Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#961 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:26 PM

I think he would be a nice addition, I would love to have him, but if he can't play the right side he would just become another Ballard because I certainly wouldn't play him over Hamhuis, and maybe not even or Edler. So while I think he would be great here, and above average top 4 D-man for sure, I certainly don't think he would be our #1.


I'd post a response, but I wouldn't want facts/stats to affect your opinion of this "above average top-4 d-man" (who has done far more in his career than anyone on the Canucks' D has).

Very reasonable and not surprising at all that you folks would rank Dion behind Jason Garrison.
  • 0

#962 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,711 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

I'd post a response, but I wouldn't want facts/stats to affect your opinion of this "above average top-4 d-man" (who has done far more in his career than anyone on the Canucks' D has).

Very reasonable and not surprising at all that you folks would rank Dion behind Jason Garrison.


That is not saying a great deal .. Dion is a coward at heart .. just ask him ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#963 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:37 PM

I'd post a response, but I wouldn't want facts/stats to affect your opinion of this "above average top-4 d-man" (who has done far more in his career than anyone on the Canucks' D has).

Very reasonable and not surprising at all that you folks would rank Dion behind Jason Garrison.


I would like to see your stats that show he is still a #1. And by that I ment he is top 4 on our team, because I wouldn't play him over Hammer, so he would be 2nd pair. Does that not make sense to you? I don't think he is the defensemen he used to be by anymeans, but he could still be an above average #2/#3. Since it's clear he has shown that he has had trouble being a true blue #1 in Toronto.

Also I never ranked Garrison above Dion.

But again like everyone had said numerous times, certain players can't play the right side, If Phaneuf could play the right side, I would want our D-pairs to be like this:

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Phaneuf
Ballard - Garrison

But someone said he can't so where does he fit? He defiently won't play over Hammer, Edler would probably play over him too.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Garrison
Phanuef - Tanev
Ballard

If you think I am so off with this analogy why don't you actually tell me why you think that and back it up instead of thinking you know so much more than everybody else, when everyone here disagrees with you.
  • 0

zackass.png


#964 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,934 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:45 PM

From the sound of it, I don't think Gillis will trade Luongo this season (if there is one).

If a trade doesn't make us a better team, why do it. There's no more important position than goaltending. If we want another shot at the cup, we have to make sure that position is rock solid.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#965 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:48 PM

Gee fellas, lou and Dion might be team mates in Russia because an NHL season is not looking good.
  • 0

#966 janisahockeynut

janisahockeynut

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 11

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

The thing is, even if Phaneuf was the 30th best defenseman in the NHL, he would still be a #1 Defenseman on "a" team, statistically speaking, and would be a #2, 3 and 4 on all teams, except "maybe" the Canucks, who really don't have IMO a real #1, but actually probably have 4 #2's. With Ballards improved play last year, and the development of Tanev, Connauton, and Sauve, not to mention Alberts, the Canucks really don't need him, especially with the added preasure of a new cap, which will probably be 10 million or so less.
If the Canucks do make a trade, they should probably focus on a up graded young 2nd line play making Centre and a good draft pick and/or a top prospect. Anything else would be foolish. I think you have to stop worrying about who is right and who is wrong, as it doesn't really matter, unless Edler is somehow traded away, and then that starts a whole new arguement.
  • 0

#967 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:43 AM

I'd post a response, but I wouldn't want facts/stats to affect your opinion of this "above average top-4 d-man" (who has done far more in his career than anyone on the Canucks' D has).

Very reasonable and not surprising at all that you folks would rank Dion behind Jason Garrison.

Phaneuf is overpaid which decreases his value. He hasn't had the production he had when he first signed that contract.

I'd say Bieksa is an all around better defenceman. Hamhuis is much better defensively while Edler is better offensviely and around the same defensively.

Phaneuf is better than Garrison.
  • 0

#968 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:19 AM

That is not saying a great deal .. Dion is a coward at heart .. just ask him ..


Interesting, coming from a guy who's defending Bieksa, perhaps the most blatant spot-picker in the NHL.
  • 0

#969 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:23 AM

If you think I am so off with this analogy why don't you actually tell me why you think that and back it up instead of thinking you know so much more than everybody else, when everyone here disagrees with you.


Why? Do you want me to point out the fact that he has more goals, assists, All-Star nominations, he's younger, he's bigger, he's a better bodychecker...?

Everyone here disagreeing with me is not surprising at all. Ask fans of 30 teams if they'd rather have Dion Phaneuf or Dan Hamhuis, and 29 of them would say Phaneuf.
  • 0

#970 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:24 AM

If a trade doesn't make us a better team, why do it. There's no more important position than goaltending. If we want another shot at the cup, we have to make sure that position is rock solid.


Because the trade will make us even less better the longer this drags out.

Lou's value will be headed in one direction as he sits on our bench: down.
  • 0

#971 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:32 AM

The thing is, even if Phaneuf was the 30th best defenseman in the NHL, he would still be a #1 Defenseman on "a" team, statistically speaking, and would be a #2, 3 and 4 on all teams, except "maybe" the Canucks, who really don't have IMO a real #1, but actually probably have 4 #2's. With Ballards improved play last year, and the development of Tanev, Connauton, and Sauve, not to mention Alberts, the Canucks really don't need him, especially with the added preasure of a new cap, which will probably be 10 million or so less.


