Post-Game Talk: Got schooled by Patrick Kane and the Hawks. Leafs lose 4-0.

[mulefarm]

If all 30 GM's could choose Kane or Kessel. Who do you think they would pick? Just my guess, but I think it would be 30-0 in favor of Kane.

 

[Kurtz]

They are not comparable at all......We could ignore the Calder, but I choose not to ignore it or the Conn Smythe and 2 cups.....you can also choose to cherry pick stats that start when players start playing in the NHL to make them seen close but again I did not as the stats speak for themselves.....

I used all stats and did not cherry pick to make them seem more comparable...

Kane is a .964 a game player he is a 79 points a season player.
Kessel is a .798 a game player he is a 65 points a season player

I would say 14 points more a season is very significant and no where near Identical.

If your argument is that Kane was a better player in his first 2 seasons than Kessel was in his then sure, you are correct.

If your argument is that Kane is a 14 point/season better player NOW, then that is laughably wrong.

So I'll ask you, what is more important for the present - how each player preformed 7 years ago, or how they're preforming today and for the past 5 years?

 

[Kurtz]

If all 30 GM's could choose Kane or Kessel. Who do you think they would pick? Just my guess, but I think it would be 30-0 in favor of Kane.

Given the choice between Kane at 10.5 mil/season or Kessel at 8 mil/season, I would say they'd pick Kesssel. But I'm also blindly guessing.

 

[p.l.f.]

10.5 my god

 

[diceman934]

If your argument is that Kane was a better player in his first 2 seasons than Kessel was in his then sure, you are correct.

If your argument is that Kane is a 14 point/season better player NOW, then that is laughably wrong.

So I'll ask you, what is more important for the present - how each player preformed 7 years ago, or how they're preforming today and for the past 5 years?

My argument is that Kane has more points.....you can choose to ignore reality if that makes you feel better. Kane is the better player no matter what way you look at thinks.

More important 2 cups and a Conn Smythe over those last 5 years.....I would say vastly more important!

 

[shelf]

My argument is that Kane has more points.....you can choose to ignore reality if that makes you feel better. Kane is the better player no matter what way you look at thinks.

More important 2 cups and a Conn Smythe over those last 5 years.....I would say vastly more important!

Lets look at the rest of the core of the two teams

Toews>>>>Bozak
Keith>>>Phaneuf
Hossa>JVR
Sharp>>Lupul
Seabrook>>>>>>Franson

 

[Suntouchable13]

Lets look at the rest of the core of the two teams

Toews>>>>Bozak
Keith>>>Phaneuf
Hossa>JVR
Sharp>>Lupul
Seabrook>>>>>>Franson

You need to add a few more >> to the Toews and Bozak comparison.

 

[Kurtz]

My argument is that Kane has more points.....you can choose to ignore reality if that makes you feel better.

Actually, wrong again.

Pointing out that Kane has more career points is not an argument. It is a stat that you're using as a basis for argument.

So if your argument is that Kane is a better player PRESENTLY based on that stat, you are wrong. They are too close to call based on their present output.

If your argument is that Kane has accumulated more career points/had a better rookie year, then sure, you win a cookie.

 

[hockeyfanz*]

Really? I wager I have some idea, as long as I stick to facts.

Phil has played 12 games against the "more physical, tougher West". In those games he has put up...16 points. Pretty good pace, no?




Now that's out of the way, please bring forth your next assassination attempt.

Phil regular season Kessel? I was talking about playoffs. You know that time of year when Phil is fishing with his friends.

 

[hockeyfanz*]

Lets look at the rest of the core of the two teams

Toews>>>>Bozak
Keith>>>Phaneuf
Hossa>JVR
Sharp>>Lupul
Seabrook>>>>>>Franson

You forgot

Kane >>>>>Kessel.

 

[diceman934]

Actually, wrong again.

Pointing out that Kane has more career points is not an argument. It is a stat that you're using as a basis for argument.

So if your argument is that Kane is a better player PRESENTLY based on that stat, you are wrong. They are too close to call based on their present output.

If your argument is that Kane has accumulated more career points/had a better rookie year, then sure, you win a cookie.

You are right it is not an argument, but a fact....try disputing them.

Presently Kane is vast better, as seen by his contributions to the teams success....

As for the cookie you keep it.....you will need it to feed Kessel, I heard he loves them.

 

[Tyler Biggs*]

Doesn't matter who is in goal, can't win if you don't score. Onward to Dallas! Go Leafs go!

 

[080]

Given the choice between Kane at 10.5 mil/season or Kessel at 8 mil/season, I would say they'd pick Kesssel. But I'm also blindly guessing.

Kane is a better player. He's smarter and battles 10 times harder than Kessel for pucks.

It sickens me watching Phil Kessel play hockey.

 

[ACC1224]

Given the choice between Kane at 10.5 mil/season or Kessel at 8 mil/season, I would say they'd pick Kesssel. But I'm also blindly guessing.

Some would, some wouldn't. To say all 30 take Kane is idiocy.

I realize some have to hate everything about their "favourite" Team but to not see the difference in value when Contracts are considered is being closed minded(whether intentional or not).

 

[Trapper]

Some would, some wouldn't. To say all 30 take Kane is idiocy.

I realize some have to hate everything about their "favourite" Team but to not see the difference in value when Contracts are considered is being closed minded(whether intentional or not).

I think most would take either depending on availability and asking price.
However the key would be what kind of team do you have already? I doubt any GM would take them at the expense of a no. 1 center or solid D core. And that is really our problem isn't it. A subpar core with a sniping winger. Seems like it equals fail so far.

 

[ACC1224]

I think most would take either depending on availability and asking price.
However the key would be what kind of team do you have already? I doubt any GM would take them at the expense of a no. 1 center or solid D core. And that is really our problem isn't it. A subpar core with a sniping winger. Seems like it equals fail so far.

Agreed, swapping Kane for Kessel and not much changes here.

 

[ULF_55]

Kane is a better player. He's smarter and battles 10 times harder than Kessel for pucks.

It sickens me watching Phil Kessel play hockey.

I think 2.5 million in cap space evens out the value between Kane and Kessel.

If Kessel was on the 2nd. line in Toronto, like Kane is in Chicago, the focus on his defensive ineptness would be far less.

Leafs talent wise can't compete with the Hawks, and that makes it much more difficult for Kessel.

But yes, Kessel in the defensive zone is atrocious. He is supposed to be 202 pounds and plays like he's 165 lbs. Kessel is afraid of contact, however he has an excellent shot, and is a good playmaker.

 

[pspot]

Everything else the same, if the LEafs had Kane instead of Kessel....i'd want them to trade Kane too

 

[Trapper]

Everything else the same, if the LEafs had Kane instead of Kessel....i'd want them to trade Kane too

I wouldn't build a team around the winger Kane anymore than I would the winger Kessel. I'd add either for sure but not without a foundation.

 

[Morguee]

Kessel is the guy to take you that last step to the cup once you have a good core in place. I think the Leafs should trade Kessel but it is funny because if the trade works I think the Leafs will be looking for a guy like Kessel(pure scorer) when they need that last piece to get over the hump.

 

[FerrisRox]

So I'll ask you, what is more important for the present - how each player preformed 7 years ago, or how they're preforming today and for the past 5 years?

In the last five years Patrick Kane has been a key contributor to two Stanley Cup championships and won a Conn Smythe trophy.

By bringing up the last five years you appear to be arguing his point, not yours.