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

[losveratos]

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.

Exactly this.

I would love, absolutely love to see a list of 60 Dmen better than Phanuef. I mean seriously here people. Top pairing in the NHL means that you're in the top 60 Dmen in the league. Maybe you don't think he's top 10 or 20 or 30 but c'mon. There's a point in their somewhere when you need to admit that he doesn't slide below 60th place. And if you really do believe that. Then you're the person with the problem that needs to be righted, not Dion.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

Exactly this.

I would love, absolutely love to see a list of 60 Dmen better than Phanuef. I mean seriously here people. Top pairing in the NHL means that you're in the top 60 Dmen in the league. Maybe you don't think he's top 10 or 20 or 30 but c'mon. There's a point in their somewhere when you need to admit that he doesn't slide below 60th place. And if you really do believe that. Then you're the person with the problem that needs to be righted, not Dion.

Ah, once again I'm right, and the rest of the world is wrong.  I've found myself in this position before.

EDIT: May I add, losveratos, that you need to read my post more carefully.  As in, the very last part.

 

[Deebo]

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.

Those are just two examples. There are a number of contracts that will be signed in the next few offseasons that will make Dion's look more in line with the current market rate. Just off the top of my head: Yandle, Seabrook and Hedman as UFAs could end up with contracts in Dion's range and Murray, Trobua, Rielly, Jones and Maata could all end up with 5M+ cap hit as RFAs if they forego bridge contracts.

The Leafs were in the position where they were among the first teams that had to lock up a core player in the new CBA. The cap hits signed before term limits are artificially lower (Kieth, Weber, Suter). These players have cap hits much lower than their actual salaries. If the Leafs could have added years at the end of the deal with low salary amounts, it would lower the AAV to closer to match the scale of those higher end players level, but, unfortunately, that option was not available so the AAV is high.

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.

On the flip side, ~2M is pretty small gap between Dion and guys like Andrew MacDonald, Mark Streit, James Wizniewski, Matt Carle and Paul Martin, who I think Dion is a fair bit better than.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Jonas Siegel was on TSN Radio today and explained the situation a little more. He said that he wanted to speak to Kessel after the game and even asked the Leafs PR staff for permission to talk to him. During the time after the game where the players come out and the media goes from one to another Kessel never appeared. So after all that Siegel then waited around in the hallways for Kessel to come out and that's when he asked Phil if he had anything to say about the game and that's when Phil gave him his answer.

Now, I still think that Kessel should have just said no comment or whatever, but I also think Siegel was a little out of line here. He made it known that he wanted to talk to Kessel (like every other member of the media surely did) and Kessel didn't comply. He should have left it at that. No other media member lingered around and waited for Kessel to finally leave the building.

 

[losveratos]

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.

Exactly this.

I would love, absolutely love to see a list of 60 Dmen better than Phanuef. I mean seriously here people. Top pairing in the NHL means that you're in the top 60 Dmen in the league. Maybe you don't think he's top 10 or 20 or 30 but c'mon. There's a point in their somewhere when you need to admit that he doesn't slide below 60th place. And if you really do believe that. Then you're the person with the problem that needs to be righted, not Dion.

Ah, once again I'm right, and the rest of the world is wrong.  I've found myself in this position before.

EDIT: May I add, losveratos, that you need to read my post more carefully.  As in, the very last part.

Oh... I'm sorry I didn't take your obvious after thought more seriously. Let's try again.

SC winners for the last 7 years.
LA - 2014 - Dion would be #2 after Doughty
Chicago - 2013 - Dion probably #3 in talent but most likely would be on the first pairing with one of the two moved down to second pairing for more balance.
LA - 2012 - Already discussed
Boston - 2011 - Again probably on the first pairing even with Seidenberg
Chicago - 2010 - Already mentioned prior
Pittsburg - 2009 - All depends on the coach here. Lots of options but I could see Orpik and Phanuef being paired there
Detroit - 2008 - Probably on the first pairing here too. Seeing as this is the year Dion had 17 goals and 43 assists. Would be hard to argue that he'd be anywhere else on any team really. (Again this year only)

Now this is all opinion of course. But at least I'm looking at it with my eyes open. I honestly feel like you don't even try to see it objectively. You're looking at it starting from the point of not liking the player and then expanding on that.

I honestly don't like him myself. I'm not a fan of him being our captain and I'd rather we traded him for a decent return than trying to keep and build around him. But I'm certainly not going to try and argue that he's not a top pairing Dmen on just about every team in the entire league. Trying to argue that stance is nothing but hyperbole.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

Exactly this.

I would love, absolutely love to see a list of 60 Dmen better than Phanuef. I mean seriously here people. Top pairing in the NHL means that you're in the top 60 Dmen in the league. Maybe you don't think he's top 10 or 20 or 30 but c'mon. There's a point in their somewhere when you need to admit that he doesn't slide below 60th place. And if you really do believe that. Then you're the person with the problem that needs to be righted, not Dion.

