Link: Eller is 6'2" and 220 lbs.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

Kessel is madly underrated. One of the best scoring wingers in the league. Maybe not a franchise player, but not many have his skill level. Who's our go to forward? No one as good as Kessel. YET

Galchenyuk and Pacioretty will probably get there

Phil Kessel reminds me more of Milan Hejduk than a top five goal scorer in NHL history.

[DON]

That trade was stupid, but mainly because it ended up involving Doug Hamilton, not because of - as is popularly believed - Seguin. Over the first three years of that deal, TO has had the better player, and despite all the hype it remains unclear whether Seguin really will emerge as a better player than Kessel, who is an elite young offensive talent in the NHL. I don't see why Kessel should play out his days overwhelmed by the looming shadow of Doug Hamilton. This wasn't Ribeiro for Nobody, McDonagh for Gomez, or Chelios for Savard. They got a terrific young player back.

Now Kessel gets grief in TO simply because he's not the kind of guy who can carry a team on his back single-handedly - ridiculous and unfair, albeit typical of what TO directs at players who are miscast in their role - and scorn from fans in other cities because, well, he's a Leaf. None of this constitutes a valid criticism of a guy who is a dynamic and exciting PPG machine in both the regular season and playoffs. "Soft" is an OK criticism, but again, no one is paying him to be Milan Lucic. I'll take a 'soft' 37 goals and 80 points, thanks.

I would take any player who scores 37, but if not scoring, a one dimensional floater like, Kessel-Semin-Kovalev-Cammalleri can be quite useless.

But, I do agree that think he is underrated and a $5.5m PPG player should be considered quite a sweet deal for Leafs.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Being two way is overrated.

I'll take high end skill, 80 point scoring over a reliable two way player that gets me 50 points in a good year.

Galchenyuk might become high skill and one dimensional. I wouldn't give him up for Brandon Gaunce because of it.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Like Machine, I have a high tolerance for "one dimensional" players provided they are very good at that one dimension, and especially if they are exciting to watch. It's funny, too, because there's a double standard here - nobody EVER criticizes a stay-at-home defenceman for his "one-dimensional" play and his inability to contribute to the attack. Only players who are "all offence" get criticized.

It is true that a team must be careful not to carry too many one-dimensional players. But that's a different question.

[Guest Stogey24]

Like Machine, I have a high tolerance for "one dimensional" players provided they are very good at that one dimension, and especially if they are exciting to watch. It's funny, too, because there's a double standard here - nobody EVER criticizes a stay-at-home defenceman for his "one-dimensional" play and his inability to contribute to the attack. Only players who are "all offence" get criticized.

It is true that a team must be careful not to carry too many one-dimensional players. But that's a different question.

A stay at home D-man doesn't cost you goals or get caught out of position, for the most part anyways.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

A stay at home D-man doesn't cost you goals or get caught out of position, for the most part anyways.

Yeah, and he doesn't score any either.

[Guest Stogey24]

Yeah, and he doesn't score any either.

Nope, they don't bury the puck too often. They're just a low risk player that rarely hurts the team

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Nope, they don't bury the puck too often. They're just a low risk player that rarely hurts the team

Right. And such a player has value, no question. My point is, an all-offence 50-goal-scorer - while he might "hurt" the team now and again by not being particularly sound in his own zone - actively helps the team by pumping goals past the opponents' goalie. Therefore he deserves at least as much credit as our one-dimensional defensive defenceman. But for some reason, offensive players get ripped for being "one dimensional" while defensive players never do.

[bbp]

Right. And such a player has value, no question. My point is, an all-offence 50-goal-scorer - while he might "hurt" the team now and again by not being particularly sound in his own zone - actively helps the team by pumping goals past the opponents' goalie. Therefore he deserves at least as much credit as our one-dimensional defensive defenceman. But for some reason, offensive players get ripped for being "one dimensional" while defensive players never do.

I think its because of attitude (or perceived attitude) someone who is a defensive stud is seen as a great team player. Also the Offensive Defense-man while not "new" is still thought as non-traditional. Forwards who play d are seen as character guys, defense-man who score are sometimes seen as puck hogs or a liability.

