oldnews Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Sure. And that's part of why I never proposed that the Canucks go after him. I've said the above paragraph repeatedly, that he's a transformed Floridian now. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a lot of teams that would have interest, should he decide to want to play elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Key word is in bold. The Toronto Maple Leafs are simply terrible. I'm pretty confident that neither Hamhuis, nor Bieksa, nor (especially not) Edler, would have similar stats on the Leafs that they do on the Canucks. Phaneuf on Vancouver's PP would be scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Like I said, the only team that I could imagine would have any interest would be the Calgary Flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The point you missed is that Phaneuf had 22 power play points last year - that is a full half of his production. Phaneuf's stats are inflated by that whopping 67.5% of their power play time that he enjoys - and aside from that, he is entirely unimpressive. You can say the Leafs are terrible, and they are, but the one thing they have are one-way players like Kessel who make their powerplay their strongest asset. Kessel and Lupul are point a game players. The Leafs can score goals 5 on 4. They are a joke in virtually every other aspect of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Phaneuf is a big part of that simply terrible. He is only a #1 on a terrible team like Toronto - and they are moving quickly to change that fact - a large part of the reason they are holding on for dear life to their young blueliners like Gardiner (and Reilly). The point you missed is that Phaneuf had 22 power play points last year - that is a full half of his production. Phaneuf's stats are inflated by that whopping 67.5% of their power play time that he enjoys - and aside from that, he is entirely unimpressive. You can say the Leafs are terrible, and they are, but the one thing they have are one-way players like Kessel who make their powerplay their strongest asset. Kessel and Lupul are point a game players. The Leafs can score goals 5 on 4. They are a joke in virtually every other aspect of the game. Forget Phaneuf - Garrison's booming point shot will do just fine - and everything else he brings will simply push Phaneuf one spot lower, outside the top 20 of Norris candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 This is not a statistic that is unique to Phaneuf. Edler had 22 points on the PP last year, too. Basically 50% of his points. There are a lot of guys who's stats are padded by PP production. I don't think that renders them any less impressive, because you still have to score (which is why Gillis' whole "we artificially inflated Cody's stats" argument was so ridiculous) - and it can be argued that it's even more impressive, because you're actually under pressure to score in those PP moments. Well, we'll see. You know my thoughts on Garrison, that the signing was not smart, and that it's going to wind up being a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 How can you say that? He's still good! Bad contract, yes. Clearly. But still a productive player with a heck of a resume. Who doesn't need a top-six C with size that can score? The answer is not many teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 His NTC hadn't kicked in yet, so that would be impossible. These are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I would love for people to stop trying to police a hockey discussion for "intelligence" - so that we can simply proceed in an inclusive way, without attempts to exclude posters who are inoffensive, but not perceived by some to be as "intelligent" as themself. You are free to use your "ignore preferences" to ignore the posts, signatures, or messages of any users. There is probably also the option of creating an "intelligent conversations" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I say that simply because he has $48.5 million coming to him over the next 5 years and his $7.7 cap hit makes no sense to a contender, it makes no sense to teams that aren't competitive, it is a very particular context that could potentially have interest - the only type of teams that could consider him are clubs like Calgary who spend recklessly to the cap (but haven't got the cap space for him), or a cap floor deal like Florida made acquiring Campbell (who at this point is a far, far better player than VL imo). Put those terms into contexts and where does he make sense? Most teams could use a top 6 or 9 center yes, but who can afford that contract? It is far different than Luongo's context- unlike Luongo, the cap hit is far too high, unlike Luongo there are signs of decline that have been steady over seasons, unlike Luongo, he does not play a position nor show any signs of being able to sustain his play for another 3, let alone 5 or 8 seasons, and unlike Luongo, he isn't pretty much the only veteran starting goaltender on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Garrison might be a Ballard 2.0 event. He hasn't played one game in a Canucks uniform yet and had only one successful season so far and that, with the Florida Panthers nontheless. Garrison in Vancouver is as a crap shoot as acquiring Ballard. I'd certainly take one Phaneuf (6.500 MIL) over Ballard and Garrison (8.800 MIL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If Lecavalier were to become available, there would be a lineup of teams looking for his services. 30 teams, 600+ players, the demand would definitely be there. Conversely, at this juncture, one could certainly require answers concerning his work ethic and his desire to win. That said, Stamkos has stolen the show away from Lecavalier and he would be better served toiling for another team. If and when he realizes this, then some teams will be bidding for sure. His game would definitely pick up on teams that have shown success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 He struggled with some injuries and finding momentum and trust from AV. He's actually a far better defenseman in reality than a person would suspect if they were to simply read what CDCers have to say. In conclusion: Phaneuf is a Leaf and he sucks - no thanks. Garrison is better. Ballard is misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If Lecavalier were to become available, there would be a lineup of teams looking for his services. 30 teams, 600+ players, the demand would definitely be there. Conversely, at this juncture, one could certainly require answers concerning his work ethic and his desire to win. That said, Stamkos has stolen the show away from Lecavalier and he would be better served toiling for another team. If and when he realizes this, then some teams will be bidding for sure. His game would definitely pick up on teams that have shown success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 But the question is, how many teams that have the cap space to do it, would be willing to take the risk that he ends up being worth his huge cap hit again. Unfortunately (and this is one of things I hate about the way the game has changed throughout time) how much a player makes, and how long he makes it for is becoming just as big of an issue when making a transaction as good the player is, and what the player will bring to your team. It's the sad truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Have truer words even been spoken?? When people assess Ballard all they look at is his cap hit, not what skills he brings. I guess it just ties in with what I said to Canucks_Hockey_101 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Garrison might be a Ballard 2.0 event. He hasn't played one game in a Canucks uniform yet and had only one successful season so far and that, with the Florida Panthers nontheless. Garrison in Vancouver is as a crap shoot as acquiring Ballard. I'd certainly take one Phaneuf (6.500 MIL) over Ballard and Garrison (8.800 MIL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Hey I like Ballard. I think he got a raw deal in Vancouver. No clue why he became AV's punching bag. Just that, the way he's handling adversity, makes him a gent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 It is the sad truth indeed. However, as there are GMs who have overpaid through this last CBA and will continue to outdo each other by overpaying throughout the next CBA, some GMs will take one the Lecavalier, Nash, Thornton, Gomez, Phaneuf of the game. This is a matter of supply and demand and whatever way one cuts it, the amount of above average players are far lower in numbers then the below average players. This is why such players as Lecavalier with his 50 points are in demand from time to time, especially as a 6'4" center; a rare breed. He is only two years removed from 70+ PTS/yr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I didn't say you didn't, I wasn't refering to you about Ballard. When I mention you what I ment was, that it is the same thing I had just said to you, that the contract means just as much as what he brings to some, and to other's its more. And people are blind to when he plays well because all they think about is his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.