Phaneuf To Sens

[Bullfrog]

The business side of this has been reported horribly.

The Leafs ate far more of Phaneuf's contract (between a quarter and a third) than they did Kessel's (around 15%). Taking back excess salary is the same as eating salary (except it's actually worse financially, because it's accelerated, in the Phaneuf case - which we all like because it accelerates the cap hit).

The business side of this doesn't really matter to MLSE. Look at the Clarkson for Horton trade, they're clearly fine with having to eat money if it means giving the Leafs a better chance to win in the future.

All the meaningful cost they've acquired in this deal is off the books by the end of next season too. So this is  a good thing.

 

[Frank E]

The business side of this has been reported horribly.

The Leafs ate far more of Phaneuf's contract (between a quarter and a third) than they did Kessel's (around 15%). Taking back excess salary is the same as eating salary (except it's actually worse financially, because it's accelerated, in the Phaneuf case - which we all like because it accelerates the cap hit).

There's a lot less risk associated with the Greening/Michalek/Cowan contracts than Phaneuf's.  They add up to more than Phaneuf's deal over the next year and a half, but after that they're $0.  Phaneuf deal carries a commitment of another 5 years and $33m after this one.

 

[ensco]

The business side of this has been reported horribly.

The Leafs ate far more of Phaneuf's contract (between a quarter and a third) than they did Kessel's (around 15%). Taking back excess salary is the same as eating salary (except it's actually worse financially, because it's accelerated, in the Phaneuf case - which we all like because it accelerates the cap hit).

The business side of this doesn't really matter to MLSE. Look at the Clarkson for Horton trade, they're clearly fine with having to eat money if it means giving the Leafs a better chance to win in the future.

All the meaningful cost they've acquired in this deal is off the books by the end of next season too. So this is  a good thing.

Oh it's all good. In fact it's all fantastic. Especially the cap management part.

My comment is narrowly on the absurdity of saying that "unlike the Kessel deal, the Leafs didn't retain salary on Phaneuf". They did, and in size, just in a different, cap friendly way.

 

[Bender]

The business side of this has been reported horribly.

The Leafs ate far more of Phaneuf's contract (between a quarter and a third) than they did Kessel's (around 15%). Taking back excess salary is the same as eating salary (except it's actually worse financially, because it's accelerated, in the Phaneuf case - which we all like because it accelerates the cap hit).

The business side of this doesn't really matter to MLSE. Look at the Clarkson for Horton trade, they're clearly fine with having to eat money if it means giving the Leafs a better chance to win in the future.

All the meaningful cost they've acquired in this deal is off the books by the end of next season too. So this is  a good thing.

Oh it's all good. In fact it's all fantastic. Especially the cap management part.

My comment is narrowly on the absurdity of saying that "unlike the Kessel deal, the Leafs didn't retain salary on Phaneuf". They did, and in size, just in a different, cap friendly way.

That would be a completely definition of "retaining salary" than what it is in reality. What they did was TAKE BACK salary in a trade. The percentages and overall cost is irrelevant to us in the short term and they'll all be off the books before we will be adding meaningful players/paying future contracts.

 

[ensco]

The business side of this has been reported horribly.

The Leafs ate far more of Phaneuf's contract (between a quarter and a third) than they did Kessel's (around 15%). Taking back excess salary is the same as eating salary (except it's actually worse financially, because it's accelerated, in the Phaneuf case - which we all like because it accelerates the cap hit).

The business side of this doesn't really matter to MLSE. Look at the Clarkson for Horton trade, they're clearly fine with having to eat money if it means giving the Leafs a better chance to win in the future.

All the meaningful cost they've acquired in this deal is off the books by the end of next season too. So this is  a good thing.

Oh it's all good. In fact it's all fantastic. Especially the cap management part.

My comment is narrowly on the absurdity of saying that "unlike the Kessel deal, the Leafs didn't retain salary on Phaneuf". They did, and in size, just in a different, cap friendly way.

That would be a completely definition of "retaining salary" than what it is in reality. What they did was TAKE BACK salary in a trade. The percentages and overall cost is irrelevant to us in the short term and they'll all be off the books before we will be adding meaningful players/paying future contracts.

Fine.

