Phaneuf To Sens

[mr grieves]

Likewise, the second rounder being a year out doesn't just throw its value into question based on where it is, it also makes any player taken with it a year further away.

I would buy that argument if the rebuild hinged on trading Phanuef.  I don't think it does.  They could have kept Phanuef, and I would have been okay with it.  A pick in any draft still has value as it is an added prospect in the talent pool.

In the absence of CapGeek or time to explore its replacements, it's hard for me to know... But perhaps it won't be too insulting to ask here: what about keeping a young, emergent just-about-contending core together in 2019 or 2020? Reilly and Kadri need raises now. Before then (?), Nylander, Marner, and this year's first will need a not insubstantial post-ELC contracts. One or two of the scads of 'top 6 potential' prospects might pan out. And aside from needing cap space to pay all those guys, you'll likely want to find value -- not an overpayment -- on the second pairing. The rebuild itself mightn't be contingent on getting rid of Phaneuf, but maybe enjoying its fruits will be.

I understood the point he was making, that the sooner the prospects are taken the sooner they can start to contribute to winning on a cheaper contract.  I was looking at it from the other angle where having a pipeline of prospects coming in isn't necessarily a bad thing.

... Sure. I was just wondering if there being no 35 year old, $7m #3 defensemen on the team in 2019 would be essential to signing Marner, Nylander, 2016 1st rounder, etc.

 

[Kin]

In the absence of CapGeek or time to explore its replacements, it's hard for me to know... But perhaps it won't be too insulting to ask here: what about keeping a young, emergent just-about-contending core together in 2019 or 2020? Reilly and Kadri need raises now. Before then (?), Nylander, Marner, and this year's first will need a not insubstantial post-ELC contracts. One or two of the scads of 'top 6 potential' prospects might pan out. And aside from needing cap space to pay all those guys, you'll likely want to find value -- not an overpayment -- on the second pairing. The rebuild itself mightn't be contingent on getting rid of Phaneuf, but maybe enjoying its fruits will be.

Leaving aside that we don't have any earthly idea what the Canadian dollar/Salary cap will be that far out, you're talking about 4 players really(Rielly, Nylander, Marner, this year's first). Even if they all need extensions in the 6-7 million dollar range(which isn't likely) Phaneuf wouldn't be an obstacle to that unless they already had a ton of untradeable money committed elsewhere.

Making specific plans for that far out is probably not that realistic.

 

[Highlander]

Lets not forget about Stevie S at 10 million for the next 7. Now this is possible without Chicago problems

 

[mr grieves]

In the absence of CapGeek or time to explore its replacements, it's hard for me to know... But perhaps it won't be too insulting to ask here: what about keeping a young, emergent just-about-contending core together in 2019 or 2020? Reilly and Kadri need raises now. Before then (?), Nylander, Marner, and this year's first will need a not insubstantial post-ELC contracts. One or two of the scads of 'top 6 potential' prospects might pan out. And aside from needing cap space to pay all those guys, you'll likely want to find value -- not an overpayment -- on the second pairing. The rebuild itself mightn't be contingent on getting rid of Phaneuf, but maybe enjoying its fruits will be.

Leaving aside that we don't have any earthly idea what the Canadian dollar/Salary cap will be that far out, you're talking about 4 players really(Rielly, Nylander, Marner, this year's first). Even if they all need extensions in the 6-7 million dollar range(which isn't likely) Phaneuf wouldn't be an obstacle to that unless they already had a ton of untradeable money committed elsewhere.

Making specific plans for that far out is probably not that realistic.

I wouldn't normally think so, but some things in LL's comments suggested the front office might be a forward thinking bunch:

Can you say for the record what plan is and how this trade gets you closer to being a good team two or three years down the line?

Lamoriello: 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?ve always had a feeling that it?ll sort of level off ? this gives us the opportunity to do things. But also it gives us the opportunity, when some of our younger players are coming at the end of their ELCs who we have high expectations for, to be able to sign them.

