Just How Unlucky Were The Leafs? (Kessel Trade)

[hatterson]

hat I need to disagree with your stance a little bit here.

I can't see how one measures the "lucky/unlucky" part of this without , measuring and debating what Boston got in return. Is it not the players they picked that mattered, more then say the actual draft slot #?

Would we even have this debate if say boston had picked a "Filitov" type pick at #2?

If Boston had botched the pick it doesn't change how lucky or unlucky the Leafs were with respect to what draft positions they gave up. They still would have given up the #2 overall, it just would have happened to be a #2 overall bust.

I understand where you're coming from, but either way, we're done discussing the specifics of Kessel v Seguin, especially since the OP asked specifically about the odds the Leafs would end up with those picks, as opposed to the odds they'd "lose" the deal.

 

[Faltorvo]

If Boston had botched the pick it doesn't change how lucky or unlucky the Leafs were with respect to what draft positions they gave up. They still would have given up the #2 overall, it just would have happened to be a #2 overall bust.

I understand where you're coming from, but either way, we're done discussing the specifics of Kessel v Seguin, especially since the OP asked specifically about the odds the Leafs would end up with those picks, as opposed to the odds they'd "lose" the deal.

The OP also said this

Since the Leafs were gambling futures against netting a player they believed (rightly so, IMO) would be an elite scoring winger, I'm just curious what the probability is that the Bruins would get equal or better return, assuming the Leafs were right about Kessel's value.

I do not see how the "equal or better return" can be discussed without talking about said drafted players in comparison.

I have no idea how the math would play out so i'll do this the "old guy way"

The two previous season we finished with 83 and 81 points , we finished with 74 points the year Seguin was drafted.

so in the ball park of 7,8 less points then what was looking like our norm.

That's just 3,4 extra losses over a 82 game season, just by that I would say our chances had to of been high.

That's what a 4,5% variable on a 82 game sched?

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

I wonder if an answer could be extracted from pre-season Vegas odds.

 

[getyourselfsomerest]

Not really unlucky unless you count the fact that Hamilton should never have fallen to 9th.

Burke got what he deserved for misjudging the stage of his rebuild and not doing the other trade of Kaberle+7th for Kessel. I still don't know why he didn't do everything possible to worsen that 2nd overall pick. Instead he left the team as is. I also don't know why he didn't just do the Kaberle+7th deal if he believed in Kessel so much(and clearly he was right in doing so). An aging puck-mover+probably Kadri for Kessel. Then you could have Kessel, Seguin(maybe even Hall because the loss of Kaberle), Hamilton, and Schenn all in the same boat to start your rebuild on the right foot.

Oh well. They are lucky that Kessel turned into an elite player that fits perfectly in this market. I can just see it now the amount of hate Seguin would've received for his partying ways in Toronto. Burke picked the right guy to trade for, he just misjudged the quality of his team in 09-10. I think that should pretty much be the final assessment for this trade.

 

[Jumptheshark]

deal is not as bad as some make it out to be. (I love bashing leaf fans--so keep my response in perspective).

Kessel is 26 and entering his prime--he has topped 30 goals 4 times and the one time he did not was during the 1/2 year lock out.

Seguin has topped 30 goals once and has been traded for off ice issues (reported in several newspapers and comments from bruins brass)--Seguin has a break out year last year and lets see if he can repeat it

Knight has not played a game in the nhl and some scouts think he may only be a 4th liner

Hamilton is not as good (right now) as some people say he is and people are hoisting him up higher to make the leafs look bad.

People want to toss in the Second Seguin deal in hopes to make the Leafs look worse--but that is a different deal.

The Kessel for Seguin/Hamilton deal is not as lopsided as some would love for it to be

 

[diceman934]

The better question is why were the draft picks not protected with a top 5 protection on the deal.

Burke proved over and over he was a dough head, but this deal at that time was not a risk and GM of value would ever risk, unless of course you are trying to prove that you are a genius....which Burke was trying to do!

Then we would have had both Kessel and the center he still needs and be a much better team.

 

[Sens Rule]

You think Seguin, Hamilton, and Knight is equivalent to Kessel or the original deal with just 2 1sts+1 2nd is equal value? I'm not a Leafs or Bruins fan but I can't imagine many Toronto fans wouldn't take back that deal.

Seguin isn't even on the Bruins anymore.

One can question the timing of the trade for the Leafs, but Kessel is full value for a bunch of good draft picks, no matter how high they were. He has performed at an elite level. No one thought he was Stamkos or Crosby. He is performing at the exact highest optimistic level he could have. I doubt Seguin is every much better then Kessel has been the last few years and the next few.

