Phaneuf to Oilers (fair warning - it's Eklund)

[Kin]

so when the oppositions top line is on the ice for 20-25 mins a game, you're suggesting that we defend them with a different pairing each time?

Well, first of all, there were only two forwards in the entire league who averaged more than 22 minutes a night so an opposition's top line playing 25 minutes a night is not something that comes up much but more to the point it's not like Phaneuf or any defenseman was playing exclusively against another team's top line. 3:24 of Phaneuf's ice time, for instance, is on the power-play. Then there's things like player fatigue, 50% of the games where the other team has the last change and some of Phaneuf's shifts being ones where he's counted on offensively and he's probably seeing no more than 12-15 minutes of the other teams top line per night at most.

So I'm not really suggesting anything other than what's happening anyway.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

and there is the bell to start the opening round... 

hahahaha!

 

[Bullfrog]

so when the oppositions top line is on the ice for 20-25 mins a game, you're suggesting that we defend them with a different pairing each time?

Well, first of all, there were only two forwards in the entire league who averaged more than 22 minutes a night so an opposition's top line playing 25 minutes a night is not something that comes up much but more to the point it's not like Phaneuf or any defenseman was playing exclusively against another team's top line. 3:24 of Phaneuf's ice time, for instance, is on the power-play. Then there's things like player fatigue, 50% of the games where the other team has the last change and some of Phaneuf's shifts being ones where he's counted on offensively and he's probably seeing no more than 12-15 minutes of the other teams top line per night at most.

So I'm not really suggesting anything other than what's happening anyway.

Regardless, that 12-15 minutes is now going to be defended by a lesser quality defenseman, and that's just not good.

Now, if the defense as a whole got better, I might be OK with it. That that clearly isn't the case yet.

 

[Kin]

Regardless, that 12-15 minutes is now going to be defended by a lesser quality defenseman, and that's just not good.

Well, two ways of looking at that I suppose. One, yeah, if we're supposing that Phaneuf is the team's best defensive defenseman then anyone other than him taking those minutes hurts the team. On the other, though, if those 12-15 minutes(and that still strikes mee as a high side estimate) are re-distributed among the team and no one player takes the majority of the burden then while the defense may be less good they also on the whole might be less tired.

Considering the way the team exited thev playoffs, and in general could get cooped up at the end of games, there may be something in the idea that Dion getting 25+ minutes a night wasn't super-duper effective anyway.

 

[ZBBM]

Regardless, that 12-15 minutes is now going to be defended by a lesser quality defenseman, and that's just not good.

Well, two ways of looking at that I suppose. One, yeah, if we're supposing that Phaneuf is the team's best defensive defenseman then anyone other than him taking those minutes hurts the team. On the other, though, if those 12-15 minutes(and that still strikes mee as a high side estimate) are re-distributed among the team and no one player takes the majority of the burden then while the defense may be less good they also on the whole might be less tired.

Considering the way the team exited thev playoffs, and in general could get cooped up at the end of games, there may be something in the idea that Dion getting 25+ minutes a night wasn't super-duper effective anyway.

For sure.

And is Phaneuf truly our best defensive defenseman?  Distributing some of his minutes to, say, Gunnarsson might not be a bad idea.

 

[bustaheims]

And is Phaneuf truly our best defensive defenseman?  Distributing some of his minutes to, say, Gunnarsson might not be a bad idea.

Considering they tend to be paired together, perhaps Gunnarsson is not the best candidate. 

It wouldn't be about shifting Phaneuf's minutes to another specific dman, but, rather, spreading that pairing's minutes between the other two pairings.

 

[ZBBM]

And is Phaneuf truly our best defensive defenseman?  Distributing some of his minutes to, say, Gunnarsson might not be a bad idea.

Considering they tend to be paired together, perhaps Gunnarsson is not the best candidate. 

It wouldn't be about shifting Phaneuf's minutes to another specific dman, but, rather, spreading that pairing's minutes between the other two pairings.

Well, Gunnar doesn't play as many minutes as Phaneuf, right?  So giving more of them to him is the same difference. 

