Leafs @ Sabres - Nov. 15th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590

[Bullfrog]

Same here. Once the game is over, I change to another channel or go do something else. I rarely even watch intermission shows. I'm just interested in the game.

Opposite for me.  Postgame interviews are some of the best part of sports, it's part of the job.

An interesting point of view. Though I can't imagine how the best part of a sport isn't the actual sport.

Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying you said that interviews are the better than the game. I just don't see it as that important. I do enjoy an interesting interview, but don't see it as important if a player doesn't want to speak with the media.

 

[Highlander]

Kessel could be a deaf mute for all I care, as long as he continues to be in the scoring race.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Same here. Once the game is over, I change to another channel or go do something else. I rarely even watch intermission shows. I'm just interested in the game.

Opposite for me.  Postgame interviews are some of the best part of sports, it's part of the job.

An interesting point of view. Though I can't imagine how the best part of a sport isn't the actual sport.

I can't even remember the last time something interesting was said in a postgame interview.  Actually wait, ironically it's probably what Kessel said. 

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 95% or more of postgame interviews (or between period interviews or before game interviews) are nothing but repeated cliches.  That's why it's actually interesting when someone says something other than it.

You've seen one postgame interview you've likely seen (almost) them all.

But I love that there's an expectation that you're supposed to care deeply about winning and losing, but if you show your frustration at losing you're criticized for that too.  There are legitimately times in life where you don't want to talk to anyone and, depending on the kind of person you are you can't talk to anyone.

I keep reading that this is a defined part of their job - where?  Where's this definition?  What does it encompass?  Is there a certain amount of time you have to speak to the media after a game?  What if they don't want to talk to you?  Do you have an obligation to talk to a media member who twisted your quote out of context?  Why can they do that and not face repercussions in the room?

Team should be thanking Kessel for changing the narrative from the terrible performance to Kessel's interview.  As a guy who doesn't care what they write about him, it's perfect.

 

[Kin]

Post game interviews are among the least important aspects of what sells the game. You could get rid of them entirely without significantly impacting the media coverage or anything else.

But there's a pretty important reason that pro sports leagues don't do that and, in fact, most of them have stiff penalties for players who choose not to speak to the press. They want as much media exposure as possible. They want as much humanizing media exposure as possible. Post-game interviews do drive conversation and that conversation matters to these leagues because they know that the real money isn't in the people who say that they don't care about the players, they'll consume the product no matter what. The real money is in the much larger group of people who they have to fight for the attention of.

 

[bustaheims]

But there's a pretty important reason that pro sports leagues don't do that and, in fact, most of them have stiff penalties for players who choose not to speak to the press. They want as much media exposure as possible. They want as much humanizing media exposure as possible. Post-game interviews do drive conversation and that conversation matters to these leagues because they know that the real money isn't in the people who say that they don't care about the players, they'll consume the product no matter what. The real money is in the much larger group of people who they have to fight for the attention of.

Maybe, but, you know what actually gets their attention? It's not the bland, cliche filled platitudes players give on a night to night basis. It's situations like what happened with Kessel on Saturday. It's conflict that draws attention. It's the players that don't want to talk to the media that actually get the attention. Everything else is basically forgettable.

 

[Kin]

Maybe, but, you know what actually gets their attention? It's not the bland, cliche filled platitudes players give on a night to night basis. It's situations like what happened with Kessel on Saturday. It's conflict that draws attention.

Sure, but I think what a member of the media would say to that is that it's precisely the sort of frustration Kessel clearly felt on Saturday night that makes locker room access important only if it's not something players can wave away at their pleasure. If he had said something interesting out of anger or frustration we'd be talking about something related to the game or the team and good beat reporters get players to say interesting things from time to time.

There's no real conflict here. There's nothing that will play to anyone outside of twitter or on the internet, primarily because there'd be no way to know about it. Like I said above, I don't think that we here are a great sample of the people the NHL wants those interviews to speak to.

 

[Deebo]

He is consistently one of the worst players on the ice.  The fact that he has that 7 year contract and is the captain of the team is exactly what is wrong with the leafs.

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

 

[Kin]

He is consistently one of the worst players on the ice.  The fact that he has that 7 year contract and is the captain of the team is exactly what is wrong with the leafs.

