Plenty of opinions about where Penguins’ Phil Kessel could land in trade |
Breakfast With Benz

Plenty of opinions about where Penguins’ Phil Kessel could land in trade

Tim Benz
AP Photo
Pittsburgh Penguins forward Phil Kessel (81) carries the puck during the second period of an NHL hockey game against the Buffalo Sabres, Thursday, March 14, 2019, in Buffalo N.Y. (AP Photo/Jeffrey T. Barnes)

The Phil Kessel trade watch is one of the biggest topics in hockey right now. And the opinions are flying.

Dave Poulin said on TSN, “He’s an acquired taste that has run its course in Pittsburgh.”

On the same panel, Craig Button made it sound like the team is scapegoating the veteran winger.

“I want Phil Kessel,” Button said. “Take advantage of the problems that Pittsburgh has with the salary cap and get this guy.”

Former Penguins Colby Armstrong and Mike Rupp have shared some opinions, too, on 105.9 the X and the NHL Network.

You can hear what they all had to say in our Thursday podcast.

LISTEN: Opinions flying about a potential Phil Kessel trade

Also, take a listen to what Jeremy Roenick dropped about the Kessel trade prospects while on a radio appearance in Buffalo.

There seems to be a real push and pull between Kessel and the Penguins about where he may be willing to go, and how it would be possible to keep him if Jim Rutherford can’t find a suitable trade partner that No. 81 will approve.

Our Jonathan Bombulie recapped the interview, as well.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.