• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Phaneuf To Sens

I mean, I'm not going to lie, there's a little part of me that's disappointed. Last year we were talking about a 1st and a really good prospect as a potential return. And over the years I've vacillated between the "Phaneuf's a bum" camp and the "Phaneuf is a perfectly acceptable 2/3 defenseman who's being overpaid by a million or so but who would look really good on the right team" and there's absolutely no way to look at this trade other than the League is firmly in the former camp. An ok prospect, a 2nd rounder next year and a bunch of contracts, none of which figure to be flippable? That's would be a somewhat disappointing return for Polak, let alone Phaneuf.

But I'm in the majority here I guess. It's so hard to move salary that I get the garbage pile in return and I know the 1st and a prospect talk was probably a pipe dream. If trading Phaneuf was as hard as this makes it seem then I guess any return is a win. Best they could do, I guess.
 
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.
 
Nik the Trik said:
I mean, I'm not going to lie, there's a little part of me that's disappointed. Last year we were talking about a 1st and a really good prospect as a potential return. And over the years I've vacillated between the "Phaneuf's a bum" camp and the "Phaneuf is a perfectly acceptable 2/3 defenseman who's being overpaid by a million or so but who would look really good on the right team" and there's absolutely no way to look at this trade other than the League is firmly in the former camp. An ok prospect, a 2nd rounder next year and a bunch of contracts, none of which figure to be flippable? That's would be a somewhat disappointing return for Polak, let alone Phaneuf.

But I'm in the majority here I guess. It's so hard to move salary that I get the garbage pile in return and I know the 1st and a prospect talk was probably a pipe dream. If trading Phaneuf was as hard as this makes it seem then I guess any return is a win. Best they could do, I guess.

And -- of course -- it clears all obstacles for a run at Stamkos, should that come to pass.  He's the only big-ticket FA the Leafs are likely to consider during the rebuild.
 
Does anybody remember what we traded to Calgary to get Phaneuf? If I'm not mistaking it was a multi player deal as well.
 
Bender said:
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.

It's a little like the Boston/Thornton trade in that the biggest asset the Bruins received in return was cap space. And for all the flak that trade received, they couldn't have signed Chara without it (and they wouldn't have won a Cup without Chara).
 
Nik the Trik said:
I mean, I'm not going to lie, there's a little part of me that's disappointed. Last year we were talking about a 1st and a really good prospect as a potential return. And over the years I've vacillated between the "Phaneuf's a bum" camp and the "Phaneuf is a perfectly acceptable 2/3 defenseman who's being overpaid by a million or so but who would look really good on the right team" and there's absolutely no way to look at this trade other than the League is firmly in the former camp. An ok prospect, a 2nd rounder next year and a bunch of contracts, none of which figure to be flippable? That's would be a somewhat disappointing return for Polak, let alone Phaneuf.

But I'm in the majority here I guess. It's so hard to move salary that I get the garbage pile in return and I know the 1st and a prospect talk was probably a pipe dream. If trading Phaneuf was as hard as this makes it seem then I guess any return is a win. Best they could do, I guess.

The 1st and prospect involved Toronto retaining salary and taking Weiss, no?

That's how I recall the rumour anyway.

 
Nik the Trik said:
I mean, I'm not going to lie, there's a little part of me that's disappointed. Last year we were talking about a 1st and a really good prospect as a potential return. And over the years I've vacillated between the "Phaneuf's a bum" camp and the "Phaneuf is a perfectly acceptable 2/3 defenseman who's being overpaid by a million or so but who would look really good on the right team" and there's absolutely no way to look at this trade other than the League is firmly in the former camp. An ok prospect, a 2nd rounder next year and a bunch of contracts, none of which figure to be flippable? That's would be a somewhat disappointing return for Polak, let alone Phaneuf.

But I'm in the majority here I guess. It's so hard to move salary that I get the garbage pile in return and I know the 1st and a prospect talk was probably a pipe dream. If trading Phaneuf was as hard as this makes it seem then I guess any return is a win. Best they could do, I guess.

What would be a comparable to what you were expecting in the last couple of years?
 
soc7 said:
Does anybody remember what we traded to Calgary to get Phaneuf? If I'm not mistaking it was a multi player deal as well.

From Calgary:  Phanuef, Aulie, Sjostrom
From Toronto:  Stajan, White, Hagman, Mayers
 
Bender said:
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.

