Kessel was:
1) An elite offensive player
2) With one of the most lacking games in the league outside that dimension.
3) Who had a long-term $8M contract. That's not wrong, but it's incredibly hard to move.
4) Who had a list of 8 times he'd accept trade to, of which 6 couldn't get him.
5) With reported character issues, which true or not will affect how eager teams are to trade for him.
6) Who was just coming off a terrible season.
Looking back, there were clear warning signs:
1) Reports of little to no interest.
2) Reports that Pens were the only team with an offer.
3) Reports that the offer was only Pouliot + Scuderi + Kunitz.
4) Two cap dumps who refused to come to Toronto.
5) Reports that Leafs had to promise retention to actually get any interest.
They had to move him because:
1) Keeping him in a rebuild scenario made little sense due to age structure.
2) With normal regression and progression, in 5 years the return could likely be of more use than Kessel.
3) It can be argued that moving Kessel was vital to get a culture change.
4) It can be argued that the culture change was vital to really rebuild.
5) There were plenty of signs that none in the Leafs management and coaching wanted him back.
6) Pens set a deadline for today, or they'd go looking for alternatives elsewhere. It was this or nothing, and nothing was apparently not an option.
Labeling him a marquee player and ending the evaluation there makes no sense. It should be obvious to any level-headed poster with no particular agenda that the context of the trade made a good haul impossible.
Was it possible to get a better trade? Sure. Maybe even likely. But the foundation would still be the same. Taking everything into account, we were never going to get a fair deal.
He was not as highly rated as we thought, he was almost impossible to move and the negotiation situation was hopelessly stacked against us.
Just something to have in mind when judging management in this.