Ah, once again I'm right, and the rest of the world is wrong.  I've found myself in this position before.

EDIT: May I add, losveratos, that you need to read my post more carefully.  As in, the very last part.

Oh... I'm sorry I didn't take your obvious after thought more seriously. Let's try again.

SC winners for the last 7 years.
LA - 2014 - Dion would be #2 after Doughty
Chicago - 2013 - Dion probably #3 in talent but most likely would be on the first pairing with one of the two moved down to second pairing for more balance.
LA - 2012 - Already discussed
Boston - 2011 - Again probably on the first pairing even with Seidenberg
Chicago - 2010 - Already mentioned prior
Pittsburg - 2009 - All depends on the coach here. Lots of options but I could see Orpik and Phanuef being paired there
Detroit - 2008 - Probably on the first pairing here too. Seeing as this is the year Dion had 17 goals and 43 assists. Would be hard to argue that he'd be anywhere else on any team really. (Again this year only)

Now this is all opinion of course. But at least I'm looking at it with my eyes open. I honestly feel like you don't even try to see it objectively. You're looking at it starting from the point of not liking the player and then expanding on that.

I honestly don't like him myself. I'm not a fan of him being our captain and I'd rather we traded him for a decent return than trying to keep and build around him. But I'm certainly not going to try and argue that he's not a top pairing Dmen on just about every team in the entire league. Trying to argue that stance is nothing but hyperbole.

Thanks for the good post.  It is, of course, just a matter of opinion in the end.  I do think it's significant, though, that there is a legitimate argument about all this.  That alone indicates to me that he's not a slam-dunk top defenseman, however you define that.

I think if you pinned me against the wall, I'd admit that he's in the top 50.  But to me he's at best a 2nd-pairing guy on a true contending team.

And actually, it's not that I dislike him personally (as much as anyone can "like' or "dislike" somebody you've never met ... this is all opinion about his persona as a pro hockey player, not him in real life as a person).  I just don't like his particular game, at this particular pairing, with this particular team.

 

[azzurri63]

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.

Exactly this.

I would love, absolutely love to see a list of 60 Dmen better than Phanuef. I mean seriously here people. Top pairing in the NHL means that you're in the top 60 Dmen in the league. Maybe you don't think he's top 10 or 20 or 30 but c'mon. There's a point in their somewhere when you need to admit that he doesn't slide below 60th place. And if you really do believe that. Then you're the person with the problem that needs to be righted, not Dion.

Ah, once again I'm right, and the rest of the world is wrong.  I've found myself in this position before.

EDIT: May I add, losveratos, that you need to read my post more carefully.  As in, the very last part.

I'm with you McFate.

 

[moon111]

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?

He's a top defenseman like Bryan McCabe was... when he played for Florida.

 

[2badknees]

There was certainly no mistake made in signing him, playing him top minutes, and for me, at least, even extending him.

The mistake was giving him the C, imo.

 

[Kin]

Oh... I'm sorry I didn't take your obvious after thought more seriously. Let's try again.

SC winners for the last 7 years.
LA - 2014 - Dion would be #2 after Doughty
Chicago - 2013 - Dion probably #3 in talent but most likely would be on the first pairing with one of the two moved down to second pairing for more balance.

I think that right there in a nutshell is why your stance of "Phaneuf is indisputably a top pairing guy" is problematic. When it suits you you're using the definition to mean whether or not a coach would actually play him on the top line and other times you're using the definition of where he'd rank on an impartial depth chart. LA almost certainly wouldn't break up the Doughty-Muzzin pairing for Phaneuf and the extent to which Phaneuf is a better player than Muzzin, who has some of the best advanced statistics in the league, is debatable by itself. Likewise it's fairly unlikely that he would insert himself between Kronwall and Lidstrom or Chara and Seidenberg, even if you want to argue that he's a better player than either Kronwall or Seidenberg(and neither of those are slam dunks)

So, honestly, looking at your list it seems to me that there are significantly more examples where Phaneuf would either not be the second best defenseman on the team(Detroit, the two Chicagos, last year's Kings team) or would be used on the second pairing strategically(the first Kings team, Boston) than there are examples where he'd provide a clear improvement to their top pairing(Pittsburgh).

Even if you want to argue the particulars about Phaneuf vs. Muzzin or Kronwall the idea that Phaneuf isn't a top pairing defenseman on most of those teams certainly isn't ridiculous and worthy of the kind of outright dismissal you're giving it.

 

[Kin]

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

But then you're moving the goalposts from the options the Leafs actually had in front of them to what options the Leafs had only if they stuck to their guns with going forward with the current core. Phaneuf could have been traded in the off-season. That was a legitimate option they had. That they refuse to acknowledge the reality of their situation doesn't change that.

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.