Which is fine, I guess, if the perception out there is that Phaneuf is so bad that if he were a free agent this year he'd be lucky to be fielding offers. I didn't really look at him that way. Would he get 5/35 as a UFA? No. But 5/27.5? 4/22? Those seem reasonable. So the idea that Phaneuf's contract was some sort of boat anchor doesn't entirely work for me.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
And -- of course -- it clears all obstacles for a run at Stamkos, should that come to pass.  He's the only big-ticket FA the Leafs are likely to consider during the rebuild.

Leaving aside what CtB has said about that working out anyway, I don't like the idea of making moves with that in mind given how tenuous a possibility it is or if it's even the right way to go in the first place.
 
http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=867969
Lou certainly has things to say certainly about the Phaneuf trade. Certainly.

You've been complimentary of Phaneuf during your time in Toronto, what about this trade made you willing to deal him?

Well first of all, you're right Chris [Johnston]. I've been extremely impressed with Dion from day one. As I mentioned consistently, I came in with no preconceived notions so I really didn't know what to expect other than what there was as far as hearsay at different times. He has been impressive in every way whatsoever. The phone call I had with him, I expressed that. I meant it sincerely. He has been a great leader, he has handled every situation that's been asked of him and he is going to be missed, there's no question. But, a transaction like this has to be made for the reasons that they're made. That is staying with the plan that's in place.

What made Lindberg an attractive prospect to you to be included in the deal?

Well we certainly, as I've said repeatedly, have an outstanding scouting staff with Mark Hunter and his group. Mark had him very high on his list and we felt very comfortable that when we had to select players -- whenever you put this type of transaction together -- that he was one individual prospect that we targeted and he became part of the deal. He's a size and strength forward and he'll be given every opportunity. He'll be reporting to the Marlies but we'll look and see exactly how he'll fit into our prospects that we have.

How does this trade get you closer to being a good team two or three years down the line?

First of all I think the length of Dion's contract and the amount of cap space that is there, where that would put us at a given time, certainly not knowing where the cap will go -- and I always have had a feeling that it would level off -- this gives us the opportunity to do things. It also gives us the opportunity when some of our younger players are coming at the end of their entry-level contracts, who we have high expectations for, to be able to sign them. This was a transaction that certainly wasn't for today. Dion is going to leave, certainly, a hole in our lineup, there's no question. I think that what, as I've said continuously what the overall plan is, when you have an opportunity to do this -- and I don't think we're going to sacrifice anything up front. We hope with the players we did acquire who have potential -- one being an established forward who should fit into our top-six next year -- that what our coaching staff can do with them and sometimes a change of scenery bring the most out of someone. This is a transaction that I think we had no choice with.

[...]

Was there interest from another team that made you think of a different transaction?

You really don't want me to talk about that do you?... I have no comment on that.

How difficult is it with the salary cap being flat to pull off a deal like this and how quickly did it come together?

It's an understatement to say how difficult it is these days. Bryan and I have done a big deal -- when I say a big deal, not as many players -- back in the early 2000s. I think the relationship is where, when you get in to a conversation you either know whether you're going to be able to go forward or not. There's not any back and forth. The respect and understanding we have of each other, we've been in the business a while. It was something that came about, we had conversations, we spent the time necessary that had to be done. As far as how long it took, this is something that came off over the last week or so.

If you want to know how many times Lou says "certainly" in the interview, read the rest at the link above!
 
Nik the Trik said:
Bender said:
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.

Which is fine, I guess, if the perception out there is that Phaneuf is so bad that if he were a free agent this year he'd be lucky to be fielding offers. I didn't really look at him that way. Would he get 5/35 as a UFA? No. But 5/27.5? 4/22? Those seem reasonable. So the idea that Phaneuf's contract was some sort of boat anchor doesn't entirely work for me.

Maybe not a boat anchor, but a problem in a sense that the teams that could have offered a pick and prospect wouldn't have been able to fit him under the cap without moving a piece that they potentially wanted to keep.  Also there is the fear that the cap is going down or staying the same again next year.
 
Patrick said:
The 1st and prospect involved Toronto retaining salary and taking Weiss, no?

That's how I recall the rumour anyway.

It is. But to me that would still be preferable if such a deal were out there. The idea that the Leafs would really need that cap space before the Weiss contract expires concerns me and there you're adding two really solid assets.

But, again, if that deal wasn't there it wasn't there.


