That isn't exactly fair because nowhere did I say Perron-Malkin-Hornqvist would be better than P-C-H, nowhere and I don't think they will be.
No, you didn't say it -- but I think my statement
is fair, because to be FULLY onboard with XXX-Crosby-Kessel, then you are IMPLYING that you feel the benefits of XXX-Crosby-Kessel overcome any dropoff that you get by running a Perron-Malkin-Hornqvist line (AS COMPARED TO running Perron-Crosby-Hornqvist and XXX-Malkin-Kessel line). While I agree with your sentiments about Crosby being saddled with inferior wingers, playing well with Hossa, and that he'd be more "fully unleashed" with a Kessel on his line, you (IMO) can't consider all of this in a vacuum. You almost act as if you are saying "Crosby has been screwed with wingers in the past, so he deserves Kessel," but you don't seem to be considering the effect of Crosby-Kessel on the team, as a whole. In a vacuum, yes -- Kessel paired with Crosby would be great, and would allow Crosby, most likely, to perform in ways he hasn't been able to when centering Kunitz and Dupuis. BUT -- this isn't about "doing right by Sid." It's about making the team as strong as possible, and hopefully a serious contender for the Cup. And from that perspective, if P-C-H and X-M-K is CUMULATIVELY better than X-C-K and P-M-H, THEN, in that case, running X-C-K is the wrong move.
In order to conclude that Kessel should be with Crosby you have to believe that Kessel with Crosby is so much greater than Kessel with Malkin that it covers any loss in production of PMH vs PCH.
You could also argue that Perron-Malkin-Hornqvist is greater than or equal to Perron-Crosby-Hornqvist, which you haven't done.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Well said.