Author Topic: So, about Phil Kessel...  (Read 45210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hockeyfan1

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Gender: Female
  • TORONTO RAPTORS 2019 NBA CHAMPIONS!
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #270 on: June 03, 2015, 07:43:24 AM »
It looks like the Islanders, of the teams mentioned, are in the best position for cap room and a potential Kessel trade.  The idea of a Ryan Strome coming to the Leafs is enticing.  He's a centre and would suit them well.  Others such as  Reinhart (defence) or Dal College (left wing) are sound options.

How about Arizona?  Kessel for their first rounder (Hanifin).  This isn't thorough (the Leafs would need to add a player).  It's highly improbable since the 'Yotes are not beyond dealing away a highly-touted defensive prospect.

TMLfans.ca

Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #270 on: June 03, 2015, 07:43:24 AM »

Offline 93forever

  • Marlie
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #271 on: June 03, 2015, 10:32:49 AM »
Guys just imagine for a second that we had seguin, Hamilton, rask, and Steen. It's so painful.

If the Leafs still had Rask, they almost certainly would not have ended up with Seguin or Hamilton. He's good enough to have pushed the Leafs up in the standings a couple spots. So, I mean, it's nice to dream and all, but, no Raycroft deal means no Toskala, and no Toskala means the Leafs are a better team in the first years of Kessel's contract.
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Raycroft was not a decent goalie from the start.  Having bad defensemen and a poor defensive style made things worse.  Winning 37 games with a SV % below .900 and GAA 3.00 showed how poor he was and it was in those games where he let in those horrible soft goals that cost the Leafs points and a playoff spot.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 25656
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #272 on: June 03, 2015, 12:12:18 PM »
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Raycroft was 26 in 06-07. Rask was 27 last year. Rask, in both his 26 and 25 year old seasons, faced more shots per night than Raycroft did in 06-07.

It has nothing to do with how quickly they were brought along. Raycroft just wasn't good.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 20760
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #273 on: June 03, 2015, 12:25:13 PM »
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Sure, but no one is talking about the 06/07 season. I'm talking about the 09/10 season - and, that season, Rask started a little more than half the games the Bruins played and put up excellent numbers, while facing shots at an almost identical rate to what the Leafs allowed that season. Granted, score effects and such play a part in those numbers, but the Leafs were not a defensive mess that season. It was more that, between Toskala and Gustavsson, they received terrible goaltending. Rask would have been a significant improvement there - enough to keep the Leafs from ending up with the 2nd overall pick.

Rask was never going to be brought up to the Leafs for 06/07 any way. If they didn't trade for Raycroft (and, subsequently, Toskala), they almost certainly would have signed one of the many UFA goalies available that summer.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 12:26:55 PM by bustaheims »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline Mostar

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #274 on: June 03, 2015, 12:42:27 PM »
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Sure, but no one is talking about the 06/07 season. I'm talking about the 09/10 season - and, that season, Rask started a little more than half the games the Bruins played and put up excellent numbers, while facing shots at an almost identical rate to what the Leafs allowed that season. Granted, score effects and such play a part in those numbers, but the Leafs were not a defensive mess that season. It was more that, between Toskala and Gustavsson, they received terrible goaltending. Rask would have been a significant improvement there - enough to keep the Leafs from ending up with the 2nd overall pick.

Rask was never going to be brought up to the Leafs for 06/07 any way. If they didn't trade for Raycroft (and, subsequently, Toskala), they almost certainly would have signed one of the many UFA goalies available that summer.

Not so sure. I don't think the Leafs were a goalie away from being an upper tier team. I remember other issues with the team at that time...although I do remember there was a large focus on goaltending.

I do agree that goaltending was a problem though.

Personally I was extremely disappointed the Leafs didn't start a full rebuild at that time, WAY more so than a goalie change. They had some assets that were rated pretty highly at that time and the prospect cupboard was pretty bare.

