Which second line player isn't massive inconsistent? Oh I know, the ones that are basically 1st liners.
I am not demanding anything out of the question. We've seen Kesler produce with apparently "inferior" line-mates in 2009-2010 and made them better players with a completely different style of play than what we saw in 2010-2011, and see now.
I want the Kesler that makes his line-mates better by playing a solid cycle, physical game. The points came to that Kesler by hard-work, and without forcing the play.
2011 to present Kesler does not do that. This Kesler makes his living off of hot-streaks aka "Beastmode", and off the powerplay.
Also I have said nothing about Booth being the catalyst on his own, but thanks for trying. What I did say about Booth was that he's been effective and playing better than Kesler and Higgins. I also said that Booth would be more effective with a center that can create space for him. Booth isn't a player that can effectively create plays off his own stick besides driving the puck. He is effective when he has space, can cut to the middle of the ice and shoot, or drive directly to the net.
Again, your own assertion disproves your point. By virtue of their inconsistency, the second line will struggle. Call them whatever you fancy, but those are the types of players that can help spark a line. As it stands, Kesler is the only one drawing attention, with predictable results.
Yes, and how many games into the season before that transpired? Because unless it's four, then your criticism is premature. Samuelsson had a career season his first year signing, only to fizzle into obscurity afterward. Are we going to fault Kesler for that?
What you want is the idyllic version of Kesler: a combination of his Selke and playmaking performance all wrapped into one package. Who knows, lightning may strike twice. However, certainly not after four games.
No, you are disregarding Booth's prior inconsistencies in favor ostracizing Kesler. With Booth, you accentuate the positive, highlighting a decent start, but subsequently do the opposite toward Kesler: "Booth needs a creative centre to be effective." verse "Why anchor a/the Sedin(s) with Kesler?"
You refuse to acknowledge maybe Kesler needs a creative winger, which you conceded Booth is not. The solution ought to be obvious.
Booth - Henrik - Hansen
Daniel - Kesler - Higgins
Santorelli - Richardson - Weise
Sestito - Dalpe - Weber
Swap Higgins and Hansen to your preference.