Captain Phaneuf
- Thread starter Fanatic
- Start date
Optimus Reimer
New member
moon111 said:
Edmonton would have to be on crack to make that trade, unless there were others involved.
Champ Kind
New member
Optimus Reimer said:
While I agree that Edmonton would have to be crazy to trade the first overall for Phaneuf, the bashing this guy gets is so over-the-top. He's a very good defenseman. Not great. He's still young enough that he's got time to mature into an even better player. But he's not a Weber, Chara, Karlsson, etc. But is that his fault? Is it his fault Sutter gave him a, what is now in hindsight, ridiculous contract? Is it his fault he's not particularly charismatic? Did he petition for the 'C' by befriending Burke and Nonis and politik like #28 (well, maybe, I don't know)? What I'm saying is that the criticisms levied against Phaneuf are the result that he's an easy target. But making it seem like he's a worthless pile of manure with no value to the team or across the League is crazy to me.
Too many minutes. Too much emphasis. Lack of strong support around him. All of these can be rectified. If and when they do, you'll see a much more effective player.
Optimus Reimer
New member
Champ Kind said:
The criticisms in Calgary against him are pretty much the same here. Yes he can nail someone into next week with one of his checks, and for sticking up for his team mates, he is right up there. However, he is prone to turnovers, he takes silly penalties because he gets caught out of position and he plays too soft sometimes for a player who is supposed to be physical. When a player's negative reputation does not change from team to team, it will be difficult to change.
However, I do agree with your other point. Maybe if the defensive system changes under Carlyle that provides better support between the forwards and d-men, then perhaps Phaneuf will be more effective. Until then, if I am another GM, unless I knew my coach had a really good defensive system, and unless my coach really wanted Phaneuf on the team, I would not consider trading a 1st for him.
moon111 said:
I think that trade would be a huge win for the leafs, which is why Edmonton would not do it. A#1 overall forward will usually become a top-10 forward league-wide in their prime. It would open 6.5 million in cap space that could be used for, perhaps Suter as a UFA. Even if we could not fill the space properly this offseason, it would be great longer term.
Andy007
Active member
I'm not sure the market is that big/attractive for Phaneuf. EDM won't give up the 1st overall pick for him, even with a big salary dump included.
I wonder about a team like Montreal. They could use a solid D with offensive potential and would love to get out under the Kaberle contract. Would anyone do Phaneuf for Kaberle and Montreal's 2nd (33 overall)?
I wonder about a team like Montreal. They could use a solid D with offensive potential and would love to get out under the Kaberle contract. Would anyone do Phaneuf for Kaberle and Montreal's 2nd (33 overall)?
I think - well I know - Burke is not trading Phaneuf unless he's offered
a Getzlaff or Perry or Eric Staal etc. No one in the NHL would do this for a captain that picks a scrap and then backs down 3/4 of the time. If he traded him for less, he'd have to admit that his choice of cornerstone/captain was wrong. And we all know that just ain't happening.
a Getzlaff or Perry or Eric Staal etc. No one in the NHL would do this for a captain that picks a scrap and then backs down 3/4 of the time. If he traded him for less, he'd have to admit that his choice of cornerstone/captain was wrong. And we all know that just ain't happening.
I don't know if its as impossible as you think (re traking phaneuf) Burke did it with beauchemin and versteeg. Also, to me the most telling thing is that at the year end presser Elliot Friedman asked burke if he had a list of untouchables. Burke said he had to think about it but that it was a fair question that he would answer it later.
If the captain was untouchable wouldn't burke have started with him...or at least given the schenn trade deadline answer (nobodies untouchable but we're not shopping him blah, blah, blah)
so maybe burke is considering moving some of the big guns if the return is good enough.
If the captain was untouchable wouldn't burke have started with him...or at least given the schenn trade deadline answer (nobodies untouchable but we're not shopping him blah, blah, blah)
so maybe burke is considering moving some of the big guns if the return is good enough.
Bates said:
While it is literally true that any player can be part of a trade, there are some players who are so exceptionally unlikely to be traded that it is not worth wasting time discussing it. In such situations, people use the word untouchable. For example: "Chara is untouchable." "Lidstrom is untouchable"
Spare Change
New member
Bates said:
3 words....
No. Movement. Clause.
maplesyrup
New member
I'd be shocked if we traded Phaneuf but Pittsburgh's woes on D have me thinking abut a deal with the principles being Phaneuf and Staal.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Sarge said:
When they have Letang and Martin already, how does acquiring an offensive-minded d-man, and giving up one of the better defensive centers, help their D woes?