 

[ACC1224]

Not sure "Unlucky" is the right word but certainly no one realistically expected them to finish that low.
Leafs are more of a "Murphy's Law" Organization.

Hard to complain too much though, the Leafs got the best player in the deal. Kessel has been excellent.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Extremely probable given the roster. Burke is a moron.

At the moment of the trade it was not "extremely probable" that they would finish 2nd last, that's revisionist history. Unless on these boards we are very loose with our word meanings, as 'extremely' is being used pretty loose here if you know what the word means. The Leafs didn't look like cup contenders, but it didn't appear they'd do that much worse than they previously had done.

 

[Rebuilt]

When you factor in the draft pick. It was a great trade for the leafs.

You cannot Monday QB it and go by what Seguin did.

If there is no Kessel trade lots of things could happen, Butterfly effect, maybe some other teams wins the lotto and Toronto picks 3rd or worse. Maybe they take Seguin and gets injured and never plays a game.


Would you rather have Gudbranson, Nino, an injured Seguin or Connoly over Kessel?

Then the treads would be why didn't Toronto pull the trigger.

I have no idea why there is even any argument.

The Leafs were a bubble team. Instead of rebuilding, Burke saw an opportunity to fast track the process with an unusually gifted player.

The Bruins couldnt sign him, and so they ended up with 2 firsts and a second for him. Sounds fair right?

I mean, even an unlucky leafs team would draft 10th to 14th in 2010, and then surely draft 15th to 22nd when they made the playoffs in 2011.

So it aint the Leafs fans fault or Burkes fault.

Instead, they take Kessel which makes the Leafs a better team, and they simply TANK the thing like a bunch of fools. That is directly on Ron Wilson and the Leaf players. They alone decided that the Bruins would be able to draft Seguin and Hamilton.

In short, the Burke trade was good for both teams, the Wilson led leafs turned it into an embarrassment of riches for the B's.

 

[Aceboogie]

They were pretty unlucky. But by the same token, what if they had not traded for Kessel? This would have removed 55 points (30 goals) in 2009-10, likely leading to them being the last placed team. Then in 2010-11 that would have removed 32 goals. I am not sure who would have replaced him, but that replacement is probaly scoring a max of 15 goals. So I would wager that Toronto would be a bottom 3 team in 2010-11 (they were 9th last, with Kessel). So could have been picking RNH/Landeskog, or maybe Coutiuer.

So without the trade, they could have had Seguin/Hall and RNH/Landskog. Now this hypothetical situation doesnt include other things like trades they could have made in instead of Kessel. But it makes you wonder how bad they would have been without him, and there what picks they could have add. A GM needs to be evaluate how good/bad his team is before a season starts, and Burke completely miss read his team. Now a team can be unlucky 1 season, but 2 seasons in a row, plus 5th last in 2012 with a similar core is just a really bad call

 

[Pyrophorus]

Really is Yin/Yan with luck here.

The Leafs always get the bad luck

Yet what team could trade away 2 21yr olds, and not miss a beat.
That is great luck.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

I think Kessel was the best player in the deal.

However I'd rather have Hamilton and Seguin over Kessel.

Knight is most likely a 4th liner dime a dozen

Kessel > Seguin
Kessel > Hamilton
Hamilton + Seguin > Kessel

 

[JoeyBeans]

God> Seguin

 

[diceman934]

I think Kessel was the best player in the deal.

However I'd rather have Hamilton and Seguin over Kessel.

Knight is most likely a 4th liner dime a dozen

Kessel > Seguin
Kessel > Hamilton
Hamilton + Seguin > Kessel

Disagree....on Kessel being better than Seguin...I would make the trade straight up right now.

 

[wgknestrick]

There is a big difference between unlucky and "stupid" IMO. Do not confuse the 2.

TOR was stupid in this instance because they refused to identify themselves as "rebuilding" during the Kessel trade era. This was a time when they should have identified themselves as a bottom dwelling team and made trades to maximise futures (not established, albeit young players). They traded for an elite player who pushed them out of the running for top 3 draft picks for few years, while giving up 2 of them directly in the trade. The timing of the trade was very poor, not "unlucky".

They effectively cashed in their retirement to buy a new car. You cannot call that kind of decision unlucky once you realize you:
A) Have a much smaller retirement fund due to lost interest.
b) Had to also pay penalties to withdraw that money early.

