Boston's 1st (Toronto)

SeenSchenn2

Itchin' For Mitch
Jun 15, 2010
14,889
262
Thornhill, ON
Wait, wait...let me get this straight. You have 2,200ish posts and you joined 7 months ago. The guy you are quoting has 2,900ish posts and joined in 2002. And you are saying he should get out more? One moment...

hahahahahahaha

That is all....

Again, do I really care about someone taking a shot at me personally over the internet? Heck no.

Must be nice to "feel" superior over the internet. Oh noes!
 

Gobias Industries

Registered User
Aug 29, 2007
12,042
31
Toronto
When I said "Vastly Different", I was referring to the placement of other teams. Look at the East last year compared to this year. Night and day.

They're 25th in the league...

Night and day?...Maybe if they were in the playoffs, but if they're 25th in the league and the context of this thread is regarding the draft, the East means nothing..
 
Last edited:

Seguins Dragon*

Guest
I said at beginning of year it would be 7-12th... more leaning to top 10 though and "if I had to put money down, I say Boston picks 9th overall"...

High chance for top 5 with halfway of season gone... looks better than 7th for sure.

I hope we draft a dman... Murphy\Hamilton... I mean if we end up 1st/2nsd/3rd/4th of course I would want Larsson or Landeskog... but I am assuming we pick in the 5-9 range now.
 

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
I said at beginning of year it would be 7-12th... more leaning to top 10 though and "if I had to put money down, I say Boston picks 9th overall"...

High chance for top 5 with halfway of season gone... looks better than 7th for sure.

I hope we draft a dman... Murphy\Hamilton... I mean if we end up 1st/2nsd/3rd/4th of course I would want Larsson or Landeskog... but I am assuming we pick in the 5-9 range now.
But assuming you cant pick Larsson, Landeskog or Couturier and by sheer luck Toronto's pick ends up at #4, would you select one of those d-men there? Or lets say Florida who could be picking around #7 or 8 offers up a 2nd rounder to move down the 3 or so spots, would you do that?

I think Boston would consider it if they couldnt land any of those 3 guys I listed and grab Murphy, Hamilton or even Siemens plus some other assets by moving down. If Boston ended up in the 7-10 range though, they'd probably be better off keeping the pick and just selecting a player there.
 

Ten Thousand Hours

Registered User
Aug 17, 2010
8,145
0
Boston
But assuming you cant pick Larsson, Landeskog or Couturier and by sheer luck Toronto's pick ends up at #4, would you select one of those d-men there? Or lets say Florida who could be picking around #7 or 8 offers up a 2nd rounder to move down the 3 or so spots, would you do that?

I think Boston would consider it if they couldnt land any of those 3 guys I listed and grab Murphy, Hamilton or even Siemens plus some other assets by moving down. If Boston ended up in the 7-10 range though, they'd probably be better off keeping the pick and just selecting a player there.


I'd try to trade up. We have another first and two 2nd rounders. That puts us in a better situation to move up than any other team in the 4-8 range. And we don't need any more depth in our prospect pool. Just one more guy who has potential to be a top line player.
 

PB37

Mr Selke
Oct 1, 2002
25,297
19,299
Maine
I'd try to trade up. We have another first and two 2nd rounders. That puts us in a better situation to move up than any other team in the 4-8 range. And we don't need any more depth in our prospect pool. Just one more guy who has potential to be a top line player.

I agree. If Boston's pick is out of the top 5, they have the expendable assets to make a push for someone in the top 5 that they covet.
 

CoolburnIsGone

Guest
I'd try to trade up. We have another first and two 2nd rounders. That puts us in a better situation to move up than any other team in the 4-8 range. And we don't need any more depth in our prospect pool. Just one more guy who has potential to be a top line player.
I agree. If Boston's pick is out of the top 5, they have the expendable assets to make a push for someone in the top 5 that they covet.
I'll just say it takes 2 to tango...I'm betting that none of NJ, Edmonton or the Islanders would be willing to trade out of their picks with the holes they can fill with one of the top 4 prospects. And my assumption is that both Larsson and Landeskog are gone by #4 so why would Boston want to move up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RogerRoeper*

Guest
They're 25th in the league...

Night and day?...Maybe if they were in the playoffs, but if they're 25th in the league and the context of this thread is regarding the draft, the East means nothing..

The East last year wasn't set until game 82. Look at the differences between top 8 and the rest of the pack in the East.
 

BruinsPortugal

Registered User
Dec 3, 2009
5,045
1,680
Portugal
But assuming you cant pick Larsson, Landeskog or Couturier and by sheer luck Toronto's pick ends up at #4, would you select one of those d-men there? Or lets say Florida who could be picking around #7 or 8 offers up a 2nd rounder to move down the 3 or so spots, would you do that?

