Confirmed with Link: [VAN/MTL] Zack Kassian + 5th round pick for Brandon Prust | Pt. 2

[Cupless44]

I really do understand the optics of the Kassian trade and why so many hate it. I was not happy when I first saw the trade either.

The more I really think about Kassian though, I think this will end up being a lot of hullaballoo about nothing. I just don't see him getting it together and ever really making a big impact in the NHL. Doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed and really has a long way to go with professionalism, attitude, conditioning, work ethic, both on and off the ice. He was drafted 6 years ago now, should have gotten it by now.

 

[biturbo19]

If benching Kassian was an "eye test" approach to "protecting his possession stats", then we would see this same methodology across the board no?

To an extent, yeah. I think a lot of things coaches do tend to be inadvertent attempts to fret about "possession stats". If you're an "old school" eye test coach...and you've got a player who isn't doing the things you want to see and as a result is just getting beat upside the head with negative shot differential, you're going to want to get that player out of the fire, for example. For me, that's where advanced stats and the real world intersect. The corsi numbers are a representation of what did happen, not a representation of why it happened.

Example: As a 'control', I recall a specific case where Kassian played Feb 16th, got benched for the Feb 19th game, and then played again on Feb 20th. On Feb 16th, he beat out Vey in terms of CF differential. Vey played the next game (Feb 19th), Kassian didn't. Vey finished that game with the second lowest CF differential... and then stayed in the line up for the 20th. No possession stats protection required? (By the way, this was the benching that was sandwiched by Kassian's 6 points in 7 game stretch, followed by a 4 points in 3 games return)

Nominally, it doesn't seem like single game possession performance, or just performance, is tied to the benching/scratching of a player.

Seems you are the one who is drawn to either "wholesale" type "year on average" representations, or "meaningless" single-game anecdotals here. I pretty clearly made evident my lack of interest in single-game samples, because as you said...it means jack all. Yet here you are pulling single-game arguments out for some reason and expecting anyone to care?

To your general request above: It still makes no sense. If I begin to shorten the sample to select games, somehow matching the interpretation you and I have of him being "lauded by the coaching staff" for those games, it still proves nothing in terms of possession. Even I couldn't say "look here, he killed it in terms of shot differential, and the coaches loved him, this means something". It's a fruitless endeavor.

The thing is, it DOES make sense. In terms of the argument here with Kassian that "wah he didn't get enough chances and they used him all wrong and wah". Kassian was, per the "eye test" incredibly inconsistent in his time here (and in Buffalo briefly). It's not about "shortening" the sample...it's about selecting out the results of when he was vs was not playing the way coaches wanted him to...which has been an up and down yo-yo through his tenure as a Canuck.

On the surface, it seems pretty self-evident to an ol' "eye tester" like myself...when the player is getting things done and you're really liking the things he's doing, and he's generating points and opportunities and playing the way everyone always wants him to (an no that's not like Derek Dorsett)...and he's being publicly lauded by "The Brass"...he's probably generating better "possession results"?

In most basic of terms: People like his play = he's generating those great possession stats as a result of his "playing the right way". With the opposite being true of the alternative.

What i'm curious about...is whether that reflects the "possession stat" reality. If it does...it pretty much confirms the ol' "eye test". But...if it doesn't...then there's clearly something else going on there which merits a bit of thinking about. But the "advanced stats" champions in this case seem pretty much wholly unwilling to actually do the maths themselves to take a look at something like that because it's "too hard" and isn't just spat out on a website everybody can click on in an instant.

Something that should be readily apparent is that "try" does not infer possession. Look at Dorsett as an example: Played an effort based game, but got beat out by the majority in terms of possession.

I've already many times explained that its very clear to me that Kassian's game is not that of a hustling 4th liner running around chasing hits. You can set this pin up and knock it down as much as you want, but it really doesn't mean anything. You're tilting against windmills here.

The overall average gets rid of the noise. It actually removes the thing that fans, such as yourself, put too much stock in - like his visible 'inconsistency'. Why would one "dig further into", or break up the sample, when research teaches us that this introduces more noise into a data set, which renders useless data (not predictive)? Digging into short samples = not understanding advanced stats.

You make it sounds like "the noise" is irrelevant, which i cannot abide. The noise, when there is a lot of it, is often where the most interesting data points to learn about reside. The average is a point of importance...but outliers matter too, and Kassian's performance from the "eye test" lands all over the outliers from the plus and minus ends of things.