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

Eh, I don't agree that he's ever really in danger of being one of the worst on the ice but, I mean, Clarkson's contract was at market value. Keeping Phaneuf wasn't in and of itself indefensible but that contract is at the very least a mixed bag in terms of what it means going forward.

 

[bustaheims]

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

Yup. You watch any of the top defencemen in the league, game in game out like we get to with Phaneuf, and you'll see all of them make a lot more major mistakes than you think. There aren't a lot of defencemen in the league that would meet the standards some have for top pairing defencemen.

 

[Deebo]

He is consistently one of the worst players on the ice.  The fact that he has that 7 year contract and is the captain of the team is exactly what is wrong with the leafs.

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

Eh, I don't agree that he's ever really in danger of being one of the worst on the ice but, I mean, Clarkson's contract was at market value. Keeping Phaneuf wasn't in and of itself indefensible but that contract is at the very least a mixed bag in terms of what it means going forward.

I disagree, of the options available to the team - re-sign, trade for rental return or let him go in free agency.

Signing him to that contract was far and away the best options. It's not an unmovable albatross like Clarkson's deal and Dion is a key member of the team. He would have more trade value locked up as well if that's what they decide in the future.

 

[Kin]

I disagree, of the options available to the team - re-sign, trade for rental return or let him go in free agency.

Signing him to that contract was far and away the best options. It's not an unmovable albatross like Clarkson's deal and Dion is a key member of the team. He would have more trade value locked up as well if that's what they decide in the future.

I don't think he really does have a ton of value with that contract right now because any team trading for him would be essentially committing to the same thing the Leafs did in making him a central part of their team going forward. If the Leafs decide to trade him, and I'm not saying they will, but it would only be done after coming to the realization that he's a bad fit for that. I don't think teams will then be lining up to prove the Leafs wrong.

Like I said, I think you can make for the re-signing but until he proves he can be the centrepiece of a really good defense I think it's just the cornerstone of what looks to be a pretty lousy strategy going forward.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think he really does have a ton of value with that contract right now because any team trading for him would be essentially committing to the same thing the Leafs did in making him a central part of their team going forward. If the Leafs decide to trade him, and I'm not saying they will, but it would only be done after coming to the realization that he's a bad fit for that. I don't think teams will then be lining up to prove the Leafs wrong.

I don't think that's the only reason for a potential trade. Also, I didn't say he has a ton of value, I said more than as a rental and that the contract wasn't unmovable. I think both of these statements are true.

Like I said, I think you can make for the re-signing but until he proves he can be the centrepiece of a really good defense I think it's just the cornerstone of what looks to be a pretty lousy strategy going forward.

I don't think a UFA contract at 7M is "centrepiece of a really good defense" money anymore. I think Toews, Kane and Subban's contracts are indicators of where salaries are headed.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

Yup. You watch any of the top defencemen in the league, game in game out like we get to with Phaneuf, and you'll see all of them make a lot more major mistakes than you think. There aren't a lot of defencemen in the league that would meet the standards some have for top pairing defencemen.

Completely agree.

 

[Kin]

I don't think that's the only reason for a potential trade. Also, I didn't say he has a ton of value, I said more than as a rental and that the contract wasn't unmovable. I think both of these statements are true.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of those(although I disagree a little with both) but that wasn't the point I was making. Signing Phaneuf at that price is a commitment to going forward with the current core intact. That's what I meant about it being a mixed bag for the team going forward. Trading Phaneuf, even if you want to classify better than half a season as a "rental" I think can easily be argued to be better for the team.

I don't think a UFA contract at 7M is "centrepiece of a really good defense" money anymore. I think Toews, Kane and Subban's contracts are indicators of where salaries are headed.

I think that probably was true when we thought that the cap was going to jump quite a bit over the next few years. Now that some projections are projecting for little growth or even staying flat I'm not entirely sure that you will see similar contracts being signed.

 

[Deebo]

I don't necessarily disagree with either of those(although I disagree a little with both) but that wasn't the point I was making. Signing Phaneuf at that price is a commitment to going forward with the current core intact. That's what I meant about it being a mixed bag for the team going forward.

I think it's more like preserving the option to keep the core intact and preserving the asset value, rather than a firm commitment to the core since (IMO, of course) it isn't an unmovable contract.