Source: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/02/09/lou-lamoriello-and-mike-babcock-on-the-dion-phaneuf-trade/

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't normally think so, but some things in LL's comments suggested the front office might be a forward thinking bunch:

That's not forward thinking. Forward thinking is putting the cart before the horse, this is swapping the horse for gas money in the hopes that someone invents a combustion engine.

 

[Highlander]

Nik, I gotta ask you how did you grow that brain. I am one for proton energy engines.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Wow, they got nothing for Phaneuf.  You guys are saying no retained salary like it is a victory.  This guy was not one to just dump.  He is a good player and has value.  They should have tried to get something back for him.

I find it funny that people think the group we have now wouldn't, you know, do their job.

What a surprising establishment argument from a shill.  God heavens how can people question the establishment, they only try to do their best and they know better then us.  So for kessel and phanuef we got two b level prospects and a 2nd round pick.  Thats pretty poor value.

 

[sickbeast]

Phaneuf did not fit with the Leafs long term plans. What is so hard to understand about that, Nik?

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

Wow, they got nothing for Phaneuf.  You guys are saying no retained salary like it is a victory.  This guy was not one to just dump.  He is a good player and has value.  They should have tried to get something back for him.

The trade boils down to essentially a second round draft choice and a fourth round prospect.  And the Leafs don't have to retain any of Dion's contract.

If the Leafs could have done better it remains to be seen with what willing trading partner.  And Lou assessed Dion's value as noted above.  IMHO there isn't any chance that they could have received any better because of his skating and agility and puck sense issues.  And it didn't make any sense to keep playing Dion on the power play given how mediocre it was especially with him as a purported quarterback.

(I'm sorry that I'm not sharing your pain).

 

[mr grieves]

I wouldn't normally think so, but some things in LL's comments suggested the front office might be a forward thinking bunch:

That's not forward thinking. Forward thinking is putting the cart before the horse, this is swapping the horse for gas money in the hopes that someone invents a combustion engine.

I guess we're assuming here that the combustion engine was an unknown unknown? But I don't know. Do the Leafs have their horse and cart in, like, 1830 or 1880? What about 1895? And what do they need this cart-horse set-up for? Are they farmers bringing their crop to market? Or blacksmiths selling their wares out of their shop? There's a lot more I need to know.

I don't think there is, really, that much to know for the medium-term with respect to what happens to the core they're assembling, what that means for Phaneuf. Elite prospects becoming good players who need sizable contracts surely isn't that hard to fathom: this a professional league where athletes are paid for their services, compensation is governed by a salary cap, in recent history that has leveled off, entry-level contracts expire, players of similar ability have recently been paid X, players in their mid-30s are becoming more rare and those who are effective at that age -- and worth big contracts -- rarer still... 

And, anyway, whether it's a horse in front of a cart or a cart awaiting an engine, whether this way of thinking is right or makes any bit of sense to you, it seems that's what's happening: "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?ve always had a feeling that it?ll sort of level off ? this gives us the opportunity to do things. But also it gives us the opportunity, when some of our younger players are coming at the end of their ELCs who we have high expectations for, to be able to sign them."

Unless Lou is misleading us and quietly planning to land Stamkos... is that's a proper cart-horse situation, right?

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

To your 2nd point, do you really think if push came to shove any of them would have upped their offer to $7mil on a long-term deal? To me that would definitely have been a hard pass for all of them.

For those guys? No. Because, to me anyway, those guys are all 3/4 guys(and really more 4's). They're good players to add but if any of those guys are in your top 3, there's a pretty safe bet that nobody is talking about your top 3 like it's one of the best in the league. All of those guys are good, NHL defensemen but how excited do you suppose any fans were to add them?

Conversely, when I've been down-ish on Phaneuf some of his bigger advocates here have essentially said that the idea that he's a #3 is ridiculous. That he's an ok #1 or great #2. 25 minutes a night, the other team's best forwards and so on.

So I'm not saying this in an "I was right" sort of sense because like I said I've gone back and forth on him but I was maybe a little higher on him this year and so this return, like I said, is a bit disappointing but not in a "the team did a bad job" sense.

