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.
- Unholy_Goalie

You have no idea how much they shopped him around and I could almost guarantee you were one of the posters demanding to trade him for pennies on the dollar.

The prevailing sentiment at the time both here and msm is that he was untradeable. The Leafs were literally planning on be worse so all logical signs we're that he would not have a more successful season and would only be older.

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.
- Blazed

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.
- Thecakeisalie

And yet, if they never trade Kessel, they still get Andersen with the 31st overall pick.

Amazing!

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.
- Thecakeisalie

Shut it, we're still pissed that they traded Kessel..

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.
- Unholy_Goalie

Kessels age and contract brought his value down. The team had to be close to win now mode and able to fit him under the cap as well as have a need at right wing.

They didn'want Kessel?
They blamed him for the culture of the team when its clear now who is to blame.
- bobbyisno1

Yes, they did unfairly blame Kessel. And he was getting poop on every day from the media too.

It's unfair, but it was decided it was best for both sides that he went. Could they have gotten more value if they'd waited? Maybe. But they didn't.

At least they got some assets back. And with some of those assets, they acquired Andersen.

You have no idea how much they shopped him around and I could almost guarantee you were one of the posters demanding to trade him for pennies on the dollar.
- Blazed

Wrong.

The prevailing sentiment at the time both here and msm is that he was untradeable. The Leafs were literally planning on be worse so all logical signs we're that he would not have a more successful season and would only be older.

Also wrong. He was never untradeable and anybody who though he was, wasn't thinking very hard.

And yet, if they never trade Kessel, they still get Andersen with the 31st overall pick.

Amazing!
- Unholy_Goalie

BERGERON!

And yet, if they never trade Kessel, they still get Andersen with the 31st overall pick.

Amazing!
- Unholy_Goalie

And yet those two points have absolutely no relationship.

They could've traded Nylander for Anderson and kept the 31st and Kessel!

No relevancy.

Kessels age and contract brought his value down. The team had to be close to win now mode and able to fit him under the cap as well as have a need at right wing.
- HealthyScratch6

Every year, there are 5 to 10 teams in "win now" mode, whether they should be or not. If Pittsburgh didn't take him earlier, they would have taken him later. So would Nashville, or any other "contender" who wanted to add scoring. Kessel was nowhere near "untradeable" territory. That was Phaneuf and Clarkson and even they got traded.

You have no idea how much they shopped him around and I could almost guarantee you were one of the posters demanding to trade him for pennies on the dollar.

The prevailing sentiment at the time both here and msm is that he was untradeable. The Leafs were literally planning on be worse so all logical signs we're that he would not have a more successful season and would only be older.
- Blazed

I had numorous arguements, Ithink it was some guy named PrinceLH or something, I was telling him when you trade away that 35 goal scorer you'll be looking for another.

And yet those two points have absolutely no relationship.

They could've traded Nylander for Anderson and kept the 31st and Kessel!

No relevancy.
- Blazed

And yet those two points have absolutely no relationship.

They could've traded Nylander for Anderson and kept the 31st and Kessel!

No relevancy.
- Blazed

Exactly.

You can throw out all the hypotheticals you want about what else they could've used to acquire Andersen, the reality is, they used a pick they got for trading Kessel.

Maybe they could've gotten Andersen for HOHO's hat. But they didn't. They used Pittsburgh's 1st, which they got from the Kessel trade.

Wrong.



Also wrong. He was never untradeable and anybody who though he was, wasn't thinking very hard.
- Unholy_Goalie

Do you need the definition of sentiment?

Every year, there are 5 to 10 teams in "win now" mode, whether they should be or not. If Pittsburgh didn't take him earlier, they would have taken him later. So would Nashville, or any other "contender" who wanted to add scoring. Kessel was nowhere near "untradeable" territory. That was Phaneuf and Clarkson and even they got traded.
- Unholy_Goalie

How many of them could afford Kessel's contract, even with us retaining what we did?
I think your number of teams drastically decreases unless they send us back salary somehow.

Every year, there are 5 to 10 teams in "win now" mode, whether they should be or not. If Pittsburgh didn't take him earlier, they would have taken him later. So would Nashville, or any other "contender" who wanted to add scoring. Kessel was nowhere near "untradeable" territory. That was Phaneuf and Clarkson and even they got traded.
- Unholy_Goalie

What exactly are you arguing anyways? That Kessel should still be a Leaf? Is that the rock you're dying on tonight?

Yes, they did unfairly blame Kessel. And he was getting poop on every day from the media too.

It's unfair, but it was decided it was best for both sides that he went. Could they have gotten more value if they'd waited? Maybe. But they didn't.

At least they got some assets back. And with some of those assets, they acquired Andersen.
- Thecakeisalie

I'm saying they couldhave gotten better assets back by trading the other 2 players.
And they still would have finished last.

How many of them could afford Kessel's contract, even with us retaining what we did?
I think your number of teams drastically decreases unless they send us back salary somehow.
- Thecakeisalie

If Pittsburgh could fit him, with their trio of massive contracts, a lot of other teams could have.

I'm saying they couldhave gotten better assets back by trading the other 2 players.
And they still would have finished last.
- bobbyisno1

Them trading Kessel had no bearing on them trading Bozak/JVR or not. They could've traded all three, they didn't for reasons unbeknownst to us.

What exactly are you arguing anyways? That Kessel should still be a Leaf? Is that the rock you're dying on tonight?
- Blazed

Nope. I said he should have brought back a bigger return and that he didn't need to be traded to get Andersen. Quite simple really.

Nope. I said he should have brought back a bigger return and that he didn't need to be traded to get Andersen. Quite simple really.
- Unholy_Goalie

Oh ok simple now I get it, so let me paraphrase. You're upset on tonight's big win that they didn't get more than a 1st and two prospects 3 years ago for Kessel.

Crystal clear.

I'm saying they couldhave gotten better assets back by trading the other 2 players.
And they still would have finished last.
- bobbyisno1

Maybe. JVR did have a very pretty contract. I think it wasn't just about the assets, it was also about culture and public sentiment even. They (probably unfairly) blamed Kessel for their losing ways, and they knew most of the media and fans had turned Toronto into a toxic atmosphere for Phil (thanks Simmons you useless poop).

Would we still have finished last? Probably?

Oh ok simple now I get it, so let me paraphrase. You're upset on tonight's big win that they didn't get more than a 1st and two prospects 3 years ago for Kessel.

Crystal clear.
- Blazed

Olli Maatta would look pretty damn good on the blue line right now, that's for damn sure.

Nope. I said he should have brought back a bigger return and that he didn't need to be traded to get Andersen. Quite simple really.
- Unholy_Goalie

They all wrong, maybe that's why they hate me, cause I agree with you.

If Pittsburgh could fit him, with their trio of massive contracts, a lot of other teams could have.
- Unholy_Goalie

Yet despite the entire hockey world knowing his availability, they chose not to make a better offer. Shocking.

I'm saying they couldhave gotten better assets back by trading the other 2 players.
And they still would have finished last.
- bobbyisno1

The other two players weren't 28 and signed for 7 more years at 8 million coming off their worst statistical season.