Phil Kessel trade talk reminiscent of summer of 2014, James Neal deal |

Phil Kessel trade talk reminiscent of summer of 2014, James Neal deal

Jonathan Bombulie
Nashville Predators goaltender Pekka Rinne (35), of Finland, follows a shot by Pittsburgh Penguins right wing Patric Hornqvist (72), of Sweden, in the third period of an NHL hockey game Thursday, March 21, 2019, in Nashville, Tenn.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: The Pittsburgh Penguins are shopping an incredibly productive winger in the hopes that the move will improve not their skill level or goal scoring but their overall style of play.

It describes the summer of 2019, with Phil Kessel on the block. It also describes the summer of 2014 when the Penguins were about to send James Neal to Nashville for Patric Hornqvist.

Here’s a look at what’s the same and what’s different between the situations.


• Kessel is one of 15 players to score at a point-per-game pace in each of the last two seasons. In the summer of 2014, only five players had scored more goals over the previous three seasons than Neal.

Neither player was on the trading block because of production. They were available because the team was trying to become harder to play against.

In 2014, that meant the offensive zone. The Penguins were coming off a series where they blew a 3-1 lead by scoring a total of three goals in the final three games against the New York Rangers. They wanted to play less on the perimeter and more in the dirty areas of the ice.

Today, it refers to a 200-foot game. Coach Mike Sullivan has cited a need to reduce goals and odd-man rushes against and bad decisions with the puck and increase cooperative play.

• In the immediate aftermath of the trade that sent Neal to Nashville for Hornqvist and Nick Spaling, opinions on the deal ranged from lukewarm to hostile.

One blog, for instance, called the trade bizarre, downright destructive and pointless. Many on the internet decried the lack of complementary pieces coming back from Nashville. A better player than Spaling and a high draft pick would have made the deal much more popular.

If and when Kessel is traded, the reaction is likely to be the same. He’s a beloved figure and almost certainly will be the best player included in the deal.


• The circumstances in the coach’s office and general manager’s chair are completely different.

These days, Sullivan and Jim Rutherford are looking to end a short run of two unsuccessful postseasons. Their most recent championship isn’t a distant memory. They think they know exactly what the team needs to get back to those heights.

In 2014, Rutherford and coach Mike Johnston were freshly hired and the team was looking to end a streak of five straight disappointing postseasons. The culture of the team was changing dramatically, regardless of what deals were made at the draft.

• Kessel’s no-trade clause presents far more complications than Rutherford ran into when trying to trade Neal.

Kessel can only be moved to eight teams without prior consent. He has already reportedly vetoed a trade to Minnesota that would have brought Jason Zucker in return.

Those restrictions might force Rutherford to move Kessel in a deal centered around draft picks or prospects. If that happens, he almost certainly will immediately add a top-six forward in free agency, but still, that’s a different process than the hockey deal he made in 2014.


The Hornqvist trade ended up being hailed as a massive success.

While hiring Sullivan as a coach and adding Kessel in trade obviously played a massive role in the back-to-back championships, it’s hard to imagine the feat could have been accomplished without a heart-and-soul leader like Hornqvist in the locker room and on the ice.

In that sense, a potential Kessel trade this summer has a lot to live up to.

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all offseason long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review assistant sports editor. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.