Anyways, Phaneuf's market value was around $5M a year for 5 years, and the difference had to be made up somehow. This is how they did it, because Ottawa wants/needs cap space this year and next, and the Leafs don't.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I agree that, in hindsight, Kessel's value may not be perceived higher today than in July.  But the market, now, ostensibly is that even Phaneuf's salary doesn't need to be retained.  And Kessel is much more attractive a trade option than Phaneuf ever would be now, or in the future.

The only reason the Leafs didn't need to retain salary was because they were willing to give Phaneuf away for such a low asset cost. I'm sure if they were willing to give Kessel away for nothing they probably could have gotten him completely off the books as well.

And if the market still is that Kessel's salary in part would have to be retained, why would the Leafs have to make a trade then or now?

Because they're rebuilding. Trading the pieces on your roster for cap space/young assets is an integral part of that. They didn't "have" to trade Phaneuf either.

Phaneuf was virtually untradeable, but for recent discussions with Murray in Ottawa.  Aside from that, was there any other team that was even interested in him or taking on his contract?  I'm not sure there was.

By almost all reports Detroit was interested last year, the Leafs were just faced with the reality that, like with Kessel, they'd have to eat a bad contract/retain salary if they wanted real assets back.  I don't think Phaneuf's value dropped this year, they just eventually gave up on the idea that they'd get significant assets for him and made a trade where they got very little for him and had to eat less bad contracts.

Ultimately they might very well have been in that situation with Kessel if they'd hung onto him and he'd had the kind of year he's having. They had to bet on which way the market would break with Kessel and right now it looks pretty clear that they made the right bet.

I won't try to go on at length about the difference between the Kessel and the Phaneuf trade as it could be in another thread  (does any one ever think of the poor moderators)?

I agree that there was a possible trade to Detroit about a year ago for a pick and I think Smith.  But Noonis vetoed it apparently.  (This is but one reason why he is no longer a GM perhaps).  But I haven't heard of any other team being remoted interested in Phaneuf over the past 11 months.

Comparing Phaneuf with Kessel in a trade is a difficult thing to do.  Kessel is a goal scorer with terrific speed and talent and can play when he wants to.  Sure he is soft and takes games off, etc., but he was recently a star.

Phaneuf played in one all-star game in the past 6 years.  He has never been a finalist to make an Olympic team, of course.  He is a very decent, classy, guy, who had things happen around him in Toronto that weren' really his fault.

Having said that, he is still, and has been, a very average/slightly above average defenceman who made many mistakes with the puck, and  in getting bad penalties, who didn't score a goal in 11 months on the power play yet still got huge minutes playing it,  and whose skating is mediocre by NHL standards, and 3 or 4 years from now, will likely be even that much more of a liability.

The trade was terrific one for the Leafs, don't you agree??

 

[cabber24]

[tweet]697576994591154176[/tweet]
[tweet]697602929608540161[/tweet]

Maybe he really does suck, I'm actually serious. We have seen this so many times before.

Why is he just watching Zetterberg skate around him? Could you imagine being a Sens fan and watching these highlights?

 

[Captain Canuck]

Got me thinking about how many Newfoundlanders have played for the Leafs, was kind of surprised to find Greening would be just the 4th ever! 

Well, there's only been 28 Newfoundlanders that have played NHL regular season or playoff games, so, it probably shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Apparently it was too much for TSN to handle though. They completely bombed this very topic with their erroneous graphic during the Edmonton game tonight.
Why do actual research when you can fill the t.v. screen with crap?

 

[Kin]

I agree that there was a possible trade to Detroit about a year ago for a pick and I think Smith.  But Noonis vetoed it apparently.  (This is but one reason why he is no longer a GM perhaps).  But I haven't heard of any other team being remoted interested in Phaneuf over the past 11 months.

We didn't really hear that Ottawa was interested until he was traded so I'd say what we hear probably doesn't tell us the whole story.

Either way, the Detroit rumour would have had the Leafs either taking back a terrible contract(Probably Stephen Weiss') or retaining salary so if Nonis did veto it then, if you're in love with this trade, then it was probably a smart decision on his part.

The trade was terrific one for the Leafs, don't you agree??

It's fine, I don't think it's a deal with any real downside but let's not kid ourselves about what it was. Phaneuf is a legit NHL defenseman with a not very good contract and the Leafs traded him for on the whole a worse return than the one they got for Daniel Winnik last year.