Ultimately the point is...you're sitting there with ONE single data set, and etching it in as indisputable. It's one single averaged result, designed entirely to ignore the "noise" of something like a player with massive up/down swings. Statistically...that is what larger and larger samples sizes do.

It's not about doing the work. I've posted many times here with my 'homework' on display. It's about the 'why'. In this case, the work shouldn't be done because it moves us further away from the reliability of the data. Further away from a stats based argument. Sure, "Any genius can look up a number", but there are many numbers that tie in together, making one have to parse the data properly. But overall, it's not meant to confuse people anyways so...?

So ultimately...anything that moves us further away from a "stats based argument" shouldn't be done?


You fall back to "there are many numbers that tie in together, making one have to parse the data properly"...but when asked to parse the data in a unique and not readily available, but particular, entirely relevant way...the response is "no, too hard".

To put plainly: I don't feel the need to make unclear that which is clear. I've noticed this a few times when we have disagreed on something. Sometimes, there doesn't need to be 'more' - and "digging a little deeper" can actually move us further away from what is staring us in the face.

Further, the core of my opinion is based upon many different aspects including viewership and advanced stats. Advanced stats just introduce a little objectivity into a discussion that can be muddled with subjectivity - and in this case, opposite viewpoints.

Yeah, it's weird...sometimes we disagree on things, and it's not worth answering my question in full because "i'm doing advanced stats wrong" by not just taking the easy lookup numbers and walking them to the bank as fact and ultimate truth.


I'm not asking for something ridiculous and irrelevant here. Logically...this is a question that should be asked here. But the eye testers don't give a **** because that's not their things with all the maths and fancystat blog followings and whatnot. And yet i haven't seen a single "advanced stats" champion ready to step up to bat on this out of even the slightest hint of curiousity and do their own "maths" eval on a player who is quite clearly a source of much controversy and intrigue.

 

[biturbo19]

While I've never been a huge Kassian fan, I always felt that there must have been something behind the scenes that prevented Kassian from climbing the ladder with the Canucks...whether it was off ice issues, consistency or a lack of attention to details he never really caught on with anyone in management. That being said, at some point you have to **** or get off the pot...if Benning knew that Kassian wasn't going to be a long term fit for the team he was building, he needed to do his best to build up the asset in order to maximize his value to trade. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole isn't going to work, then publicly complaining that the square peg won't become round doesn't make anything better either. Put him in a position where he can gain some value, then trade high. What Benning did was poisoning an asset.

I can dig a lot of this. I totally understand the "this guy is a problem lets shine him up and trade him for the max" mentality. That's the theme here...but at the end of the day, what's the real message to your team when you pump a Hodgson up, trade him at a high...he signs himself a multi-year $4M+ deal off that charm and you're trying to sell your new rookies on the idea that "being Cody Hodgson is bad".

 

[Bleach Clean]

To an extent, yeah. I think a lot of things coaches do tend to be inadvertent attempts to fret about "possession stats". If you're an "old school" eye test coach...and you've got a player who isn't doing the things you want to see and as a result is just getting beat upside the head with negative shot differential, you're going to want to get that player out of the fire, for example. For me, that's where advanced stats and the real world intersect. The corsi numbers are a representation of what did happen, not a representation of why it happened.

That sounds an awful lot like a post hoc fallacy: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X".

Advanced stats need not intersect that way... An "eye test coach" can see that a player isn't doing the things he wants to see, but the player could still finish that game with a high possession performance. What then?

Seems you are the one who is drawn to either "wholesale" type "year on average" representations, or "meaningless" single-game anecdotals here. I pretty clearly made evident my lack of interest in single-game samples

Wow. I've never advocated shortening the sample. "Nominal" is a far cry from "Conclusive". Rather, I'm giving you an example of how useless it is to shorten the sample and then infer something from it.
If it was useful, Vey would have sat the next game, not Kassian. But it's not useful, which is why it doesn't mean anything - even though a few more games would have fit the short sample you are looking for when the coaches are "not happy".

The thing is, it DOES make sense... It's not about "shortening" the sample...it's about selecting out the results of when he was vs was not playing the way coaches wanted him to...

Selecting out results = shortening the sample.

On the surface, it seems pretty self-evident to an ol' "eye tester" like myself...when the player is getting things done and you're really liking the things he's doing, and he's generating points and opportunities and playing the way everyone always wants him to (an no that's not like Derek Dorsett)...and he's being publicly lauded by "The Brass"...he's probably generating better "possession results"?

In most basic of terms: People like his play = he's generating those great possession stats as a result of his "playing the right way". With the opposite being true of the alternative.

