Captain Phaneuf

[Kin]

I could keep going.  And sure these instances aren't exactly alike, no 2 instances are, but it's complete horse poop saying "good luck signing UFAs if you treat one poorly."

There's a major and fundamental difference between every single one of those situations and what was being talked about. Players everywhere, I think, accept that when they sign a contract they have a responsibility to play up to the level of the contract they signed. Players everywhere also understand that absent a NTC their teams can choose to trade them at any time, regardless of sweet talk. As Yogi Berra once famously said, verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Nobody can legitimately say that Jeff Finger was hard done-by in Toronto. He didn't play well enough to be on the club and, as a result, isn't on the club. That's the case for 90% of your list. They were treated commensurate with how they were playing. Players accept that as a fact of life. As a player agent I'd tell any of my players that if they signed a 5 million dollar a year contract without a NMC that they'd have to provide their team with roughly that level of value or else they could be cut or traded. Similarly, I'd tell each and every one of the players I represented that any deal signed without a NTC should be seen as one that could be moved at any time and that that 5 year/25 million dollar deal in Miami could just as easily be in Winnipeg next week.

What we're talking about is something entirely different. Something that hasn't been seen in the NHL before. The example Bates used was of the guy who's almost certainly going to win the Hart trophy being benched/stuck on the fourth line specifically to exert pressure on him to accept a trade. If that happened you couldn't tell a player "Well, just don't suck and it won't happen to you" because nobody is talking about a player sucking. Nobody would laud that team's commitment to winning because it's insane to think that sticking Malkin in the pressbox would increase their chances of winning. Treating a player with a NMC that badly regardless of how well they're playing is saying it could happen to anyone at any time and that a player's performance is not the determining factor in how he's treated.

Athletes, all their lives, have existed within the sort of peculiar meritocracy that is sports. If you're one of the 20 best guys, you make the team. If you're one of the best guys, you get the most ice time. Help the team win, people are happy with you. Screw up and the team loses and people get pissed. They're on board with that. The team that turns that on it's ear? The team that says treating their players fairly commensurate with their performance is secondary to our every desire being met at every time? That's an organization that absolutely would be treated like they had the plague.

 

[Kin]

Philly totally blindsided Carter before his NTC kicked in.  Jagr and Bryzgalov didn't have any problems signing there.

Carter's an interesting case. For starters, we don't know precisely how "blindsided" he was with the idea that the team wasn't exactly thrilled with him. I'm guessing that, with all the rumours about what was going on in the dressing room and off-ice, that Jeff Carter either did or should have known that the Flyers were having second thoughts about the marriage.

But ignore that for a second. Let's say that's true. Carter had no idea that Philadelphia wanted to deal him and was totally knocked on his butt by it.

Now let's imagine that you're my agent. I'm a young player on the Flyers having a terrific season. Paul Holmgren comes to you and says "Hey Ern, Nik sure is great. We'd like to sign him to a 10 year/50 million dollar contract and don't worry about that year until his NTC kicks in, we wouldn't even think about trading him."

Now, as my agent and someone who saw what went on with Carter, would you take Holmgren at his word on that? Would you advise me to? Would you seriously tell me to put pen to paper on that and assure me I'd be in Philadelphia for the next 11 years?

I'd hope not because A) it'd make you a terrible agent and B) we've developed a good relationship over the years and I'd hate to have to fire you. Holmgren gets to pull what he did with Carter once.

 

[Bates]

Nik I can't find me saying anything here about doing anything to anyone who will certainly win the Hart trophy.  I was responding to the fact that the NHL and NHLPA would not allow a team to do things like benching and such to a player who is good enough to play.  I simply said that neither of the 2 groups did anything about players like Redden and Sourey who I believe are still able to contribute in the NHL.

 

[Kin]

Nik I can't find me saying anything here about doing anything to anyone who will certainly win the Hart trophy.

Here you go

There is no such thing as an "untouchable" in sports.  Pens love Malkin, don't want to trade him.  Now imagine Ducks call offering Getzlaf, Perry, and Ryan.  Malkin is now no longer untouchable.

3 words....

No. Movement. Clause.

Yeah because no one has ever been traded that had a no movement clause. You want rid of someone make Life miserable for them to stay and they will waive quickly.

 

[Bates]

Sorry I was treating those as 2 different answers.  The first answer was in reference to the "untouchables" post before it.  The second answer was in reference to the "no movement clause" and was to a no movement clause in general not in every instance.  I don't believe you will ever see any team pull the 4th line and press box tactic on a player such as a Malkin.  I do think however it can be used on someone like Komi who really needs a new home from his and the team's best interests.

