The trade deadline and the ostensibly perplexing Phaneuf issue

[ZBBM]

Setting aside the question of whether or not he comes here, IF Stamkos does indeed sign with the Leafs and Phaneuf is still here does anyone see any likelihood of switching the captaincy?

 

[Zee]

Based on the recent reports of Price not looking any better in his rehab, could a potential Reimer to Habs trade happen?  Reimer is playing great this season, and could help those losers win a few games.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't think Phaneuf becomes a must-move until after Nylander and Marner's ELCs are up. I also think that'll be around when other teams start to feel comfortable taking the rest of his contract (assuming he can maintain a level of play similar to what we've seen this season).

Agreed. There are easier options to move to create cap space this summer. Bozak and Lupul can probably be shipped out, and, if the Leafs have to retain on them, it's only for 2 seasons rather than 5. Also, JvR and Komarov can be moved in deals where the Leafs probably get value in return AND don't have to retain cap. It'll be at least 3 years until Phaneuf's cap hit becomes a significant issue, and, at that point, he'll also only have 2 years left on his deal, so biting the bullet and retaining then won't be as painful.

A team can only retain salary on three contracts, no?

Though, Gunnarsson will be off the books next year.

 

[Highlander]

Bernier to the Habs makes more sense, he is actually better getting 40 plus shots a night and can go home to Laval at night.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I think the best case scenario for the Leafs is Phaneuf plays well the rest of the year and they try to move him in the off-season. I think he becomes a must-move player if the Leafs are able/choose to sign Stamkos. They'll need his cap dollars, and probably the C off the front of his shirt. They'll likely do better in a Phaneuf trade once there are more teams that can take on his contract, especially if they're willing to retain some of it.

I think busta and CtB are right about the cap/roster elements of "needing" to trade Phaneuf but I wonder if, like you say, the Captaincy doesn't play a big role in their thinking. Not so much that Phaneuf is a "bad" captain but just that there might be an internal desire to make a break from the group that Burke put together, even if it's just a symbolic one.

Going on the assumption the Leafs sign Stamkos, I would think the captaincy would be part of their pitch to him. He seems like a logical candidate, at this point at least. I agree, the Leafs aren't in cap trouble, and can make space any number of ways. I just don't see how they could sign Stamkos (again, big assumption) without him taking on the C, and how does that look with Phaneuf still on the team? As far as it goes with Phaneuf specifically, I'm really not sure what he's like, but I would assume he's not a bad captain, and probably won't be a part of the new guard.

 

[bustaheims]

A team can only retain salary on three contracts, no?

Though, Gunnarsson will be off the books next year.

Yeah, only 3, and, yeah Gunnarsson comes off after this season. I don't expect the Leafs to retain on a multi-year contract at the deadline this year unless they've already shipped out all the pending UFAs they think they can, but at the draft/in the summer - if they feel that can increase the value of moving someone like Bozak or the potential to move Lupul? I don't why they wouldn't seriously consider it.

 

[Frank E]

There might be, but I imagine that's not something management sees as a pressing issue until they either have someone they feel is the right candidate to replace Phaneuf as captain (which may or may not be Stamkos - and, I feel it's more likely that it's not) or when the team is reaching the point where they're nearly finished tearing away the pieces of the old guard and have assembled most of what they consider to be the new foundation - which is likely still a couple seasons away.

See, I think the trend in recent years though is for teams to really throw their young players into the deep end and say, essentially, "this is your team". I'm thinking specifically of how guys like Toews, Landeskog and so on were given the C's so early in their careers.

With next years team likely to feature Nylander, Marner, Rielly and hopefully this year's #1 pick I do sort of think Phaneuf would be a little out of place, especially if he's not playing at a level that really says "see our captain? Be like him."

So, yeah, you're probably right that it's not pressing in the sense that they'll move heaven and earth to trade him but I would not be surprised if there was a concerted effort in that direction.

Captain Brown in LA, and they're doing fine?

 

[Kin]

Captain Brown in LA, and they're doing fine?

I don't know what you're asking me.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I don't think Phaneuf becomes a must-move until after Nylander and Marner's ELCs are up. I also think that'll be around when other teams start to feel comfortable taking the rest of his contract (assuming he can maintain a level of play similar to what we've seen this season).

Certainly the term "must-move" is a subjective one, depending on the necessity of getting rid of his contract or his mistakes (again the  idiotic pinch in the first minute of the game against Ottawa), etc.

By all accounts, he seems to be  a  classy guy, who is good to the young players.

But, really, is he going to be any better in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now?  Can the Leafs expect to get anything at all in the future for him, especially if his skating  inevitably declines because of age, talent, etc. etc.?

I suggest that it certainly is incumbent on the GM to explore options including trying to trade him now, instead of, say, focusing on seat eligibility for the team's charters, and to ensure that the employees can no longer talk to the media.

 

[hobarth]

I don't think Phaneuf becomes a must-move until after Nylander and Marner's ELCs are up. I also think that'll be around when other teams start to feel comfortable taking the rest of his contract (assuming he can maintain a level of play similar to what we've seen this season).