What i'm curious about...is whether that reflects the "possession stat" reality. If it does...it pretty much confirms the ol' "eye test". But...if it doesn't...then there's clearly something else going on there which merits a bit of thinking about. But the "advanced stats" champions in this case seem pretty much wholly unwilling to actually do the maths themselves to take a look at something like that because it's "too hard" and isn't just spat out on a website everybody can click on in an instant.

Lol, that's not why I'm choosing not to do that particular bit of work. It's because that bit of work is pointless. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what advanced stats are. I could easily concoct a 10-15 game sample of when the coaches were 'unhappy', show that Kassian was a good possession player in said games (relative to his competition), and push that case to you... but why?

It would mean that I don't understand advanced stats when I do something like that - and I would expect the advanced stats people on here to rightfully call me out for it.

You make it sounds like "the noise" is irrelevant, which i cannot abide. The noise, when there is a lot of it, is often where the most interesting data points to learn about reside. The average is a point of importance...but outliers matter too, and Kassian's performance from the "eye test" lands all over the outliers from the plus and minus ends of things.

Ultimately the point is...you're sitting there with ONE single data set, and etching it in as indisputable. It's one single averaged result, designed entirely to ignore the "noise" of something like a player with massive up/down swings. Statistically...that is what larger and larger samples sizes do.

Well yes, exactly. Larger sample sizes reduce noise, getting us closer to the 'signal'. In terms of possession, this is getting us closer to 'true talent' and removing 'chance'. That's what it is aimed to do. Only then does it become predictive.

'Noise' and 'error' may be "interesting" but not informative. What you are advocating here is to 'show you something interesting while devaluing the thing that is informative'. An exercise in pointlessness.

So ultimately...anything that moves us further away from a "stats based argument" shouldn't be done?

You fall back to "there are many numbers that tie in together, making one have to parse the data properly"...but when asked to parse the data in a unique and not readily available, but particular, entirely relevant way...the response is "no, too hard".

Not "too hard", but rather 'it's foolish'... What makes you think it's "hard" collating a 10-15 game sample?

I'm confirming the stats based position that is already strong here. If you want to question that position, please do so with the general usage of AS numbers. I'd be happy to engage in a conversation in that vein. I would also be fine with a non-stats based convo. But this normal AS usage vs. abnormal AS usage just doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, it's weird...sometimes we disagree on things, and it's not worth answering my question in full because "i'm doing advanced stats wrong" by not just taking the easy lookup numbers and walking them to the bank as fact and ultimate truth.

I'm not asking for something ridiculous and irrelevant here. Logically...this is a question that should be asked here. But the eye testers don't give a **** because that's not their things with all the maths and fancystat blog followings and whatnot. And yet i haven't seen a single "advanced stats" champion ready to step up to bat on this out of even the slightest hint of curiousity and do their own "maths" eval on a player who is quite clearly a source of much controversy and intrigue.

There is no logic to what you are asking biturbo. From what I know of advanced stats, this request makes no sense to me. If there are other AS users that want to give this a go, or can put forth something that meets the criteria of a short sample + is informative/predictive, by all means post it, I'd be interested to see it as well.

 

[biturbo19]

That sounds an awful lot like a post hoc fallacy: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X".

Advanced stats need not intersect that way... An "eye test coach" can see that a player isn't doing the things he wants to see, but the player could still finish that game with a high possession performance. What then?





Wow. I've never advocated shortening the sample. "Nominal" is a far cry from "Conclusive". Rather, I'm giving you an example of how useless it is to shorten the sample and then infer something from it.
If it was useful, Vey would have sat the next game, not Kassian. But it's not useful, which is why it doesn't mean anything - even though a few more games would have fit the short sample you are looking for when the coaches are "not happy".





Selecting out results = shortening the sample.





Lol, that's not why I'm choosing not to do that particular bit of work. It's because that bit of work is pointless. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what advanced stats are. I could easily concoct a 10-15 game sample of when the coaches were 'unhappy', show that Kassian was a good possession player in said games (relative to his competition), and push that case to you... but why?

It would mean that I don't understand advanced stats when I do something like that - and I would expect the advanced stats people on here to rightfully call me out for it.





Well yes, exactly. Larger sample sizes reduce noise, getting us closer to the 'signal'. In terms of possession, this is getting us closer to 'true talent' and removing 'chance'. That's what it is aimed to do. Only then does it become predictive.

'Noise' and 'error' may be "interesting" but not informative. What you are advocating here is to 'show you something interesting while devaluing the thing that is informative'. An exercise in pointlessness.