But yeah, sure, spread them around among Gunnar, Fraser, even Franson, who seemed to get better defensively as the year went on.  The main point is that most everyone agrees that he plays too many minutes, and my point is that distributing them elsewhere, if done properly, wouldn't mean a drop off in defensive quality.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, Gunnar doesn't play as many minutes as Phaneuf, right?  So giving more of them to him is the same difference.

That's really only because Phaneuf gets a lot more PP time, and those are minutes you're not going to give to Gunnarsson. Their ES and SH times are pretty close.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

And is Phaneuf truly our best defensive defenseman?  Distributing some of his minutes to, say, Gunnarsson might not be a bad idea.

Considering they tend to be paired together, perhaps Gunnarsson is not the best candidate. 

It wouldn't be about shifting Phaneuf's minutes to another specific dman, but, rather, spreading that pairing's minutes between the other two pairings.

I wonder what they'll do this season.  While Gunnarsson still was the player Phaneuf played most with, it was fairly close with Holzer and Kostka.

For me the issue is less that he plays too many minutes, it's that he was playing those minutes with guys like Holzer and Kostka.  Pair him with Gunnarsson all year and I don't think it's such an issue.

 

[The_Gipper]

re-distributing the minutes is fine, but to my original point about trading Phaneuff...  if they do trade him and don't find a replacement, are we all ok with the defensive 6 going into opening night being:
Gunnarsson, Franson, Liles, Gardiner, Fraser, and Holzer???

some good offensive upside in their, but i'd worry about how good they'll be when it comes to defending their own zone.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm not ok with that at all. That's not even close to being good enough for a contender. Ideally, they need to add someone that's better than Phaneuf so that he becomes the #2 guy. Or at least someone as good as Phaneuf so the team has options.

 

[Kin]

re-distributing the minutes is fine, but to my original point about trading Phaneuff...  if they do trade him and don't find a replacement, are we all ok with the defensive 6 going into opening night being:
Gunnarsson, Franson, Liles, Gardiner, Fraser, and Holzer???

No but that doesn't strike me as being all that likely. I think that if Phaneuf gets traded that wouldn't be the top six, either because someone came back in a trade in some capacity, another free agent was signed or someone like Rielly makes the team.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not ok with that at all. That's not even close to being good enough for a contender. Ideally, they need to add someone that's better than Phaneuf so that he becomes the #2 guy. Or at least someone as good as Phaneuf so the team has options.

But, the real question is, how close is this team to actually being a contender, even with the current top 6 including Phaneuf? If they're 3 or 4 years away, do you not use those big assets(Phaneuf), to gain some skill in other areas if you feel that your current prospects can step into Phaneuf's shoes in 2 or 3 years? I mean, do we feel Gardiner has what it takes to be a #1? If so, losing Phaneuf shouldn't hurt as much as some may think.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't believe there's currently any player in the Leafs' system that will grow to be able to replace Phaneuf. There's some good players, but I'm not sure they have the total package that he has. Gardiner and Rielly may end up being better offensive players, but they don't have 1/2 his physical game and I'm not sure their defensive game will get as good. Who knows though?

 

[Kin]

I don't believe there's currently any player in the Leafs' system that will grow to be able to replace Phaneuf. There's some good players, but I'm not sure they have the total package that he has. Gardiner and Rielly may end up being better offensive players, but they don't have 1/2 his physical game and I'm not sure their defensive game will get as good. Who knows though?

I don't necessarily think that you need a Phaneuf-type going forward though. Even if we're taking the "Phaneuf is good at everything" perspective I think you can look at, say, a team like LA and see that they built their cup winning defense less around the idea of having one guy who was their do-everything guy and more around having a ton of balance. In that regard Rielly doesn't have to be Phaneuf, he has to be more like a guy like Drew Doughty.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm not ok with that at all. That's not even close to being good enough for a contender. Ideally, they need to add someone that's better than Phaneuf so that he becomes the #2 guy. Or at least someone as good as Phaneuf so the team has options.