Phaneuf isn't Clarkson. It's not a miracle they were able to trade him and, like busta and Carlton said in the thread you started on Phaneuf, there wasn't a pressing need to make a deal. They don't need the space and he wasn't an embarrassment on the ice. By most accounts he was well liked in the dressing room. Just like this deal doesn't really have a downside, neither did keeping him.

I get the desire to start fresh and add an asset with the only real cost being some bad, but not terrible conracts so on the balance I'd probably make this trade if this was the best offer out there but terrific? Nah.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

With respect Cheva I don't think any of the CDN teams are going to be fooled into trading for Phaneuf.

Can we get back to the squabble about how many draft picks & prospects the gracious GM who trades for Phaneuf is going to shower on the Leafs?

I guess the answer is one draft pick and one prospect.

 

[Joe S.]

This accepted notion that Phaneuf is a 5 million defenceman kind of confuses me.

So before he signed this last contract I believe he was making 6.25 or so. Does any one truly believe that he was going to take a 1 mil plus pay cut on his next contract? I just don't get this logic.

He got a 750k raise... I didn't think it was ludicrous.

Healy was the best the day the trace happened. I heard him on the radio calling saying that he's getting paid over 11 million (pause)  Canadian.

Way to use that one to your advantage.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This accepted notion that Phaneuf is a 5 miles defenceman kind of confuses me.

So before he signed this last contract I believe he was making 6.25 or so. Does any one truly believe that he was going to take a 1 mil plus pay cut on his next contract? I just don't get this logic.

He got a 750k raise... I didn't think it was ludicrous.

What does a contract he signed 7 or 8 years ago have anything to do with what his value is today?

 

[ZBBM]

I agree that there was a possible trade to Detroit about a year ago for a pick and I think Smith.  But Noonis vetoed it apparently.  (This is but one reason why he is no longer a GM perhaps).  But I haven't heard of any other team being remoted interested in Phaneuf over the past 11 months.

We didn't really hear that Ottawa was interested until he was traded so I'd say what we hear probably doesn't tell us the whole story.

Either way, the Detroit rumour would have had the Leafs either taking back a terrible contract(Probably Stephen Weiss') or retaining salary so if Nonis did veto it then, if you're in love with this trade, then it was probably a smart decision on his part.

The trade was terrific one for the Leafs, don't you agree??

It's fine, I don't think it's a deal with any real downside but let's not kid ourselves about what it was. Phaneuf is a legit NHL defenseman with a not very good contract and the Leafs traded him for on the whole a worse return than the one they got for Daniel Winnik last year.

Phaneuf isn't Clarkson. It's not a miracle they were able to trade him and, like busta and Carlton said in the thread you started on Phaneuf, there wasn't a pressing need to make a deal. They don't need the space and he wasn't an embarrassment on the ice. By most accounts he was well liked in the dressing room. Just like this deal doesn't really have a downside, neither did keeping him.

I get the desire to start fresh and add an asset with the only real cost being some bad, but not terrible conracts so on the balance I'd probably make this trade if this was the best offer out there but terrific? Nah.

I agree with your basic points but -- didn't Lou say something to the effect that he *had* to make this deal?

 

[bustaheims]

I agree with your basic points but -- didn't Lou say something to the effect that he *had* to make this deal?

I think it was more along the lines that he felt he had to take advantage of this opportunity, as it represented a way to move Phaneuf now, without retaining part of his contract and, also, in a deal that returned quality assets for the Leafs.

 

[ZBBM]

I agree with your basic points but -- didn't Lou say something to the effect that he *had* to make this deal?

I think it was more along the lines that he felt he had to take advantage of this opportunity, as it represented a way to move Phaneuf now, without retaining part of his contract and, also, in a deal that returned quality assets for the Leafs.

Right, but this speaks to a bit more underlying urgency than what Nik was implying.

 

[bustaheims]

Right, but this speaks to a bit more underlying urgency than what Nik was implying.

A very different kind of urgency. There was no pressing need to create the cap space or getting him off the roster. There was, however, a limited window of opportunity to do so in this fashion. The urgency was with this particular deal, but with moving Phaneuf in general.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I agree that there was a possible trade to Detroit about a year ago for a pick and I think Smith.  But Noonis vetoed it apparently.  (This is but one reason why he is no longer a GM perhaps).  But I haven't heard of any other team being remoted interested in Phaneuf over the past 11 months.