Not "too hard", but rather 'it's foolish'... What makes you think it's "hard" collating a 10-15 game sample?

I'm confirming the stats based position that is already strong here. If you want to question that position, please do so with the general usage of AS numbers. I'd be happy to engage in a conversation in that vein. I would also be fine with a non-stats based convo. But this normal AS usage vs. abnormal AS usage just doesn't make sense to me.





There is no logic to what you are asking biturbo. From what I know of advanced stats, this request makes no sense to me. If there are other AS users that want to give this a go, or can put forth something that meets the criteria of a short sample + is informative/predictive, by all means post it, I'd be interested to see it as well.

So essentially, to you..."advanced stats" are...the sum of what readily available season average corsi/fenwick numbers tell you? There is zero wiggle room. There is no difference within season. There are no extenuating factors. There is no circumstantial adjustment. There is no accounting for massive inconsistency, it's just the same as a consistent and reliable same result producer of "advanced stats". Changing things up in legitimate (and large) sample sizes by purpose or design is "nonsense" and "too much work". Essentially...there is nothing really "advanced" about these stats...it's just, how many pucks are fired one way or the other on the whole during a 1-season time period.

Because imo that's crap, it's lazy, and it's shallow. If that's what you want to go on, be my guest...but don't expect to sway me with that most surface level of analysis.

That sounds an awful lot like a post hoc fallacy: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X".

Advanced stats need not intersect that way... An "eye test coach" can see that a player isn't doing the things he wants to see, but the player could still finish that game with a high possession performance. What then?

It may be this...but until you or someone else provide "advanced stats" evidence of that being the case, i'm not going to accept it as the gospel. And until someone is willing to put the time/effort into that...i'm not going to respect a half-assed "fancystats" representation of the situation.

You may say they "need not intersect"...i say, they darn well better intersect.

That's entirely the point i'm trying to make here...if someone wants to take their fancystats and provide the representation i'm asking for that disproves what i'm suggesting...i'd be happy to hear it and it would definitely make me rethink some things.

If someone feels like showing that the sample of "coaches seeing the things they want from Player Kassian" demonstrates no substantial departure in "possession stats" from "coaches being mad at player Kassian because he's doing it wrong"...that would be very very interesting and compelling to me. But nobody wants to do that. And yet it's expected that "fancystats" are the "objective" endgame here. Which i completely disagree with, because of the previously noted grievances with the overly simplistic application of these "advanced stats". If you want something to be objective and "indisputable"...provide the objective and "indisputable" evidence of the question at hand. Don't regurgitate the "overall average" numbers that anyone can look up with a 5 second google and half an ounce of understanding...as though they're absolute and crystal clear representation of the totality of the situation. That's not convincing.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So essentially, to you..."advanced stats" are...the sum of what readily available season average corsi/fenwick numbers tell you? There is zero wiggle room. There is no difference within season. There are no extenuating factors. There is no circumstantial adjustment. There is no accounting for massive inconsistency, it's just the same as a consistent and reliable same result producer of "advanced stats". Changing things up in legitimate (and large) sample sizes by purpose or design is "nonsense" and "too much work". Essentially...there is nothing really "advanced" about these stats...it's just, how many pucks are fired one way or the other on the whole during a 1-season time period.

What is a "legitimate sample" to you that is under 82 games? Further, what makes it legitimate?

The examples at either end of the spectrum _are_ represented per advanced stats. In Kassian's case, there is a legit argument to be made about his shot differential against numbers. This is contrasted by his high CF For numbers and On Ice Shooting Percentage (tops on the team). That's his inconsistency/lopsided play being quantified. This then highlights how he is different from the more 'low event' average possession player. The ones that have a lower CF differential.

It's when one purposefully cuts the sample into blocks to show spikes or dips where it gets odd. There's no merit to that approach per my understanding of AS.

It may be this...but until you or someone else provide "advanced stats" evidence of that being the case, i'm not going to accept it as the gospel. And until someone is willing to put the time/effort into that...i'm not going to respect a half-assed "fancystats" representation of the situation.

Thing is, you don't _have_ to accept it. No one does. It's just what is... Per the general understanding of advanced stats, and amongst advocates of those stats, this is how these stats are to be interpreted (as far as I know). The larger sample wins out. Smaller samples introduce noise. There are minimum sample sizes and often times even a season is not accepted as being enough.

If you don't like those parameters, it's not the specific interpretation you take issue with, but the general methodology of advanced stats. They shoot for signal over a large sample. That's the intention.