But, the real question is, how close is this team to actually being a contender, even with the current top 6 including Phaneuf? If they're 3 or 4 years away, do you not use those big assets(Phaneuf), to gain some skill in other areas if you feel that your current prospects can step into Phaneuf's shoes in 2 or 3 years? I mean, do we feel Gardiner has what it takes to be a #1? If so, losing Phaneuf shouldn't hurt as much as some may think.

If Gardiner and Rielly are the future of the backend it seems pretty clear that neither will be a physical dman like Phaneuf is.  That is, if either Gardiner or Rielly rise to #1 status on the team it's because they will be playing a game similar to Leetch's or Lidstrom's, that is, as primarily positional defenders.  So if Phaneuf goes they need to decide whether to replace him with someone who can play big physical minutes or else bank on Gardiner/Rielly stepping up their defensive games to a very high level.

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm not ok with that at all. That's not even close to being good enough for a contender. Ideally, they need to add someone that's better than Phaneuf so that he becomes the #2 guy. Or at least someone as good as Phaneuf so the team has options.

But, the real question is, how close is this team to actually being a contender, even with the current top 6 including Phaneuf? If they're 3 or 4 years away, do you not use those big assets(Phaneuf), to gain some skill in other areas if you feel that your current prospects can step into Phaneuf's shoes in 2 or 3 years? I mean, do we feel Gardiner has what it takes to be a #1? If so, losing Phaneuf shouldn't hurt as much as some may think.

If Gardiner and Rielly are the future of the backend it seems pretty clear that neither will be a physical dman like Phaneuf is.  That is, if either Gardiner or Rielly rise to #1 status on the team it's because they will be playing a game similar to Leetch's or Lidstrom's, that is, as primarily positional defenders.  So if Phaneuf goes they need to decide whether to replace him with someone who can play big physical minutes or else bank on Gardiner/Rielly stepping up their defensive games to a very high level.

The Lidstrom/Leetch comparisons are really good templates to use. Your best d-man doesn't have to be a bone crunching ogre.  Your best d-man/men have to be able to shut down the best opposing attackers.  Neither of those example players were the strongest but they were both strong in their own right, had very quick sticks and were the best skaters on the team.  Both Gardiner and Rielly fit that bill for the most part.  I'm not sold on Gardiner being the most intelligent player out there but he can make up for small errors with his skating, like a Paul Coffey. Rielly I think has the intelligence to go along with all the physical assets to be a legit #1, minus the nasty factor.  He is already very strong though. 

And if you get that from one or both, you offset what might be a lack of size with a d-partner who does have the size and crunch. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not ok with that at all. That's not even close to being good enough for a contender. Ideally, they need to add someone that's better than Phaneuf so that he becomes the #2 guy. Or at least someone as good as Phaneuf so the team has options.

But, the real question is, how close is this team to actually being a contender, even with the current top 6 including Phaneuf? If they're 3 or 4 years away, do you not use those big assets(Phaneuf), to gain some skill in other areas if you feel that your current prospects can step into Phaneuf's shoes in 2 or 3 years? I mean, do we feel Gardiner has what it takes to be a #1? If so, losing Phaneuf shouldn't hurt as much as some may think.

So if Phaneuf goes they need to decide whether to replace him with someone who can play big physical minutes or else bank on Gardiner/Rielly stepping up their defensive games to a very high level.

That's the same question I asked.

And my point is, why does that replacement have to be right now? Why does it have to occur in the Phaneuf deal or in this off season?

Is this team ready to contend now? Or will they hopefully be able to contend in a couple more years?

Personally I think they'll compete for a playoff spot but are nowhere near contending for the cup. So, if the hole left by trading that asset can be filled from within, why not trade it to fill a hole you feel can't be filled from within.

 

[Redleaf]

Berger speculates...

Source tells me speculation that #Leafs have discussed a trade involving captain Dion Phaneuf is accurate. And, with more than one team.

I know it is Berger, but he was right about the Leafs getting Clarkson....

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Well, if all this stuff about Phaneuf getting traded is correct, Nonis better hit a home run on the return.