It will go up, sure, but the talk we were having a few months or a year ago about future 90+million dollar caps is not necessarily on the horizon. I'm not saying that we won't see AAV's outstrip the sort of back-diving deals on the books, we will, just that the difference between what the top guys get and what Phaneuf is getting won't be enough to change the relative impact of Phaneuf on the team's cap situation. The extra million and a half between him and Subban might, to you, accurately reflect the difference between them in terms of ability but I don't think it fundamentally changes the fact that each guy will almost certainly be their team's highest paid defenseman going forward.

 

[Deebo]

But then you're moving the goalposts from the options the Leafs actually had in front of them to what options the Leafs had only if they stuck to their guns with going forward with the current core. Phaneuf could have been traded in the off-season. That was a legitimate option they had. That they refuse to acknowledge the reality of their situation doesn't change that.

I don't consider Phaneuf being traded during the off-season as a realistic option that would have been considered. Sure, dealing him in the off-season was technically an option but the reality of the situation was they were coming off their first playoff berth in nearly a decade where they took the eventual cup finalists to 7 games. I don't think there are many GMs in the league that would have made the decision to deal their top defender at that point, despite the spectacular fashion in which they lost game 7.

What is your take on the reality of the situation in that off-season, without the benefit of knowing how the next season would unfold?

And as a GM would you really have dealt your top defenseman in that situation?

It will go up, sure, but the talk we were having a few months or a year ago about future 90+million dollar caps is not necessarily on the horizon. I'm not saying that we won't see AAV's outstrip the sort of back-diving deals on the books, we will, just that the difference between what the top guys get and what Phaneuf is getting won't be enough to change the relative impact of Phaneuf on the team's cap situation.

I think the rate at which the cap will increase is impossible for us as fans to predict and one year's growth being projected as minimal or flat doesn't mean that it will continue to be flat or that it won't jump significantly in the following year. There are plenty of things that can happen to cause a sharp increase in HRR or the NHLPA could decide to use the inflator.

The extra million and a half between him and Subban might, to you, accurately reflect the difference between them in terms of ability but I don't think it fundamentally changes the fact that each guy will almost certainly be their team's highest paid defenseman going forward.

Extra 2M, but I don't really understand your point here and I don't even think that's a certainty.

It's 2M they can spend elsewhere in the line up. It could be the difference in paying your 2nd defenseman 5M or 7M, or maybe they can have a another 6-7M forward in the top 6 instead of a 4-5M forward.

If the cap does rise significantly, they could bring in a higher paid defender, or maybe he does get traded later on.

 

[Kin]

I don't consider Phaneuf being traded during the off-season as a realistic option that would have been considered. Sure, dealing him in the off-season was technically an option but the reality of the situation was they were coming off their first playoff berth in nearly a decade where they took the eventual cup finalists to 7 games. I don't think there are many GMs in the league that would have made the decision to deal their top defender at that point, despite the spectacular fashion in which they lost game 7.

What is your take on the reality of the situation in that off-season, without the benefit of knowing how the next season would unfold?

And as a GM would you really have dealt your top defenseman in that situation?

Well, it's a little hard for me to answer that question because if I'm assuming that I got the job as the GM of the Leafs that I'd have done so after an interview where I'd finally sold the board on a full scale rebuild in which case, well, trading Phaneuf would have been part of a full-scale rebuild. So...yes, I would have.

As for the "reality" of that situation I think that's what represents the difference between the two of us in terms of our perception of the Phaneuf deal. You're probably right that this ownership group and the management team at the time wasn't going to make that decision but I don't look at the Leafs making the playoffs in a shortened season with lousy possession numbers and then think an inability to fundamental address the major issues of the team and a need to retain the existing core that made that relatively minor accomplishment possible as much of what's "right" with the Leafs situation as it exists. To me, in a nutshell, it's a sign of just how shortsighted their decision making tends to be.  I mean, if you're already ruling out the right decision, I don't grade too highly for choosing the best of the wrong ones.

Extra 2M, but I don't really understand your point here and I don't even think that's a certainty.

It's 2M they can spend elsewhere in the line up. It could be the difference in paying your 2nd defenseman 5M or 7M, or maybe they can have a another 6-7M forward in the top 6 instead of a 4-5M forward.

If the cap does rise significantly, they could bring in a higher paid defender, or maybe he does get traded later on.

The point isn't that 2 million dollars isn't valuable. The point is that teams don't actually tend to move defensemen who make more than 7 million dollars too often. They don't get traded and they don't typically hit the free agent market. The ones who might be traded, and be worth more than 7 million dollars, will cost hugely in terms of assets and given the Leafs cap situation they're not really in a position where they can be thinking about signing 7+ million dollar free agents without making pretty significant changes to other parts of their lineup.

So regardless of whatever fairly unlikely scenarios might play out in the future signing Phaneuf was a commitment to building the defense largely around him.

 

[L K]

I'd just like to point out that that Carl Gunnarsson guy is off to a great start in St. Louis.  Just saying.

 

[Highlander]

Ya but he is on a well coached team :'(