increased his value?
- Blazed

Possibly considering he was coming off a season where he scored 25 goals and 61 points when his averages were better than that in years prior with 30-37 goal, 80 point seasons.

They should have demanded Olli Maatta in return, at the very least and shopped around a bit more.

And usually, it makes sense but in this case, it doesn't. They didn't trade Kessel for 5th overall and then trade 5th overall for Andersen. They got the 30th pick when they already had the 31st pick. They already had the value in the form of the 31st overall pick to get Andersen. Therefore, moving Kessel wasn't necessary to acquire Andersen.

What he's trying to say is that Kessel brought back a big enough haul in value that it allowed the Leafs to get Andersen but it's a false equivalency because they already had what they needed to get Andersen, with or without trading Kessel.
- Unholy_Goalie

No it makes perfect logical sense, it's you that is using strange logic to twist it into some sort of nonsensical argument.

Poster x said at least we got something for Kessel.

Facts are they got a 1st and good prospect and a meh prospect.

Those are the facts. They used that 31st pick on a prospect you know and before you can straw man me straight to hell, the quality of that prospect is completely irrelevant.

They didn't trade Kessel to get Anderson, but that's what the assets were used for, fact.

You can argue that the Leafs had the assets required to get Andersen without trading Kessel if you want, but the reality is they did trade Kessel and they did get Andersen by using assets they got from the Kessel trade.
Meaning, the Kessel trade assets brought in Andersen. They then had that other pick that they could use elsewhere.