If a player scores a lot it looks like they care more about their own achievements. If a player blocks 100+ shots it looks like he is putting himself on the line for his team. Realistically they are both doing what they are getting paid to do based on their skill sets, but someone who isn't making the glory plays gets less flack because fans understand they do not have the talent to score forty goals. But at the same time they see defense as something that can be learned more so then offensive prowess, like a 40 goal guy should be able to learn how to backcheck, position defensively, block a shot, that kind of thing since fans see that as a character decision and not a skill thing.

[DON]

I think its because of attitude (or perceived attitude) someone who is a defensive stud is seen as a great team player. Also the Offensive Defense-man while not "new" is still thought as non-traditional. Forwards who play d are seen as character guys, defense-man who score are sometimes seen as puck hogs or a liability.

If a player scores a lot it looks like they care more about their own achievements. If a player blocks 100+ shots it looks like he is putting himself on the line for his team. Realistically they are both doing what they are getting paid to do based on their skill sets, but someone who isn't making the glory plays gets less flack because fans understand they do not have the talent to score forty goals. But at the same time they see defense as something that can be learned more so then offensive prowess, like a 40 goal guy should be able to learn how to backcheck, position defensively, block a shot, that kind of thing since fans see that as a character decision and not a skill thing.

Yzerman was one who made the transition from pure scorer to all-round player.

Defensive d-men are more blue-collar players and people simply tend to criticize and idolize the high paid offensive stars more. Same in football, where QB-RB-WR get more headlines and press interviews than all-pro O or D linemen.

[Guest Stogey24]

Yzerman was one who made the transition from pure scorer to all-round player.

Defensive d-men are more blue-collar players and people simply tend to criticize and idolize the high paid offensive stars more. Same in football, where QB-RB-WR get more headlines and press interviews than all-pro O or D linemen.

Stevie Y, was one the best all around players to ever play the game. A true gem.

[BlueKross]

Like Machine, I have a high tolerance for "one dimensional" players provided they are very good at that one dimension, and especially if they are exciting to watch. It's funny, too, because there's a double standard here - nobody EVER criticizes a stay-at-home defenceman for his "one-dimensional" play and his inability to contribute to the attack. Only players who are "all offence" get criticized.

It is true that a team must be careful not to carry too many one-dimensional players. But that's a different question.

Your dimensions or dimension that is conceived that you contribute, is in your pay cheque. Expectations are that you produce accordingly. There is no double standard.

[Link67]

sounds to me like we would all love to have a high scoring two way forward on the team, while we don't have one, at least this year we will get to marvel at the one who is in our division now, none other than Megas Pavel Datsyuk.

[Guest Stogey24]

sounds to me like we would all love to have a high scoring two way forward on the team, while we don't have one, at least this year we will get to marvel at the one who is in our division now, none other than Megas Pavel Datsyuk.

Pleks gets the job done year in and year out. Datsyuk's +/- is unbelievable though.

[Meller93]

Anybody else think pleks could have been just as good as say Bergeron with more consistent/better line mates? Either way I've always loved him, great team player

[Link67]

Pleks always hits around the same point total as Bergeron, plays just as good two way game as Bergeron. However he lacks the face off abilities and the playoff performances of Bergeron, which in my mind will always keep him just step behind in my books.

[Commandant]

I'll take the 30-35 goals of Pacioretty, over the 35-39 of Kessel personally for the fact that Pacioretty knows how to play in his own end of the ice and is a possession beast.

Yeah, I take the 80 point guy over the 50 point guy, but I don't think that is the comparison when we are talking the best wingers on each team

[Meller93]

I'll take the 30-35 goals of Pacioretty, over the 35-39 of Kessel personally for the fact that Pacioretty knows how to play in his own end of the ice and is a possession beast.

Yeah, I take the 80 point guy over the 50 point guy, but I don't think that is the comparison when we are talking the best wingers on each team

I agree with that, and the thing is if I had to choose between Paciorretty and Kessel there's a good chance I'd choose Pacioretty, because I think Pacioretty could potentially put up 80+ points like Kessel can, at which point he'd be a better player.

If Pacioretty could ever get there he'd actually be one of the most valuable wingers in the league. A solid two way, big bodied, physical, high scoring winger. Whew