Certainly the term "must-move" is a subjective one, depending on the necessity of getting rid of his contract or his mistakes (again the  idiotic pinch in the first minute of the game against Ottawa), etc.

By all accounts, he seems to be  a  classy guy, who is good to the young players.

But, really, is he going to be any better in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now?  Can the Leafs expect to get anything at all in the future for him, especially if his skating  inevitably declines because of age, talent, etc. etc.?

I suggest that it certainly is incumbent on the GM to explore options including trying to trade him now, instead of, say, focusing on seat eligibility for the team's charters, and to ensure that the employees can no longer talk to the media.

So are you saying that teams shouldn't be signing players of 27, 28 years old to long term contracts because performance declines are inevitable?

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I don't think Phaneuf becomes a must-move until after Nylander and Marner's ELCs are up. I also think that'll be around when other teams start to feel comfortable taking the rest of his contract (assuming he can maintain a level of play similar to what we've seen this season).

Certainly the term "must-move" is a subjective one, depending on the necessity of getting rid of his contract or his mistakes (again the  idiotic pinch in the first minute of the game against Ottawa), etc.

By all accounts, he seems to be  a  classy guy, who is good to the young players.

But, really, is he going to be any better in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now?  Can the Leafs expect to get anything at all in the future for him, especially if his skating  inevitably declines because of age, talent, etc. etc.?

I suggest that it certainly is incumbent on the GM to explore options including trying to trade him now, instead of, say, focusing on seat eligibility for the team's charters, and to ensure that the employees can no longer talk to the media.

So are you saying that teams shouldn't be signing players of 27, 28 years old to long term contracts because performance declines are inevitable?

Yes you are correct (Mr. Noonis).

 

[hobarth]

I don't think Phaneuf becomes a must-move until after Nylander and Marner's ELCs are up. I also think that'll be around when other teams start to feel comfortable taking the rest of his contract (assuming he can maintain a level of play similar to what we've seen this season).

Certainly the term "must-move" is a subjective one, depending on the necessity of getting rid of his contract or his mistakes (again the  idiotic pinch in the first minute of the game against Ottawa), etc.

By all accounts, he seems to be  a  classy guy, who is good to the young players.

But, really, is he going to be any better in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now?  Can the Leafs expect to get anything at all in the future for him, especially if his skating  inevitably declines because of age, talent, etc. etc.?

I suggest that it certainly is incumbent on the GM to explore options including trying to trade him now, instead of, say, focusing on seat eligibility for the team's charters, and to ensure that the employees can no longer talk to the media.

So are you saying that teams shouldn't be signing players of 27, 28 years old to long term contracts because performance declines are inevitable?

Yes you are correct (Mr. Noonis).

Are you saying TO should only keep players until they're 25 or 26 or 27 then let them walk or trade them?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

http://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/697077329466503169

@TSNBobMcKenzie 

Hearing lots of Dion Phaneuf trade chatter. Starting to think he could actually be dealt before the deadline.

 

[caver]

I wonder what kind of a return that would bring.......

 

[CarltonTheBear]

That would almost be as surprising as the Clarkson trade to me. I really don't see it.

I mean, I guess I could see him going if the Leafs eat salary, but I really don't want to eat any more salary. Especially on a 5-year contract.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I love me some BMcK, but I suspect TSN are projecting a slower than usual deadline day and the footsoldiers have been told to get people salivating.

 

[louisstamos]

Yeah, with 5 years still to go on his deal, I'm don't see Phaneuf being moved at the deadline.  Off-season?  Maybe.  But the deadline is a bit of a stretch.

But you never know.

 

[bustaheims]

That would almost be as surprising as the Clarkson trade to me. I really don't see it.

I mean, I guess I could see him going if the Leafs eat salary, but I really don't want to eat any more salary. Especially on a 5-year contract.

Yeah. I'm sure there are teams kicking the tires on Phaneuf, trying to get him cheap, with the Leafs retaining salary or taking back a serious bad contract. I have my doubts about there having been any real serious conversations and I'll be surprised if it actually happens.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That would almost be as surprising as the Clarkson trade to me. I really don't see it.

I mean, I guess I could see him going if the Leafs eat salary, but I really don't want to eat any more salary. Especially on a 5-year contract.

Yeah. I'm sure there are teams kicking the tires on Phaneuf, trying to get him cheap, with the Leafs retaining salary or taking back a serious bad contract. I have my doubts about there having been any real serious conversations and I'll be surprised if it actually happens.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe the type of team that would be interested in him would have the cap space to make it work at the deadline unless the Leafs are taking a boat anchor of a contract in return. It seems like the poster child for the type of deal that is a draft not deadline day trade.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yeah. I'm sure there are teams kicking the tires on Phaneuf, trying to get him cheap, with the Leafs retaining salary or taking back a serious bad contract. I have my doubts about there having been any real serious conversations and I'll be surprised if it actually happens.

I'd be all for taking on a bad contract if it meant we got some type of value back in return, but keeping some of his cap-hit permanently for 5 more years is a real non-starter. I wish that rule was tweaked a little so teams had the option to retain for say a minimum of 2 seasons (assuming the contract was a multi-year deal).