If they had properly "rebuilt", TOR would now be one of the hot developing teams that would probably start to become true contenders for a couple years. We all know where they stand currently.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

It seemed like everyone knew the Leafs were going to draft one of Hall or Seguin when that trade was made. In the trade thread, only a few fans thought the Leafs would actually improve. Everyone else knew that was going to be a lottery pick. Chances were extremely high and Boston cashed in.

 

[indigobuffalo]

There is a big difference between unlucky and "stupid" IMO. Do not confuse the 2.

TOR was stupid in this instance because they refused to identify themselves as "rebuilding" during the Kessel trade era. This was a time when they should have identified themselves as a bottom dwelling team and made trades to maximise futures (not established, albeit young players). They traded for an elite player who pushed them out of the running for top 3 draft picks for few years, while giving up 2 of them directly in the trade. The timing of the trade was very poor, not "unlucky".

They effectively cashed in their retirement to buy a new car. You cannot call that kind of decision unlucky once you realize you:
A) Have a much smaller retirement fund due to lost interest.
b) Had to also pay penalties to withdraw that money early.

If they had properly "rebuilt", TOR would now be one of the hot developing teams that would probably start to become true contenders for a couple years. We all know where they stand currently.

Car is a bad analogy. That would be a rental player like a Ryan Miller (from last year), because those assets depreciate in value almost instantaneously and never increase in value.

Kessel is unquestionably worth more than 2x 1st and 2nd round picks now, so the asset has appreciated.

What the better analogy would be is taking out a loan with a variable interest rate to buy RRSPs in the form of mutual funds, and anticipating that the loan interest should average less overall than the interest earned on the mutual funds, only to have that margin actually go the other way (i.e. make less money on the mutual funds compared to how much you pay in interest on the loan repayment).

There is still interest earned on acquiring Kessel, but the Leafs gave up more than they bargained for in the deal.

For you to go on to say that the Leafs were clearly "rebuilding" seems to be nothing more than hindsight "forecasting". Let me guess, I should've also bought Microsoft and Apple stock back in the 90's too, eh?

 

[LaCarriere]

The trade was ill advised, the value in terms of picks was fair for a rising star. The Kessel trade is one that a team that is just about to contend should have made, not one who had zero prospects and no one notable on its roster.

Not a Leafs or Bruins fan, but that's how I feel. It just didn't make sense to me. If they were a playoff team looking to become a serious contender sure, but then the price may have been more since the picks would be guaranteed less valuable coming from a contender. They weren't in a position to be throwing around picks of that value for one guy when they wouldn't be contenders anyway. There's even substantial risk for a contender with this type of trade unless the contender has cap room to sign him long term as part of the trade. If you don't win you've given up substantial future talent.

At that point Kessel had established himself a goal scorer also capable of 60 points, who still would improve. That's probably going to cost you two first round picks. Maybe a little bit of over payment with the 2nd round pick, especially since those two first round picks had the chance of being extremely high.

 

[Mr Forever]

If they hadn't made the trade, they (Boston) would have drafted higher than 10th overall (Hamilton) in 2011. There's no doubt Kessel made them a decent team that year and if they had a rookie Seguin instead of him, they likely would have been competing with the Oilers for a top pick. There's a strong possibility they would have Landeskog and Seguin now, which would bode really well for the future of the team.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I used Hockey Reference's point share system* to attempt to take stock of where the Leaf's roster was headed:

The following players' contributions were removed from the Leafs' 2008-09 season:

Kubina 5.2
Antropov 4.3
Goaltenders 2.9**
Stempniak+ 1.9***
Stralman 1.6
Hamilton 0.6
Enforcers -1.3****

Total: 14.9

And they added the following players:

Kessel 8.8
Gustavsson 8.4*****
Beauchemin 4.5******
Komisarek 2.8
Stempniak 2.8***
Exelby 1.0
Primeau -0.2
Orr -0.7

Total: 27.4

--------------------------------------------

That amounts to an expected increase of 12-13 points, giving the Leafs enough to sneak into the playoffs.
Obviously, that's not what happened. If we're assigning blame, here are a few players who dropped like a rock between the two seasons:

Mike Komisarek: From 2.8 to 0.2
Jason Blake: From 6.2 to 2.0
Vesa Toskala: From 6.0 to 1.2

Those three players nearly wipe out the "expected" increase by themselves, while Gustavsson and Kessel "cost" the Leafs 5 or 6 points by not being immediate, franchise-altering world-beaters (who could blame them).