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 20760
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #275 on: June 03, 2015, 01:06:45 PM »
Not so sure. I don't think the Leafs were a goalie away from being an upper tier team. I remember other issues with the team at that time...although I do remember there was a large focus on goaltending.

I do agree that goaltending was a problem though.

Personally I was extremely disappointed the Leafs didn't start a full rebuild at that time, WAY more so than a goalie change. They had some assets that were rated pretty highly at that time and the prospect cupboard was pretty bare.

Who said anything about being an upper tier team? All I said that Rask would have been enough of an upgrade in net to keep them out of the basement. They still wouldn't have been a good team. They still would have had other issues. They just wouldn't have been the 2nd worst team in the league.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline 93forever

  • Marlie
  • **
  • Posts: 142
  • Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #276 on: June 03, 2015, 02:10:11 PM »
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Sure, but no one is talking about the 06/07 season. I'm talking about the 09/10 season - and, that season, Rask started a little more than half the games the Bruins played and put up excellent numbers, while facing shots at an almost identical rate to what the Leafs allowed that season. Granted, score effects and such play a part in those numbers, but the Leafs were not a defensive mess that season. It was more that, between Toskala and Gustavsson, they received terrible goaltending. Rask would have been a significant improvement there - enough to keep the Leafs from ending up with the 2nd overall pick.

Rask was never going to be brought up to the Leafs for 06/07 any way. If they didn't trade for Raycroft (and, subsequently, Toskala), they almost certainly would have signed one of the many UFA goalies available that summer.

Not so sure. I don't think the Leafs were a goalie away from being an upper tier team. I remember other issues with the team at that time...although I do remember there was a large focus on goaltending.

I do agree that goaltending was a problem though.

Personally I was extremely disappointed the Leafs didn't start a full rebuild at that time, WAY more so than a goalie change. They had some assets that were rated pretty highly at that time and the prospect cupboard was pretty bare.

For the Leafs it was never about a long term solution but rather short term gap fills for the present not for the future including player development or the willingness to keep draft picks/prospects.  Not having a plan of success also kept high level talent from signing with the Leafs imho.     
             

Offline mr grieves

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #277 on: June 03, 2015, 02:33:29 PM »
For the Leafs it was never about a long term solution but rather short term gap fills for the present not for the future including player development or the willingness to keep draft picks/prospects.  Not having a plan of success also kept high level talent from signing with the Leafs imho.     

There hasn't been much high-level talent available to sign lately. But, yeah, short term gap fills have characterized the Leafs since 2005 or so.

Offline Bender

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5511
  • Gender: Male
  • Bender cracked corn and he is great!
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #278 on: June 03, 2015, 02:38:16 PM »
Not so sure. I don't think the Leafs were a goalie away from being an upper tier team. I remember other issues with the team at that time...although I do remember there was a large focus on goaltending.

I do agree that goaltending was a problem though.

Personally I was extremely disappointed the Leafs didn't start a full rebuild at that time, WAY more so than a goalie change. They had some assets that were rated pretty highly at that time and the prospect cupboard was pretty bare.

Who said anything about being an upper tier team? All I said that Rask would have been enough of an upgrade in net to keep them out of the basement. They still wouldn't have been a good team. They still would have had other issues. They just wouldn't have been the 2nd worst team in the league.

Let alone they wouldn't have continued to make terrible judgments in picking their goaltenders. People always said well who else were they going to get if they didn't get Andrew Raycroft? Manny Legace was a free agent IIRC. They almost literally could've taken anyone that was a FA or on the waiver wire and had similar levels of goaltending that they received for Rask and a first rounder.

I think not recognizing the need for a rebuild at that time was the biggest problem, and here we are 10 years later.
"They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So here is the professor's oldest friend, a grotesque, stinking lobster." - Bender

Offline Arn

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3277
  • Gender: Male
  • Belfast Giant, Toronto Maple Leaf
    • View Profile
    • Kingdom of the Giants
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #279 on: June 03, 2015, 04:33:45 PM »
Last year was the first time Rask faced the same amount of shots as Raycroft did in `06-07.  If you really look at it, Rask was brought along at a pace that Toronto would never have afforded.  He's just broke the 4000 minutes played mark.  In Toronto, he would of been throw to the wolves, and failed.  Maybe not Raycroft failed, but don't think he'd be much higher then Bernier is right now.

