Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymac106
I agree, however the real answer will come a few years down the road as we watch how Seguin and Hamilton progress. Although with Seguin already shipped out, I guess we need to watch what Louie Erickson does in Boston.
|
I don't think Louie factors in to the Toronto/Boston trade at all. That is going a little too deep into it, because you're then basing the original trade on asset management and the ability of the GM of the Dallas Stars.
Even judging it as "Kessel vs. Seguin/Hamilton" is a little silly if you think about it. You're judging a trade that was a known commodity for two unknowns based on what those unknowns turned out to be. The problem with that is had Toronto kept those picks, there's no guarantee that Toronto would have chosen those two guys. What if they had drafted.... I don't know, Gudbranson and Seimens instead? I'd rather have Kessel. As far as the debate of Seguin/Kessel goes, I'd much rather have Seguin as a building block, he's better now than Kessel was at the same point in his career.
I think what we have to consider is the trade as it was, not as how it turned out to be. The Leafs were less than 4 points away both years from those picks being significantly worse. From that standpoint, the Kessel trade AS IT WAS: good. As it is now? Meh, I like Seguin, but you can make a case for it. Had the Leafs had even one extra win in either year, the picks would likely look entirely different.
I guess my long winded point is that trades where players are involved are fair game for "win/loss" because before the trade happens you're judging ability and potential. Trades for picks aren't really, because it takes SO many intangibles to make those picks good. You have to ask yourself: "Can I guarantee a 30+ goal producer in the first round of the next two drafts." You can't, so you make the trade.