I think Boston would consider it if they couldnt land any of those 3 guys I listed and grab Murphy, Hamilton or even Siemens plus some other assets by moving down. If Boston ended up in the 7-10 range though, they'd probably be better off keeping the pick and just selecting a player there.

Boston dont want more picks, in fact they will most likely trade some.
 

PortlandWinterHawks

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
91
0
in my opinion, it seems both teams are losing in the trade. First off, the goal of every team is to win the stanley cup no? Toronto loses long term assets in Tyler Seguin and another top 10 pick (future top 6 forward or 2nd pairing defenseman most likely) while Bruins lose a chance at making the best run they can at the stanley cup with phil kessel. They lost a 3-0 lead to the Phillys. Imagine if they still had phil kessel, streaky 30+ goalscorer who might have pot in 2 extra goal in an important part of the series. We might have seen a Bruins final versus Chicago.
 

Ten Thousand Hours

Registered User
Aug 17, 2010
8,145
0
Boston
in my opinion, it seems both teams are losing in the trade. First off, the goal of every team is to win the stanley cup no? Toronto loses long term assets in Tyler Seguin and another top 10 pick (future top 6 forward or 2nd pairing defenseman most likely) while Bruins lose a chance at making the best run they can at the stanley cup with phil kessel. They lost a 3-0 lead to the Phillys. Imagine if they still had phil kessel, streaky 30+ goalscorer who might have pot in 2 extra goal in an important part of the series. We might have seen a Bruins final versus Chicago.


And the long term isn't relevant in Boston? Also, we had to trade him for cap reasons. We couldn't afford him.
 

NDiesel

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
9,140
9,451
NWO
Again, do I really care about someone taking a shot at me personally over the internet? Heck no.

Must be nice to "feel" superior over the internet. Oh noes!

So you don't care about someone taking a shot at you, but you take one back at them.

Very noble of you, seems like you don't care....
 

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
kessel was a luxury the bruins didnt need. They did need defensive help. Maybe morris didnt work out the way they wanted, but he was more useful to the bruins than kessel would have been.
 

NewEraGM

Registered User
Jun 19, 2010
3,534
2,895
Whoever it is, Bruins fans will make him out to be the next Gretzky/Orr :laugh:

And youll make it out to seem as if he is the next Daigle. I still cant believe that Kessel trade. You guys got robbed! Abosultely robbed. Basically, it was a 5th overall for a 2nd overall and 32 overall and another top 5 overall. That is brutal. I hate the Bruins but they won this one by so much I cant even put into words. I am speachless, flabergasted and still in shock. Defs in the top 3 worst trades in NHL history!!!!
 

NinthSpoke06

Registered User
Nov 30, 2009
11,356
1,031
Watertown, MA
That what the Bruins claim. They had the money. They blew 3.3 million on Derek Morris at the same time.

:laugh:

So we should have signed Kessel to his current ridiculous contract and played with 5 defensemen? Without a full 4th line?

You are an awful troll. Its funny how you somehow end up in every Bruins thread call this player terrible or telling us how this fan is terrible at that. Go away....stop obsessing with our franchise. We already have enough Bruins trolls on our board as is, no need for idiots like you too.
 

PortlandWinterHawks

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
91
0
NewEraGM has no idea what he's talking about. Bruins traded a consistent 35 goal scorer for a second overall pick, 32nd and 5th overall which is quite expensive but that's the price you pay for a YOUNG 35 goal scorer in the league. Anyone who goes by stats must be Pejorative Slured, it's like scouts basing their projections on stats and not watching players play. Columbus blue jackets would sell 4 first round picks to get a player of Jonathan Toews calibre to help revive their team.

Who would you rather have brad stuart or milan lucic? see I just turned the question around to render your argument completely invalid. Milan Lucic is by far better than brad stuart who is a 3rd overall pick btw.

Datsyuk was drafted in the 7th round. Joe sakic was drafted 15 overall.
If the Bruins want to win, they should win now, when Chara is beast and all their guys are in their prime. They need 1 more player to push them over the top and that could've been Phil Kessel. Of course Burke offered a tempting price to lure Phil away, but it is NO WAY one of the worst trades or lopsided trades at all. Both teams benefit.

The reason the leafs are doing bad is not because of Phil Kessel but because of poor defense and in my opinion poor coaching.
 

PortlandWinterHawks

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
91
0
nashville also wanted phil kessel fyi. Phil Kessel was also their leading goal scorer when he was traded. Boston is a very solid defensive team at the moment and could use some offense and it was also their best season when he was there. He's one heck of a player but he has almost no linemates to play with.
 
