A deal worth 1.75M for a young player who I believe hasn't reached his full potential doesn't bother me. Heck, Matt Carle hadn't reached his peak when we brought him in with a 3 million dollar cap hit. While I think it's premature to believe Zack Kassian will become the next Wayne Simmonds or Milan Lucic, maybe Wayne Simmonds situation with the LA Kings is comparable. Simmonds was asecond or third line player without Power Play time until he came here. I'm not offering him PP time but more so a suitable role with this team. When I look at the Vancouver Canucks, I don't see very many physical guys within their line up and believe the Canucks brought Kassian in to be their single most physical presence up front. Kind of a square peg, round hole situation.
If you guys don't like the guy, that's fine, I'm not asking anyone to. Some are accused certain players out as being cowards and not being an overly tough team is apparent. I just feel Zack Kassian forced Zac Rinaldo out of this line up, while chipping in offensively when put in the right situation.
By the way, what were we paying Max Talbot and Wayne Simmonds when we first signed both players? - SuperSchennBros
Matt Carle was a very good defenseman who wasn't a part time player and healthy scratch when he was brought in. Why pay 1.75M when comparable players can be had for far less without giving up any assets? I don't beleive that Kassian is an equal at this point to Talbot and Simmonds when they were first acquired by the Flyers.
Realistically, I see Zack Kassian as a Tom Sestito type, but with moderately more skill and not as good of a fighter (and less hair) at the NHL level. Even Sestito put up 64 points in juniors. Neither he nor Kassian have been able to translate those numbers into NHL success sans 1 season for Kassian.