Raycroft was 26 in 06-07. Rask was 27 last year. Rask, in both his 26 and 25 year old seasons, faced more shots per night than Raycroft did in 06-07.

It has nothing to do with how quickly they were brought along. Raycroft just wasn't good.

So good that the last season he played (13/14) he put up a 2.88 and 0.897%. In the Swedish 2nd division. Pogge went 2.16 and 0.921% in the same league.
I Saw Jay McClement Score.

Offline Mostar

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #280 on: June 03, 2015, 05:04:25 PM »
Not so sure. I don't think the Leafs were a goalie away from being an upper tier team. I remember other issues with the team at that time...although I do remember there was a large focus on goaltending.

I do agree that goaltending was a problem though.

Personally I was extremely disappointed the Leafs didn't start a full rebuild at that time, WAY more so than a goalie change. They had some assets that were rated pretty highly at that time and the prospect cupboard was pretty bare.

Who said anything about being an upper tier team? All I said that Rask would have been enough of an upgrade in net to keep them out of the basement. They still wouldn't have been a good team. They still would have had other issues. They just wouldn't have been the 2nd worst team in the league.

Yes, you did not say they would have been an upper tier team otherwise. My apologies. However, the amount of focus (around here anyway) on that particular issue was not justifiable IMO considering the big picture of the organization of the time.

Some good people here argued (for 60 pages) how much better the team would be without him and how he was holding them back. While I agree to a certain extent, I felt (strongly, I'm emotional about the Leafs) there were some assets that could have been moved for picks. A few years of pain, with or without Raycroft - doesn't matter - and the Leafs are a much different club today.

PQ took an admirable shot, he iced a great looking lineup for a playoff run (pre-Raycroft), it didn't pan out, and they have just disintegrated ever since. Raycroft was just a bit player in the overall downward spiral of the club.

I fully agree with Bender. Not recognizing the need for a rebuild at the time was a massive mistake.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 05:10:01 PM by Mostar »

Offline Highlander

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 5823
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #281 on: June 03, 2015, 05:21:14 PM »
There was no managment structure that recognized the need for a rebuild or the realization that the auld days were over in our cap structured world.  Thank god we have some great hockey minds finally guiding this team.
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"
                                           Navaho Proverb

Offline sickbeast

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #282 on: June 03, 2015, 09:37:00 PM »
I'm hearing that the Leafs might get Steve Stamkos as a free agent.  That would go against the tank.  It seems like a strange year for them to go all in.  That being said, if you have the chance to obtain a player like Stamkos I say do it.

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 20760
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #283 on: June 03, 2015, 09:49:11 PM »
I'm hearing that the Leafs might get Steve Stamkos as a free agent.  That would go against the tank.  It seems like a strange year for them to go all in.  That being said, if you have the chance to obtain a player like Stamkos I say do it.

Stamkos isn't a UFA until the summer of 2016, so, any speculation about that now is extremely premature, and the odds that he even hits the market are exceptionally slim. What you're hearing is people that don't really know what they're talking about.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline sickbeast

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
    • View Profile
Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #284 on: June 03, 2015, 10:02:54 PM »
I'm hearing that the Leafs might get Steve Stamkos as a free agent.  That would go against the tank.  It seems like a strange year for them to go all in.  That being said, if you have the chance to obtain a player like Stamkos I say do it.

Stamkos isn't a UFA until the summer of 2016, so, any speculation about that now is extremely premature, and the odds that he even hits the market are exceptionally slim. What you're hearing is people that don't really know what they're talking about.
Hush. You are talking about my father.

TMLfans.ca

Re: So, about Phil Kessel...
« Reply #284 on: June 03, 2015, 10:02:54 PM »