You certainly have summarized the opposite arguments about Phaneuf's ability quite well.

But, really, if Phaneuf was a bona fide #2 defenceman (or a weak #1), doesn't the trade value reflect his talent level most accurately as reflected by GM's.  In other words, the fact that he was traded for not that much may reflect that realistically he is an above average defenceman at best who may be a #3 or even a #4 on a good team.  (But again like Dennis Miller that is just my opinion and I could be wrong....).

 

[Kin]

But also it gives us the opportunity, when some of our younger players are coming at the end of their ELCs who we have high expectations for, to be able to sign them."

It really doesn't. Unless you think all four of the players you're talking about are locks to get double digit extensions Phaneuf's contract doesn't in any way impact the team's ability to get them all signed. Realistically none of those extensions will put the Leafs in a difficult cap position until after the Phaneuf deal expires. The Leafs, right now, have absolutely no real salary(excluding Horton) committed for the 19/20 season. If all 4 of the players you're talking about get 7.5 million extensions and Phaneuf is still around(for one more year) then you'd have 33 million dollars to fill out the roster even if the cap is completely stagnant.

Unless Lou is misleading us and quietly planning to land Stamkos... is that's a proper cart-horse situation, right?

Cap flexibility is a good thing regardless of having specific plans for the cap dollars. This is clearly a trade with that in mind, not one that needed to be made otherwise the Leafs couldn't sign four specific extensions four years from now(which they could anyway).

 

[Captain Canuck]

Jared Cowen will wear #29 for the Leafs.

 

[disco]

"Bottom line... does this make our team beddah."
"Don't you know me beddah than that (insert reporter's name)? I'm
not gonna comment on that."

 

[Redleaf]

Next captain? I was say no one right now but if I had to pick someone I would pick... Riley?

I'm surprised no one has suggested Komorov. Really, he'd make for a pretty great captain. I'd keep him around, slap a 'C' on his jersey, and have the kids watch and learn how to play with passion every shift they get.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm surprised no one has suggested Komorov. Really, he'd make for a pretty great captain. I'd keep him around, slap a 'C' on his jersey, and have the kids watch and learn how to play with passion every shift they get.

And could very easily not be on the roster next season.

 

[Redleaf]

I'm surprised no one has suggested Komorov. Really, he'd make for a pretty great captain. I'd keep him around, slap a 'C' on his jersey, and have the kids watch and learn how to play with passion every shift they get.

And could very easily not be on the roster next season.

Sort of why I added the fact that I'd keep him around.

 

[Peter D.]

So whose return was more disappointing/less than one would have expected -- Kessel or Phaneuf?  My vote goes to Kessel.

 

[cabber24]

I find it a little disrespectful to the players to not assign a captain. It's like management is telling them their not good enough. All the talk around the team is about the management and building for the future. I imagine it's probably frustrating for anyone not in the long term plans. I guess it's motivation to play well enough to get moved to someone who wants you. I know being a hockey player is a good living regardless of the circumstance but having everyone talk around you would probably get old pretty quick.

 

[herman]

Cap flexibility is a good thing regardless of having specific plans for the cap dollars. This is clearly a trade with that in mind, not one that needed to be made otherwise the Leafs couldn't sign four specific extensions four years from now(which they could anyway).

I agree with this. The money saved over the next 5 years gives us plenty of options. This trade was never about the players in the return, but what opportunities it opens up when we're more competitive. That is how you win games with restrictions like the salary cap and contract limits. It was arguably the same for the Kessel and Grabner trades.

To Ottawa:
Phaneuf, Frattin, Bailey, Rupert, Donaghey*
$34.275 M total in salary until 2020/21; $7 M cap hit for 5 years
* ELC ends 2018

To Toronto:
Michalek, Greening, Cowen, Lindberg, 2nd rd. pick
$8.8 M total against the Cap until 2017

We could have lived with Phaneuf on our roster, but there was an opportunity to remove that cap anchor without retaining salary. We still have time to buy out/trade the former Senators for even more options, and a promising 2nd tier prospect (who strikes me as JvR-lite) to boot.