Trading Phaneuf, even if you want to classify better than half a season as a "rental" I think can easily be argued to be better for the team

Signed or not, I doubt they'd be trading him in December, so it wouldn't be better than half a season.

I think that probably was true when we thought that the cap was going to jump quite a bit over the next few years. Now that some projections are projecting for little growth or even staying flat I'm not entirely sure that you will see similar contracts being signed.

The cap projections are flat for one year, and that's if the NHLPA elects not to exercise the inflator. In subsequent years, the cap will go up, that is a virtual certainty. Term limits have had just a big a hand in inflating AAVs as the cap increasing, if not more. I'm pretty sure that when players like Doughty or Karlsson on D and Stamkos or Tavares at F come up for renewals, their AAVs will be close to or greater than Subban's and Toews.

 

[ZBBM]

He is not consistently the one of the worst players on the ice and the fact that they were able to retain him with a 7 year contract at market value is one of the few things that are right with the Leafs.

Yup. You watch any of the top defencemen in the league, game in game out like we get to with Phaneuf, and you'll see all of them make a lot more major mistakes than you think. There aren't a lot of defencemen in the league that would meet the standards some have for top pairing defencemen.

Does anybody rate Phaneuf as one of the top defensemen in the league? 

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The cap projections are flat for one year, and that's if the NHLPA elects not to exercise the inflator. In subsequent years, the cap will go up, that is a virtual certainty. Term limits have had just a big a hand in inflating AAVs as the cap increasing, if not more. I'm pretty sure that when players like Doughty or Karlsson on D and Stamkos or Tavares at F come up for renewals, their AAVs will be close to or greater than Subban's and Toews.

Doughty and Karlsson both have 4 years left on their contracts, plus the rest of this season. So Phaneuf will still likely have a top-10 cap hit until that happens. And even if Subban's contract is used as the new benchmark, $2mil is a pretty small gap in salary to go from a top-5 defenceman to Phaneuf, who even by his biggest fans would probably fall closer to 20th among the top defencemen.

 

[bustaheims]

Does anybody rate Phaneuf as one of the top defensemen in the league?

Top handful? No, obviously not. But top 20 or so, yeah. A lot of people. No one is arguing he's an elite player, but, he's a top pairing calibre defenceman, regardless of what his detractors say about him. I just feel like people don't have a realistic handle on what that means because, well, the only top pairing types they get to see a full season's worth of play is the one on the Leafs' - and, as a fan base, we have a tendency to really focus on and overstate the errors that the team's prominent defencemen make. When you do that, it makes it really hard to see the good and it makes the bad look much more significant.

 

[ZBBM]

Does anybody rate Phaneuf as one of the top defensemen in the league?

Top handful? No, obviously not. But top 20 or so, yeah. A lot of people. No one is arguing he's an elite player, but, he's a top pairing calibre defenceman, regardless of what his detractors say about him. I just feel like people don't have a realistic handle on what that means because, well, the only top pairing types they get to see a full season's worth of play is the one on the Leafs' - and, as a fan base, we have a tendency to really focus on and overstate the errors that the team's prominent defencemen make. When you do that, it makes it really hard to see the good and it makes the bad look much more significant.

I appreciate the politeness of your phrasing.  Other people on here have told us Phaneuf critics that, basically, we don't know enough about the game to criticize him the way we do.  To them I say , hogwash.  I don't believe any other top-20 d-men make as many egregious mental mistakes as Phaneuf does, nor do I think any of them quit on plays as much as he does.  The additional fact that he's supposedly the team leader just makes it all that much harder to swallow.

I don't care if others belittle my opinion, but not only is Phaneuf not a top-20 defensemen, he's not even a top-pairing defenseman ... on any team that has designs on a championship, that is. 

 

[bustaheims]

I don't care if others belittle my opinion, but not only is Phaneuf not a top-20 defensemen, he's not even a top-pairing defenseman ... on any team that has designs on a championship, that is.

And, I'd strongly disagree with that. He may not be the #1 guy on a championship calibre team, but he would still be a top pairing calibre guy. The most recent Cup champions, for instance, only have 1 defenceman who should be playing ahead of Phaneuf.