Significantly Insignificant said:
What would be a comparable to what you were expecting in the last couple of years?

I don't entirely understand this question.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
And -- of course -- it clears all obstacles for a run at Stamkos, should that come to pass.  He's the only big-ticket FA the Leafs are likely to consider during the rebuild.

Leaving aside what CtB has said about that working out anyway, I don't like the idea of making moves with that in mind given how tenuous a possibility it is or if it's even the right way to go in the first place.

Oh, I agree that it's not a slam-dunk to go after Stamkos even if he's available.  And I think their prime motivation was moving an overpaid player who is not central to the team they want to build.  But if Stamkos goes FA and IF they want to tender an offer, it's much less onerous on the franchise now.  I'm sure Stamkos was a secondary, but still significant, part of the thinking.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Bender said:
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.

Which is fine, I guess, if the perception out there is that Phaneuf is so bad that if he were a free agent this year he'd be lucky to be fielding offers. I didn't really look at him that way. Would he get 5/35 as a UFA? No. But 5/27.5? 4/22? Those seem reasonable. So the idea that Phaneuf's contract was some sort of boat anchor doesn't entirely work for me.

It would also depend how much value a team or GM places upon that cap flexibility as well as how many teams have the cap flexibility for the remainder of his deal.  While his deal isn't necessarily a boat anchor, how many teams would be interested in it going forward for the full length of the deal (with uncertainty surrounding the cap)?  Teams have to fit Phaneuf into their cap, and if you're looking to add him you're probably not too far off contending and you likely have your own players set for raises, etc.

I think it becomes very tricky moving big contracts.  Management probably saw the odds of moving him dwindling by the end of each passing year.

I think the salary cap sort of skews actual player on-ice value.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Patrick said:
The 1st and prospect involved Toronto retaining salary and taking Weiss, no?

That's how I recall the rumour anyway.

It is. But to me that would still be preferable if such a deal were out there. The idea that the Leafs would really need that cap space before the Weiss contract expires concerns me and there you're adding two really solid assets.

But, again, if that deal wasn't there it wasn't there.


Significantly Insignificant said:
What would be a comparable to what you were expecting in the last couple of years?

I don't entirely understand this question.

I was wondering if there was a player that you felt was comparable to Dion that got dealt over the last couple of years that set the sort of going rate that you were expecting for him.
 
Significantly Insignificant said:
Maybe not a boat anchor, but a problem in a sense that the teams that could have offered a pick and prospect wouldn't have been able to fit him under the cap without moving a piece that they potentially wanted to keep.  Also there is the fear that the cap is going down or staying the same again next year.

Sure, but moving a piece you potentially want to keep goes hand in hand with acquiring a player of value. Again, I'm ok if this trade is saying that the "You know, Phaneuf would actually make a pretty good #2/great #3" people were if not wrong then at least out of step with NHL GM's but otherwise it's hard to read this trade as being particularly good.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Bender said:
Yeah but you know as well as anyone term is the biggest factor. There's no value in carrying a guy who will hamstring you for years going forward. Polak doesn't carry the same commitment. That's what they're paying for, imo, less as much ability.

Which is fine, I guess, if the perception out there is that Phaneuf is so bad that if he were a free agent this year he'd be lucky to be fielding offers. I didn't really look at him that way. Would he get 5/35 as a UFA? No. But 5/27.5? 4/22? Those seem reasonable. So the idea that Phaneuf's contract was some sort of boat anchor doesn't entirely work for me.

That the Leafs got a second rounder  and/or a  4th round prospect without retaining salary is terrific, IMHO.  Phaneuf wasn't good enough to justify any other trade, really.

Phaneuf's value could not be any higher than that, which ostensibly Lou calculated.  In fact with this deal, he just justified his hiring by Shanahan, IMHO.

And, this is (certainly for me at least)  a  great day to be a Leaf fan (after 6 long years of watching somewhat less than stellar defence).
 
Significantly Insignificant said:
I was wondering if there was a player that you felt was comparable to Dion that got dealt over the last couple of years that set the sort of going rate that you were expecting for him.

Bouwmeester? It's a different term, obviously, but again it's hard for me to look at Phaneuf's term as being an outright negative.
 
cabber24 said:
Next captain? I was say no one right now but if I had to pick someone I would pick... Riley?

For now, how about Kadri?  Of course, we all know the boy from Markham is awaiting... :)
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top