Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Luongo for Phaneuf

Discussion

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
43 replies to this topic

#31 sunkist469

sunkist469

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 11

Posted 17 June 2012 - 11:51 PM

Heck no to Phaneuf.........he's bloody awful.......have u not watched any leaf games over the past 2years............the ONLY benefit to that trade would be his girlfriend...........

#32 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,964 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 17 June 2012 - 11:57 PM

Heck no to Phaneuf.........he's bloody awful.......have u not watched any leaf games over the past 2years............the ONLY benefit to that trade would be his girlfriend...........

Put Phaneuf beside a d man like Hamhuis and watch his game flourish. Toronto has no defenseman on their team like Hammer.

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#33 erkayloomeh

erkayloomeh

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Posted 18 June 2012 - 08:58 AM

Put Phaneuf beside a d man like Hamhuis and watch his game flourish. Toronto has no defenseman on their team like Hammer.

a guy that makes 6 mil a year should be the key guy on the defensive pair. he shouldnt be the kind of guy who needs to play with so and so so he can be effective
if we were going to give up assets like lou to land phanuef why wouldnt we just add a mil to it and land a guy like suter for 7 mil and not give up assets?
GOD BE PRAISED

#34 Blömqvist

Blömqvist

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 09

Posted 18 June 2012 - 11:25 AM

Luongo for Phaneuf

then...

Edler, Ballard + more for Weber

Phaneuf ~ Weber
Hamhuis ~ Bieksa
_______ ~ Tanev

Every pizza is a personal pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.


#35 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 June 2012 - 11:55 AM

I personally think Luongo is more valuable than Phaneuf. I am sure TO sees it differently. I think if the trade is straight up Canucks get shafted. Also I don't think TO would do this since they made him Captain but in my mind Burke would be an idiot not take this trade and make off like a theif in the night.
Posted Image

#36 canucks10271999

canucks10271999

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 12

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:15 PM

Oh for the sweet love of douchecanoes, you made almost 2,000 posts, you've been here 2 years, you KNOW there have been numerous threads on this trade alone, nevermind all the other infinite TOR/VAN proposals and yet you still make one to feel special.

Quit disrespecting the members with your redundancy.

what are you talking about

#37 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:40 AM

Normally I'm a cynical a-hole about proposals but the more I think about it the more I would love to have Phaneuf.

He'd thrive in our system with Edler.

Edler - Phaneuf
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Salo (Assuming he mostly likely isn't retiring, or pop in Garrison, Alberts or Tanev)

Tanev - Alberts

My counter trade is:

To Toronto:

Luongo (G)
Raymond (F) (RFA)

To Vancouver:

Phaneuf (D)
Gustavsson (G) (UFA)




MG would definitely want a goalie back. One of Riemer or Scrivens? plus Colborne and a 3rd round pick for LU?

Edited by WHL rocks, 19 October 2012 - 02:50 AM.


#38 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:42 AM

Luongo for Phaneuf

then...

Edler, Ballard + more for Weber

Phaneuf ~ Weber
Hamhuis ~ Bieksa
_______ ~ Tanev


Weber. That pipe dream is over.

Edited by WHL rocks, 19 October 2012 - 02:51 AM.


#39 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:47 AM

I would like Phaneuf, he could be the big name defencmen that we're missing. But if we get Phaneuf, I would trade Bieksa and sign another right side dman (Garrison).

To STL: Bieksa
To VAN: Perron

To TOR: Lu
To VAN: Phaneuf

Sign Garrison

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Perron-Kesler-Booth
Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen
Weise-Manny-Kassian

Hamhuis-Phaneuf
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev


Bieksa just signed an extension with a full NTC. He took less to stay here, not going anywhere.

Schneider, Ballard and our 1st for Phaneuf and Gustafsson

Edler - Phaneuf
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Alberts - Salo
Tanev

Luongo
Gustafsson

That defence is going to win a Cup. It is built for the playoffs. That sort of physicality and size is how you go far, and is the perfect mix of skilled puck-movers (Bieksa, Edler), big shots (Salo, Phaneuf), big hitters (Phaneuf, Edler, Hamhuis, Alberts), solid defensive positioning (Hamhuis, Salo) and great leadership (Salo, Bieksa, Phaneuf).

Keep Luongo, he has playoff experience and has proven himself in big games - Schneider has not and will take a while to gain that experience. Enjoy your cup folks.

Schneider alone would be a huge overpayment for Phaneuf.

Edited by WHL rocks, 19 October 2012 - 02:48 AM.


