Should Lupul be captain?

[Highlander]

Maybe Lupul and Phanuef can co-Capitan.  Hell the wardrobes these boys have is on par, why not a capitan for the D and one of the O.

 

[Tigger]

That's why captains are always among the top icetime earners on their team.

They don't have to be, Tom Fitzgerald would be a good example from his Nashville days.

To the op, Lupul already is a voice in the dressing room, does wearing the c change things substantially? I don't think so.

 

[AvroArrow]

I'm not focusing on his 'cons'....You brought the cons up when you gave reasons to trade him.

That's because the cons are the reason I want to move him.  I don't want to move him because he's a pretty good scorer and leader.  Hence, I listed the reasons why I think he should be traded - his cons.  Like I said, you, then, seemed to focus on them.

If all you expect to get out of Lupul is a Kulemin type player and a pick or prospect I'd  ask why you'd want to move him at all?

This team is obviously better with Lupul in the line up than out of the line up. Adding another plugger like Kulemin isn't going to offset that.

In terms of direct assets back, yes, a Kulemin level player, maybe a pick, or prospect.  But we also get cap space, something we're sorely lacking and is required for us to be able to make moves to shake up and improve this team.



Look, trading Lupul isn't my first preference.  In my perfect world, we get rid of Clarkson, Bozak if we can sign Stastny or similar, Orr, Fraser, McLaren.  However, it seems unlikely many, if any, of that will happen any time soon, given Clarkson and Bozak were recently signed, and Carlyle likes the pugilists.  Given that, I see moving Lupul as an option, and I've pointed out reasons why it might make sense.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not focusing on his 'cons'....You brought the cons up when you gave reasons to trade him.

That's because the cons are the reason I want to move him.  I don't want to move him because he's a pretty good scorer and leader.  Hence, I listed the reasons why I think he should be traded - his cons.  Like I said, you, then, seemed to focus on them.

If all you expect to get out of Lupul is a Kulemin type player and a pick or prospect I'd  ask why you'd want to move him at all?

This team is obviously better with Lupul in the line up than out of the line up. Adding another plugger like Kulemin isn't going to offset that.

In terms of direct assets back, yes, a Kulemin level player, maybe a pick, or prospect.  But we also get cap space, something we're sorely lacking and is required for us to be able to make moves to shake up and improve this team.



Look, trading Lupul isn't my first preference.  In my perfect world, we get rid of Clarkson, Bozak if we can sign Stastny or similar, Orr, Fraser, McLaren.  However, it seems unlikely many, if any, of that will happen any time soon, given Clarkson and Bozak were recently signed, and Carlyle likes the pugilists.  Given that, I see moving Lupul as an option, and I've pointed out reasons why it might make sense.

I completely understand what you're saying. I just don't agree is all.

You'd rather make the team worse to open up cap space? I mean, that's the only reason to move Lupul isn't it?

But none of that was my original point. My original point was why do you move your 2nd or 3rd best player for a 3rd or 4th liner unless you plan on blowing up the whole team.

 

[AvroArrow]

I completely understand what you're saying. I just don't agree is all.

You'd rather make the team worse to open up cap space? I mean, that's the only reason to move Lupul isn't it?

But none of that was my original point. My original point was why do you move your 2nd or 3rd best player for a 3rd or 4th liner unless you plan on blowing up the whole team.

If all you do is move Lupul for a serviceable roster player or pick, prospect, whatever, then sure, you're likely going to make the team worse.

However, the point is opening up the cap space to improve the team.  For instance, that cap space could be used to acquire a legit #2 dman to play alongside Phaneuf.  It's meant as a step to greater things.


Edit: Just to be clear, you'd probably want to make this move with a plan already in place for said "greater things".  Preferably, they already have the 2nd deal already in place.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

To the op, Lupul already is a voice in the dressing room, does wearing the c change things substantially? I don't think so.

I don't think so either.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

I completely understand what you're saying. I just don't agree is all.

You'd rather make the team worse to open up cap space? I mean, that's the only reason to move Lupul isn't it?

But none of that was my original point. My original point was why do you move your 2nd or 3rd best player for a 3rd or 4th liner unless you plan on blowing up the whole team.

If all you do is move Lupul for a serviceable roster player or pick, prospect, whatever, then sure, you're likely going to make the team worse.

However, the point is opening up the cap space to improve the team.  For instance, that cap space could be used to acquire a legit #2 dman to play alongside Phaneuf.  It's meant as a step to greater things.


Edit: Just to be clear, you'd probably want to make this move with a plan already in place for said "greater things".  Preferably, they already have the 2nd deal already in place.

There is no need to trade for a #2 d-man as long as Gunnarson and Phaneuf are playing well together.  if a trade is to be made to have cap space to attract a player who can improve the team, a look at Clarkson should be made first.

If I am GM and considering trading Lupul, I would only do it if I have a winger in the system that is ready to play who would be capable of putting up decent points.  I would trade Lupul, but only for a solid centre.  If I cannot get that, I am keeping Lupul. 

 

[AvroArrow]

There is no need to trade for a #2 d-man as long as Gunnarson and Phaneuf are playing well together.  if a trade is to be made to have cap space to attract a player who can improve the team, a look at Clarkson should be made first.

Have you seen the "quality" of our defense?  Listen, Gunnarson has performed admirably, but he's NOT a #2.  I haven't liked his game since he was thrust into that role.  We need a legitimate #2 guy, so that Gunnarson can go back to a #3-4 dman where he belongs and performs better.

I've already indicated my first preference is to move more useless players like Clarkson, but I just don't think that's realistic.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Perhaps we should be asking, what did the Leaf captains of the past embody?  George Armstrong, Darryl Sittler, Wendal Clark, Doug Gilmour to name a few.

Further, how does Dion Phaneuf measure up to the above-mentioned, for instance? 

In the '60s, Armstrong, while not quite being a true fan favourite, was a big reason for that Leafs team's success.  It is said that most of the Leaf players hated coach Imlach and that they didn't win the Cup for him.  They won it for the fans and particularly for captain Armstrong, whom the players liked, both as a person and as a player.

Darryl Sittler, in the '70s, had his battles with Ballard, but was well-liked and a fan favourite, in terms of his playing style and leadership qualities.

Same can be said for both Clark and Gilmour.

Now, if one had to choose starting over, which player on this current Maple Leafs team would match some of the descriptions of captains past?  Who leads?  Who motivates? Who is well-liked, respected both as a player & person by the team members?  Who is the fan favourite, which applies to many a captain of the past.  Important factor?  (Perhaps, perhaps not).

 

[Optimus Reimer]

There is no need to trade for a #2 d-man as long as Gunnarson and Phaneuf are playing well together.  if a trade is to be made to have cap space to attract a player who can improve the team, a look at Clarkson should be made first.

Have you seen the "quality" of our defense?  Listen, Gunnarson has performed admirably, but he's NOT a #2.  I haven't liked his game since he was thrust into that role.  We need a legitimate #2 guy, so that Gunnarson can go back to a #3-4 dman where he belongs and performs better.

I've already indicated my first preference is to move more useless players like Clarkson, but I just don't think that's realistic.

I would be one of the first ones to bash on Phaneuf, but he and Gunnarson have been playing decently together, considering they have been defending against the other teams top line.  Part of the problem is the defensive system that Carlyle is implementing which is far too passive as compared to last season.  Wilson used it, it didn't work then and it will not work now, the only difference is they have the players now that can play under a more agressive system.