We didn't really hear that Ottawa was interested until he was traded so I'd say what we hear probably doesn't tell us the whole story.

Either way, the Detroit rumour would have had the Leafs either taking back a terrible contract(Probably Stephen Weiss') or retaining salary so if Nonis did veto it then, if you're in love with this trade, then it was probably a smart decision on his part.

The trade was terrific one for the Leafs, don't you agree??

It's fine, I don't think it's a deal with any real downside but let's not kid ourselves about what it was. Phaneuf is a legit NHL defenseman with a not very good contract and the Leafs traded him for on the whole a worse return than the one they got for Daniel Winnik last year.

Phaneuf isn't Clarkson. It's not a miracle they were able to trade him and, like busta and Carlton said in the thread you started on Phaneuf, there wasn't a pressing need to make a deal. They don't need the space and he wasn't an embarrassment on the ice. By most accounts he was well liked in the dressing room. Just like this deal doesn't really have a downside, neither did keeping him.

I get the desire to start fresh and add an asset with the only real cost being some bad, but not terrible conracts so on the balance I'd probably make this trade if this was the best offer out there but terrific? Nah.

I agree with the general premise that Lou "had" to make the deal, given what the Sens were offering.  Rhetorically, was there ever going to be a better deal out there for Dion?

And, without attempting to undermine the collective gravitas of busta and CtB and yourself, in my earlier self-serving thread about the perplexing nature of a Phaneuf trade ,  I think that the deal was a very fine one for the Leafs.

And the fact that they may have gotten less for Dion than Winnick last year points to the fact that there wasn't much if any of a market for Dion, really.

And (without going on exhaustively hopefully), the trade of Dion does open up, finally, the issue of Gardiner playing the power play on a regular basis, as well as Reilly.  The Leafs future is with these two defencemen, I would argue, rather than one with Dion.

In fact, it was suggested by one blogger that the reason Dion was playing the power play  as much was to try to get his points up so that he might be tradeable.  It makes as much sense as anything, really, since the fact that he never accelerated over the blueline with the puck while on the power play, and didn't get a  PP goal in 11 plus months, might have meant his time should be limited on the PP.

And I agree that Dion is no Clarkson  (who is, really)?  But I've always felt that comparing him to Clarkson was equivalent to minimizing his faults, or suggesting that he is a bona fide player since Clarkson was not.

Anyways, this is all Ottawa's problem now, in terms of cap space, and trying to maximize whatever offensive talent he has, and minimize any skating and defensive shortcomings, and playing him with a mobile defenceman, etc.

(This should be a happy time, really).

 

[ZBBM]

Right, but this speaks to a bit more underlying urgency than what Nik was implying.

A very different kind of urgency. There was no pressing need to create the cap space or getting him off the roster. There was, however, a limited window of opportunity to do so in this fashion. The urgency was with this particular deal, but with moving Phaneuf in general.

Mmmmm I don't think there's much difference, but it's hardly an important point in any case.

 

[Joe S.]

This accepted notion that Phaneuf is a 5 miles defenceman kind of confuses me.

So before he signed this last contract I believe he was making 6.25 or so. Does any one truly believe that he was going to take a 1 mil plus pay cut on his next contract? I just don't get this logic.

He got a 750k raise... I didn't think it was ludicrous.

What does a contract he signed 7 or 8 years ago have anything to do with what his value is today?

Technically nothing I suppose - but players of his talent have generally gone down in salary?

Out of curiosity, can you give me any kind of example that mirrors his?

I'm genuinely asking - not being difficult.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Technically nothing I suppose - but players of his talent have generally gone down in salary?

Out of curiosity, can you give me any kind of example that mirrors his?

I'm genuinely asking - not being difficult.

Well that's tough to do I guess because Phaneuf is a pretty unique case. He was really such a vastly different defenceman in his early 20s than he was in his mid-to-late 20s. Not even necessarily just in terms of effectiveness but in his style and the way he played.

You've got forwards like Lecavalier, Heatley, Briere, and Roy though who all had pretty drastic drops in performance around that time as well though and their contract history would show that. Obviously I don't think that Phaneuf has played himself out of the league or warranted a buyout like those guys have, but it's similar.