You may say they "need not intersect"...i say, they darn well better intersect.

They clearly don't. Dorsett is a key example - All busy and lots of try, playing the "right way", and failing in the possession department. I'm not sure how you could see that example and then expect that "playing the right way" should correlate to 'better possession'. It need not be the case at all.

That's why I didn't care much for the "play the right way" argument being put forth by the coach. It was always more about 'is he being effective?' for me.

 

[me2]

I can dig a lot of this. I totally understand the "this guy is a problem lets shine him up and trade him for the max" mentality. That's the theme here...but at the end of the day, what's the real message to your team when you pump a Hodgson up, trade him at a high...he signs himself a multi-year $4M+ deal off that charm and you're trying to sell your new rookies on the idea that "being Cody Hodgson is bad".

I doubt any player or agent thinks that. The number of players that have attempted to use being terrible to advance their cause is probably zero. Hodgson signed his deal off 15-19-34 in 48 for the sabres during the lockout shortened year.

 

[vanuck]

Absolutely, injuries, unfair suspensions and coaching changes aren't his fault.

But more to the point, I don't buy that he has to accept 'personal responsibility' for anything that happened in the last 18 months. I think the entire narrative on Kassian right now is absolute rubbish.

From the mid-point of 13-14, he was unquestionably 'getting it right' under Tortorella. Was delivering consistent performances, was our best forward and leading scorer through the 2nd half of the season and the only bright light as the team went into the tank. Was praised by Tortorella at seasons' end.

This year, he comes in and gets hurt 3 times in quick succession in the first half of the season. Concussed by a flying elbow in his 2nd game of the season.

OF COURSE HE STRUGGLED AND LOOKED TENTATIVE IN HIS FIRST COUPLE GAMES BACK OFF INJURY. As every player does. Especially a concussion. Somehow, when Hamhuis or Burrows or Tanev or whoever comes back and struggles a bit for a few games, that's understandable, but when Kassian does it HES PLAYING THE WRONG WAY. NEVER LEARNS. Completely different standard, which seems to be the story of Kassian's career.

After an iffy week or two coming off that concussion, he had an excellent stretch of games in November before getting hurt again. Seriously, go back and read the GDTs through that time. He was a standout almost every night even though the points weren't coming.

Then he gets hurt for a month. And when he's healthy, isn't inserted back into the lineup. Then after literally a couple games back (again when trying to get back off a long layoff) he's again a healthy scratch and being told he's a liability and playing the wrong way.

When he finally gets a chance to get back into the lineup, all he does is score. 8-3-11 in his last 16 games. Praised by the GM.

Then traded for nothing.

The whole situation is absolutely absurd.

Again, the guy has 36 points in his last 80 games from 3rd line minutes. What more to people expect? Is he only 'getting it' if he somehow puts up 1st line numbers from 3rd line minutes?

Every young player has the odd off game. Vey had 50 in a row and kept playing. I don't see Kassian as having any more poor efforts than any other guy on this roster over the past couple years.

Great post. The rubbish narratives going on around this player are just amazing.

 

[Nick Lang]

I remember watching Kassian when Canada Jrs. lost and got Silver. He was so amazing for how big he was but yet had such a sweet depth of touch on his passing. He was also a bruiser so that's a great combination but you know what, he likes to float and make his plays. He will probably never be anything because he's already got millions of dollars and his compete level is low.

Bye bye Zack I loved you when you were here.

 

[Ace of Hades]

I still can't believe we made this trade.

I guess we now know how Sharks fans felt after ripping them off with that Ehrhoff trade.

 

[me2]

I still can't believe we made this trade.

I guess we now know how Sharks fans felt after ripping them off with that Ehrhoff trade.

50% chance he becomes something worthwhile, 50% chance he just costs around the league.

Just disappointing the team did not even try to get value of off him. Pump and sell, he had 1 year left, if you don't want him around the prospects then you trade or even don't qualify him at the end of next season. The team is hardly loaded with prospects that need to be "protected" from him. Even if they did have a bunch of prospects on the team they would have to selected a bunch of prospects with bad character traits if the fear they would be led astray by one player on team full of good character players. That is not happening unless they were already flawed. So between that and the absence of prospects this year the risk (if it is even real) is negligible).

 

[I in the Eye]

I really do understand the optics of the Kassian trade and why so many hate it. I was not happy when I first saw the trade either.