 

[Kin]

Sorry I was treating those as 2 different answers.  The first answer was in reference to the "untouchables" post before it.  The second answer was in reference to the "no movement clause" and was to a no movement clause in general not in every instance.  I don't believe you will ever see any team pull the 4th line and press box tactic on a player such as a Malkin.

Fair enough. That's what I was referring to. Apologies for the mix-up.

  I do think however it can be used on someone like Komi who really needs a new home from his and the team's best interests.

Well, not to be too much of a smart-ass or anything but I'm guessing that threatening Mike Komisarek with the pressbox at this point is like threatening Bernie Madoff with jailtime.

 

[Bates]

This is very true but these are all hypotheticals.  The "untouchables" and "no movement clause" things just seem to me to really be things that don't exist.  I would think though that Komi is a proud guy and would really look at a trade from Burke if it gave him a chance to ressurrect his career as an actual player?

 

[Kin]

This is very true but these are all hypotheticals.  The "untouchables" and "no movement clause" things just seem to me to really be things that don't exist.  I would think though that Komi is a proud guy and would really look at a trade from Burke if it gave him a chance to ressurrect his career as an actual player?

A NMC is a very real thing and something that a team should offer only if they really understand the consequences. Right now the Leafs with Komisarek are seeing what a NMC really means. If you're inclined to offer one as a means to entice someone to sign with you then you have to be mindful of what the downside could be. You can't offer one and then try to wriggle your way out of it because then the next free agent who wants one will know that you don't live by it.

 

[Etiam Vultus]

This is very true but these are all hypotheticals.  The "untouchables" and "no movement clause" things just seem to me to really be things that don't exist.  I would think though that Komi is a proud guy and would really look at a trade from Burke if it gave him a chance to ressurrect his career as an actual player?

I believe that Komi has a no movement clause (so he cannot be sent to the Marlies), but only a limited no trade clause (so he can be traded, but only to certain teams).  According to Gapgeek, Komi provides a list of teams each year by June 15.

Thus, he could be traded if Burke could work out a deal with a team on the list, but he cannot be sent to the Marlies for cap relief.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

This is very true but these are all hypotheticals.  The "untouchables" and "no movement clause" things just seem to me to really be things that don't exist.  I would think though that Komi is a proud guy and would really look at a trade from Burke if it gave him a chance to ressurrect his career as an actual player?

I believe that Komi has a no movement clause (so he cannot be sent to the Marlies), but only a limited no trade clause (so he can be traded, but only to certain teams).  According to Gapgeek, Komi provides a list of teams each year by June 15.

Thus, he could be traded if Burke could work out a deal with a team on the list, but he cannot be sent to the Marlies for cap relief.

I think Komi took his no movement clause too far, thinking that was what was expected of him on the ice.

 

[moon111]

This is very true but these are all hypotheticals.  The "untouchables" and "no movement clause" things just seem to me to really be things that don't exist.  I would think though that Komi is a proud guy and would really look at a trade from Burke if it gave him a chance to ressurrect his career as an actual player?

I believe that Komi has a no movement clause (so he cannot be sent to the Marlies), but only a limited no trade clause (so he can be traded, but only to certain teams).  According to Gapgeek, Komi provides a list of teams each year by June 15.

Thus, he could be traded if Burke could work out a deal with a team on the list, but he cannot be sent to the Marlies for cap relief.

Did you mean Capgeek?  Although I'm sure Gapgeek is a fine source of news information on Komisarek as well.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I know that this topic was last updated in April,  but it seems that Phaneuf has played about as well as people could have expected this past 5 games.

His ice-time is significant;  he plays almost every power-play, and is the go-to shut-down defenceman for the Leafs.

As of today, our captain has the worst plus-minus in the NHL at -8.  (at a stellar 386th place in the stats). Of course, this is only after 5 games.  But in looking at his style, objectively, perhaps it might make better sense to trade him for a bona fide big time NHL goaltender (if available and not Luongo).

He is on every power play but only has 1 assist to date.  His shot is ridiculously heavy (ask Lupul), but it is so ineffective in actually producing scoring chances, and is typically so high, and hardly gets through.

In assessing his ability, relative to the other Leafs defencemen, he can't skate as well as Gardiner, and doesn't have the puck awareness of Liles, nor even the upside of perhaps Rielly.  So given his talent relative to the rest of the Leafs defence, he is expendable, IMHO.  And Gunnar has been playing pretty effectively this year, and is a much more effective defensive defenceman than Phaneuf as well, IMHO.  And Phaneuf is certainly a physical presence, but that may be somewhat overrated in today's NHL, as very few players are intimidated (except for perhaps Phil Kessel) and Phaneuf doesn't really throw a lot of body checks a game, and when he does, it rarely makes a difference on the outcome of the game.