Point shares might not be a fantastic stat, but these numbers look pretty similar to how we all saw it play out.

--------------------------------------------

* Which isn't good, but I can't access GVT right now, and I may as well use something for the fun of it.
** Total of Gerber, Joseph and Pogge, mostly from Gerber.
*** Departing is the total of partial seasons from Stempniak, Steen and Colaiacovo. Incoming is Stempniak's total extrapolated to 82 games.
**** Total of Hollweg, Ondrus and May. Ugh.
***** Expectation based on the median of rookie goaltenders who played at least 30 games between 2005-2014. Incidentally, this number belongs to Fredrik Norrena.
****** From 2007-08, as Beauchemin missed most of 08-09 with injury.

 

[wgknestrick]

I used Hockey Reference's point share system* to attempt to take stock of where the Leaf's roster was headed:

The following players' contributions were removed from the Leafs' 2008-09 season:

Kubina 5.2
Antropov 4.3
Goaltenders 2.9**
Stempniak+ 1.9***
Stralman 1.6
Hamilton 0.6
Enforcers -1.3****

Total: 14.9

And they added the following players:

Kessel 8.8
Gustavsson 8.4*****
Beauchemin 4.5******
Komisarek 2.8
Stempniak 2.8***
Exelby 1.0
Primeau -0.2
Orr -0.7

Total: 27.4

--------------------------------------------

That amounts to an expected increase of 12-13 points, giving the Leafs enough to sneak into the playoffs.
Obviously, that's not what happened. If we're assigning blame, here are a few players who dropped like a rock between the two seasons:

Mike Komisarek: From 2.8 to 0.2
Jason Blake: From 6.2 to 2.0
Vesa Toskala: From 6.0 to 1.2

Those three players nearly wipe out the "expected" increase by themselves, while Gustavsson and Kessel "cost" the Leafs 5 or 6 points by not being immediate, franchise-altering world-beaters (who could blame them).

Point shares might not be a fantastic stat, but these numbers look pretty similar to how we all saw it play out.

--------------------------------------------

* Which isn't good, but I can't access GVT right now, and I may as well use something for the fun of it.
** Total of Gerber, Joseph and Pogge, mostly from Gerber.
*** Departing is the total of partial seasons from Stempniak, Steen and Colaiacovo. Incoming is Stempniak's total extrapolated to 82 games.
**** Total of Hollweg, Ondrus and May. Ugh.
***** Expectation based on the median of rookie goaltenders who played at least 30 games between 2005-2014. Incidentally, this number belongs to Fredrik Norrena.
****** From 2007-08, as Beauchemin missed most of 08-09 with injury.

Good analysis

Don't forget to add expected variance to this and remember how "close" all the bubble team races end up. A difference of 1-2 points usually costs a team a trip to the playoffs.

I still stand by the statement that they were no where close to a contender; Had a very poor prospect pool to draw from; and sold their future at a slim shot at the playoffs (where they ultimately had no chance of advancing). The "fast track" plan was risky and had just as much probability of "fast tracking" them back into mediocrity as it did in success.

Using point shares, it is arguable that they could've had the same equivalent point share increase of Kessel had they identified Toskala as the problem. I am pretty sure that a decent goaltender is much cheaper to acquire than a stud forward.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I think there was something related to the Ewing Effect going on in Toronto too.
Having a team where Kessel was way better than everyone else didn't help him score more, but it did mean that guys like Blake, Ponikarovsky, and Grabovski weren't being used to score a lot. Blake's play cratered, but other players dropped off by smaller amounts. The only offensive players that really maintained or improved their production that season were Kaberle and Stajan - both playmakers who found a job setting Kessel up.

 

[NikF]

The problem with that trade isn't asset value, it's the timing. I don't really think Toronto was in a position at the time to part with what they did to acquire a scoring winger (albeit a very good one). It's kind of putting the cart before the horse. You don't have any elite centers, any elite defensemen, any elite goalies, then it probably isn't the time to blow assets on a winger. Use the picks if nothing else.

 

[Confucius]

Super unlucky. It would have been a total fleece job had the Leafs finished 4 or 5 spots better. I still think it was a bold move by the gm. As a Leafs fan I don't really hate the trade but I think the Bruins got the edge for sure

So the Leafs have Kessel for 8 more years., who do the Bruins have Now
I think the Leafs were lucky to get him and well yeah you have to be unlucky to finish 2nd last but I think they still come out pretty even with what Boston has now.