The more I really think about Kassian though, I think this will end up being a lot of hullaballoo about nothing. I just don't see him getting it together and ever really making a big impact in the NHL. Doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed and really has a long way to go with professionalism, attitude, conditioning, work ethic, both on and off the ice. He was drafted 6 years ago now, should have gotten it by now.

Okay, but Kassian was traded at a time when he was "getting it together", and at the end of "making a big impact"... perhaps not throughout the NHL, but on the Canucks... and to the dismay of team's fighting with the Canucks for that playoff spot. Benning has acknowledged Kassian's impact. Benning has credited Kassian with helping the team to make the playoffs, that he was directly responsible for wins down the stretch, and that it was too bad that Kassian was injured, because the team missed him in the playoffs. I assume he meant that the team missed him in the playoffs, because of the additional physicality that Kassian could have provided the Canucks against the Flames... The forecheck, and offense too. Kassian was doing everything that Benning said he wanted, and gave Kassian credit for providing it. Or, in short, continuing to do what he was doing for over a month.

This is where Kassian was at, before he was traded... and then, he was traded... and Benning went back to what you say. For some reason, Benning no longer saw Kassian getting it together (3 coaches here couldn't reach him), and he doesn't really see Kassian making a big impact. That maybe Kassian can become the player that he thinks he is (where Benning now says that a change in scenery sometimes makes players able to get it together). Whereas as early as two months prior, Kassian was making strides to become the player we (the regime) think he is. The thing is, the sample size wasn't enlarged in those two months, for Kassian to provide more evidence that he was slipping back to his old ways (and couldn't be reached despite all the work the regime says they put into him... with this work being credited as the reason by Benning that Kassian was able to turn it around)... There was also no more evidence, an additional 8 weeks worth, that Kassian did finally get it consistently beyond those 5 excellent weeks. The sample size didn't move. The player that Kassian thought he is, and the player that they wanted Kassian to become, were lining up... for about 5 weeks, and that's where things were left.

Benning didn't trade Kassian at a time when he wasn't getting it together. Benning traded Kassian at a time when he was. Benning gave Kassian away at a time when he, and practically everyone I've heard (including Benning and Willie) were pleased with him. Now, are those 5 weeks of excellent play, a blip?

Nobody should be shocked, IMO, if Kassian becomes everything Benning (and you, and me, and everyone else here) hoped for next season. The signs were already there at the time of the trade. I believe that Kassian has it in him to keep what he now has together, and until he proves me wrong, I think he's got it now. He's now at the age where players who are going to get it, yet haven't got it yet, finally get it... He left off getting it. I think he continues to get it. He now, has got it.

Please do quote this, this time next year... My prediction: Kassian will be a physical presence, scoring 40-50 points next season, barring injury... and I will not be a great talent evaluator, or hockey genius for predicting this... The signs were there. I just chose not to ignore them, when Benning instead chose to... two months after a time when he, himself, couldn't, and didn't, ignore it.

 

[a Fool]

Kass says he never asked for a trade:

“I never asked for a trade, but obviously I was open that if a team wanted me, I was more than welcome to going somewhere I was wanted.

http://canadiens.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=773693

And judging by his tweet after the TDL, "let's go win a Cup," I think he was more than happy here by the end of the season.

 

[me2]

Kass says he never asked for a trade:



http://canadiens.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=773693

And judging by his tweet after the TDL, "let's go win a Cup," I think he was more than happy here by the end of the season.

IIRC he was getting frustrated during all the sittings especially when he was performing. I doubt he asked for a trade but also waiting be open in such circumstances.

 

[Jack Tripper]

IIRC he was getting frustrated during all the sittings especially when he was performing. I doubt he asked for a trade but also waiting be open in such circumstances.

yeah, given the treatment that he received from desjardins (ie getting benched for guys like linden vey and brandon mcmillan for no clear reason) and the lack of public support from the front office that's not surprising at all

 

[mossey3535]

yeah, given the treatment that he received from desjardins (ie getting benched for guys like linden vey and brandon mcmillan for no clear reason) and the lack of public support from the front office that's not surprising at all

Although Vey had used up a lot of his leeway by the end of the year, I can see why he might get scratched for Vey.

But he also got scratched for McMillan. That was terrible. It's not like McMillan played well enough to warrant it most of the time.

 

[BassMason]

Kassian's future success will represent everything I hate with the current management team for all of time.

 

[Taelin]

Close to 1,000. Any further discussion of Kassian can go in the Ex-Canucks thread, the managerial decision can go in the Benning thread, and the Prust discussion can go in the Brandon Prust thread.