Last edited:

RogerRoeper*

Guest
kessel was a luxury the bruins didnt need. They did need defensive help. Maybe morris didnt work out the way they wanted, but he was more useful to the bruins than kessel would have been.

Given what happened last year, going from 2nd in GF to 29th in GF, looks like they needed Kessel.
 

Dr.Sens(e)

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,014
1
Ottawa
Visit site
Kessel at the time was worth more than a typical "5th overall". As stated, he was a proven commodity of 30+ goals with his best years ahead of him. However, his value was marginalized by the fact he was up for a new contract and wanted top $'s. Giving up picks for an elite young player is one thing. But when you have to pay that player $5.5M per season, AND give up a couple of 1st rounders and a 2nd, that is the tough part. But the Leafs had cap room, and it seemed like good value. I still think Kessel is a great sniper to have, presuming you can get him the right linemates (like he had in Boston).

The real miscalculation by Burke of course, was he never anticipated he would be giving up a couple of lottery picks. There is no way he would do that deal if he knew that. Frankly, if Burke could swap Kessel for Seguin right now, he'd do it (although he'll never admit that). But that was the risk he took and he knew that was part of the gamble I'm sure. The Bruins were up against the cap wall and this was a tremendous deal for Chiarelli to make, even if they had to take a small step back last year, they will be many leaps ahead a few years from now.
 

WreckItRask

Registered User
Mar 5, 2007
7,377
16
Minnesota
NewEraGM has no idea what he's talking about. Bruins traded a consistent 35 goal scorer for a second overall pick, 32nd and 5th overall which is quite expensive but that's the price you pay for a YOUNG 35 goal scorer in the league. Anyone who goes by stats must be Pejorative Slured, it's like scouts basing their projections on stats and not watching players play. Columbus blue jackets would sell 4 first round picks to get a player of Jonathan Toews calibre to help revive their team.

Who would you rather have brad stuart or milan lucic? see I just turned the question around to render your argument completely invalid. Milan Lucic is by far better than brad stuart who is a 3rd overall pick btw.

Datsyuk was drafted in the 7th round. Joe sakic was drafted 15 overall.
If the Bruins want to win, they should win now, when Chara is beast and all their guys are in their prime. They need 1 more player to push them over the top and that could've been Phil Kessel. Of course Burke offered a tempting price to lure Phil away, but it is NO WAY one of the worst trades or lopsided trades at all. Both teams benefit.

The reason the leafs are doing bad is not because of Phil Kessel but because of poor defense and in my opinion poor coaching.

Hate to be a stickler for the details, but don't you have to accomplish something more than once to be considered "consistent" at said activity. If I lead my company in sales once in the last 5 years, and I started telling people that I "consistently" lead our team in sales, isn't that a bit disingenuous? David Krejci put up 73 points two years ago, and I would consider him a "consistent" 70+ point player. Could he be? Sure. But he's not, and Kessel isn't a consistent 35 goal yet. He's just a guy that has the potential to top 35 goals every season.

As for the Bruins decision to trade him, I don't get why it's so hotly debated. He wasn't coming back to Boston because they weren't going to pay him what he thought he was worth (nor could they afford him). It seems pretty straightforward if you ask me, and I don't begrudge Kessel for demanding that he get paid what he thought he was worth. His view of his worth was far different than the Bruins view of his worth, and therein lied the problem. But I think the oldest rule in business applies here, and Kessel and his agent knew it. You're worth whatever someone is willing to pay for you, and this applies to your car, your house, and just about every job you'll ever have. Brian Burke was willing to pay Kessel $5.5 million/year, and therefore, that was his worth to the Maple Leafs. That was more than the Bruins felt he was worth, and so he was traded, and everyone has moved on (sort of).
 

PortlandWinterHawks

Registered User
Dec 4, 2010
91
0
Definitely agree with both your points Dr.Sens and Neely. It's just the frustrations of some of these posters on "derek morris" would've been more useful to the bruins.. and "third worst trade of all time" makes it pretty frustrating when trying to evaluate the pros and cons of both sides for both gms.

Burke offered Peter Chiarelli an enticing package in order to get Phil Kessel and that's why Bostons GM even pulled the trigger.
 

oilsands

dirty oil, comin 4 u
Jul 6, 2007
5,073
58
Halland
Forget the picks for a minute.

Would your team sign him for $5.5mill x 5 years as a free agent? That's market rate for what he brings to the table. Teams with lots of wingers would take a pass, as would teams close to the cap.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->