#40 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,964 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:58 AM

Schneider, Ballard and our 1st for Phaneuf and Gustafsson

Edler - Phaneuf
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Alberts - Salo
Tanev

Luongo
Gustafsson

That defence is going to win a Cup. It is built for the playoffs. That sort of physicality and size is how you go far, and is the perfect mix of skilled puck-movers (Bieksa, Edler), big shots (Salo, Phaneuf), big hitters (Phaneuf, Edler, Hamhuis, Alberts), solid defensive positioning (Hamhuis, Salo) and great leadership (Salo, Bieksa, Phaneuf).

Keep Luongo, he has playoff experience and has proven himself in big games - Schneider has not and will take a while to gain that experience. Enjoy your cup folks.

You're not serious, right? I really hope you aren't serious.

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#41 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 19 October 2012 - 03:46 AM

So the Question is.

If you were offered Dion for Lu would you do it?

(I just wanna say I doubt Burke would) But if he was willing to part with him would you want him?


I'm a big Phaneuf fan and I think he'd have a major impact on our team; I'd definitely do this deal. Far better than any of the crap that we're rumoured to be getting back from Toronto (Gunnarrson, Colbourne, etc.).

I'd even be fine adding onto Luongo if it meant getting back Phaneuf. He's a difference-maker.

#42 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:07 PM

I'm a big Phaneuf fan and I think he'd have a major impact on our team; I'd definitely do this deal. Far better than any of the crap that we're rumoured to be getting back from Toronto (Gunnarrson, Colbourne, etc.).

I'd even be fine adding onto Luongo if it meant getting back Phaneuf. He's a difference-maker.


Phaneuf might do well here. Certainly he'd have a better choice of talented players with which to be paired, so that would help his game right there.

A thing which I do not care about is his contract. The amount is pretty rich ($6.5 million), but of greater significance is that he has only two years left on it. When he does look for a new deal, I'm not sure that the Canucks would want to pay him (or could afford to, with the potential new CBA) anything close to that amount, so I could see the team losing him to free agency, or perhaps we would see him being traded off as a rental to some other team at the deadline (depending on how the playoff situation looks at that time). Is two years of Phaneuf worth it? Maybe. It could depend on what he wants in two years time, and/or what the team can get for him in a trade.

I believe Gillis has made it known that he wants at least an impact roster player and a prospect for Luongo. In order to get those types of assets, I think he will likely also have to be willing to accept back a "bad contract". Phaneuf could fit the bill on both counts: he can be an impact player and he has (IMO) a bad contract (as in, he is being paid more than he has shown he is worth).

Something which getting Phaneuf does not address is the need for a top-6 RW, and perhaps a third line center. These needs are perhaps greater than that of getting another d-man.

I'd definately be looking for something more than just Phaneuf coming back here (such as the afore-mentioned top-6 RW or 3C), and I wouldn't be surprised to see more than just Luongo being traded to Toronto (or whichever team the Canucks wind up trading with, whenever it happens, and assuming that there is actually a trade). Insert calls for Ballard and/or Raymond to to traded: HERE. There is also the issue of number of contracts which a team can hold. The Canucks are at 48, while the Leafs are at 50 (not counting RFA Franson), so the Canucks could accept back an extra contract or two, if the other team made it worth their while.


regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 19 October 2012 - 01:11 PM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#43 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,964 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:16 PM

I'm a big Phaneuf fan and I think he'd have a major impact on our team; I'd definitely do this deal. Far better than any of the crap that we're rumoured to be getting back from Toronto (Gunnarrson, Colbourne, etc.).

I'd even be fine adding onto Luongo if it meant getting back Phaneuf. He's a difference-maker.

The question is, if we got Phaneuf, would you go with defense

Edler - Phaneuf
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Garrison

Or, would you package Edler for a top six forward and be left with this

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Phaneuf - Garrison
Ballard - Tanev

Still a rock solid defense. All Canadian top 4 too.

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#44 bossram

bossram

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,943 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 10

Posted 19 October 2012 - 05:04 PM

I don't think Luongo for Phaneuf is that bad of a deal. I would do it. We still get an impact player back in the deal. It's insurance in case Edler leave for free agency and in the process we get an impact player.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Garrison
Ballard - Phaneuf

Nice defense. I'd avoid putting Edler and Phaneuf together though. Would be too many mistakes. We'd still have to shed salary elsewhere. We might just have to find a way to ditch Ballard anyway.
What is the deal with Mike Gillis, it always seems like he's sweating...




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.