Phaneuf's play benefits from less ice-time rather than more, as he tires easily, and tries to do too much, arguably.  But, like the trade of Schenn,  there is an argument his absence has not  negatively affected the Leafs at all, especially given his lack of agility, and quickness.  And, using Phaneuf in a trade for a big time goaltender (or even one who is above average, whatever that looks like-  t.m.  Down Goes Brown/Bloge Salming), could only benefit the Leafs defensively.

It's still early, but realistically, the Leafs have been pretty mediocre with Phaneuf as captain over the past 3 years, and it doesn't look like it is going to get much better, really soon.

 

[drummond]

As mentioned in Kostka thread, the Leafs should try to maximize what Phaneuf brings to them. He is their best paid guy and captain. Pair him with Gunnar and reduce a little his ice time. He will be excellent No. 1 guy. He can be a beast out there.

 

[PG]

So given his talent relative to the rest of the Leafs defence, he is expendable, IMHO.

Of course he's expendable, the question  becomes is he tradable?

The Leafs acquired him for nothing (now we know why). Since then he has led one of the worst defenses, and captained one of the worst teams, in the league.

Then look at his salary and cap hit. I think the only way the Leafs could move him is if they took back a similarly overpaid player.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

As mentioned in Kostka thread, the Leafs should try to maximize what Phaneuf brings to them. He is their best paid guy and captain. Pair him with Gunnar and reduce a little his ice time. He will be excellent No. 1 guy. He can be a beast out there.

I certainly agree with you that his ice time should be reduced, especially since Gunnar has been playing quite well, and other defencemen can pick up the slack.

But I don't know if he has ever been an excellent #1 guy with the Leafs yet, IMHO (not that it conceivably couldn't happen).

He perhaps benefitted with being handed the captaincy through Burke's machinations  (Quare, whether the Leaf players would have had any say on it, and arguably Lupul would be a terrifc captain, once he can raise his arm again after Phaneuf put him out for about 6 weeks).

The trade with Calgary seemed to be an excellent one, from all indications, at the time.  Phaneuf being traded for ,  well,  a bag of pucks.  (But one can't underestimate how important Stajan's 8 goals were with Calgary last year).   But, from all indications, Sutter is a very fine hockey man, and he probably had several reasons why the Flames would have been better without Phaneuf, rather than with him.

IMHO,  the Leafs might benefit from this line of thinking, especially if they can use Phaneuf in a trade to get a bona fide monster (not Gus, nor a beast ) goaltender.

 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm sure playing him half the game with a 27 yr old AHLer against the other team's best forwards is helping.

 

[Bullfrog]

So given his talent relative to the rest of the Leafs defence, he is expendable, IMHO.

Of course he's expendable, the question  becomes is he tradable?

The Leafs acquired him for nothing (now we know why). Since then he has led one of the worst defenses, and captained one of the worst teams, in the league.

Then look at his salary and cap hit. I think the only way the Leafs could move him is if they took back a similarly overpaid player.

I think you're seriously underrating Phaneuf and his value to any team. I'm not suggesting he's a no.1 guy on every team, but he's a top pairing defenseman, no doubt. I think he's easily tradeable, even if he is slightly overpaid. He's got one more season at a cap hit of $6.5M, but he's only paid $5.5M in that year. I think he's worth $5.5M -- easily -- on the open market.

 

[ZBBM]

Criticisms of Phaneuf are legion but everything is exacerbated by his wearing the C. His icetime could be reduced, he could be demoted go second pairing and there would be little controversy. Not to mention that he has displayed no discernible leadership qualities.

He and Kostka held their own for the half last night but as many have noted in the GDT they cannot handle immense minutes. Only a very few can.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Not to mention that he has displayed no discernible leadership qualities.

I would guess most team captains don't display discernible leadership qualities since most of it probably occurs behind team doors.  On the ice?  I don't know what is expected or what constitutes 'leadership' on the ice, is the fact he's among the most vocal on the ice with his teammates a sign of leadership or just normal?  I don't know, I think it's pretty subjective.  I would consider Sundin to have been a great captain, but I know he was criticized for a long time about his 'leadership'.

 

[Bullfrog]

Criticisms of Phaneuf are legion but everything is exacerbated by his wearing the C. His icetime could be reduced, he could be demoted go second pairing and there would be little controversy.

I think there'd be some controversy on this team, perhaps not so much on another. I can't think of any Leaf that could supplant him as a top pairing d-man. At his best, Gunnarsson has shown that he can be a complementary piece on a top line, but he's certainly not a game-changer.