Is there another guy named "Ballard" on our team?

2010-11: 65 GP, 2 G, 7 P, +10
2011-12: 47 GP, 1 G, 7 P, 0

I'm only seeing two dreadfully unproductive years, not "improved play".

And BTW, a lot of people see the true #1 d-man as what's holding back the Canucks. Not sure that I entirely agree with that or not, but Phaneuf is that guy, that big, physical leader that will play 25 MPG, score goals, and hit people. Shea Weber is deified around here, for example, and he had only 5 more points than Dion did last year - while benefiting from being on a pretty good team.
  • 0

#972 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:39 AM

I'd say Bieksa is an all around better defenceman. Hamhuis is much better defensively while Edler is better offensviely and around the same defensively.


On what grounds can you possibly suggest that Bieksa is a better player than Phaneuf?

And is Edler really better offensively, or has he largely benefited from playing on one of the league's highest-scoring teams (like Ehrhoff did)?

All of this discussion is mostly moot, anyway, as I can't imagine Burke trading him, but it's very interesting at the level of undervaluing people seem to be giving Phaneuf. Overpaid? Maybe. Not to Ballard's level, though, not even close. He's an All-Star defenceman.
  • 0

#973 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:43 AM

Phaneuf is easily a Top 15 dman in the league. He just catches a lot of flack around here because he's played for the Flames and Leafs.
  • 0

#974 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:46 AM

This forum is amazing sometimes.

Popular opinion:

Raymond - Bum
Booth - God

Reality: Raymond has more points per game than Booth has over the last 3 seasons while getting less ice-time and less favourable linemates.

Phaneuf - Bum
Kulemin - God

Reality: Phaneuf scored more goals last season than Kulemin did and Phaneuf is a dman.
  • 0

#975 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,254 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:47 AM

Phaneuf is easily a Top 15 dman in the league. He just catches a lot of flack around here because he's played for the Flames and Leafs.

Couldn't agree more. If Phaneuf had instead played for say, Nashville and Washington, he would be much more liked here.
  • 0

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

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

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


#976 ConnorFutureGM

ConnorFutureGM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:15 AM

On what grounds can you possibly suggest that Bieksa is a better player than Phaneuf?

And is Edler really better offensively, or has he largely benefited from playing on one of the league's highest-scoring teams (like Ehrhoff did)?

All of this discussion is mostly moot, anyway, as I can't imagine Burke trading him, but it's very interesting at the level of undervaluing people seem to be giving Phaneuf. Overpaid? Maybe. Not to Ballard's level, though, not even close. He's an All-Star defenceman.

I am by no means trying to over value Canuck defencemen. I am merely stating that Phaneuf is not that good of a defenceman at least compared to what he makes.

Phaneuf is nowhere near the level of a number 1 defenceman. I'm not even sure if he's a number 2.

Phaneuf gets a lot of attention and ice time in Toronto. He also gets the privilege of not being overly disciplined on his errors.

For defencemen, PP time is absolutely crucial to putting up points and make a big difference in appearance of a defenceman producing.

For example, Phaneuf had 44 points in 82 games last year and was an all star. He's the Leafs captain and according to some (not me) is a #1 defenceman.

Schenn had 22 points in 79 games and was crucified last season in Toronto. Not living up to his potential, constantly in trade rumours and was eventually traded to Philadelphia.

Phaneuf had an average of 3:33 of PP time per game compared to Schenn at 0:03 PP time on ice per game. The difference in their even strength points: Phaneuf had 21 points in 82 games and Schenn had 20 in 79.

There's an argument that Phaneuf isn't even much better offensively than Leaf cast off Luke Schenn and offence is supposed to be Phaneuf's strength and Schenn's weakness.

IMO Toronto is just blowing up Phaneuf stat line and not giving defencemen the opportunities on merit. That is also why Komisarek is getting regular ice time and I'm going out on a limb here but maybe why Franson wants out.
  • 0

#977 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:23 AM

There's an argument that Phaneuf isn't even much better offensively than Leaf cast off Luke Schenn and offence is supposed to be Phaneuf's strength and Schenn's weakness.

IMO Toronto is just blowing up Phaneuf stat line and not giving defencemen the opportunities on merit. That is also why Komisarek is getting regular ice time and I'm going out on a limb here but maybe why Franson wants out.


Schenn getting skewered is a whole other issue. While you make a fair point about ES points, don't forget that of Schenn's 22 total points, only 2 were goals; 1/6 of Phaneuf's total of 12.

Phaneuf has also been a leader ever since he came into the league; correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was even a Norris nomination in his rookie year? I will concede that his career hasn't developed to the extent that most thought it would after his unbelievable rookie season, but he is still very, very good, a top-2 defenceman on any team in the NHL and there aren't many D-men that I'd rather have to build my team around, today. Certainly, not even discussion-worthy, a better player than Kevin Bieksa, IMO. Calgary trading him was incredibly stupid, and Sutter instantaneously turned a legitimate Cup contender into a 9th seed in one fell swoop.

BTW, the whole notion of "stat-padding" is laughable. That's really difficult to do in hockey, unlike basketball. You still have to generate goals/points. Just like the Vancouver Canucks didn't "stat-pad" Cody Hodgson before trading him, Toronto hasn't artificially created an offensive defenceman in Phaneuf. Phaneuf gets the PP ice-time that he does because he's proven himself to be productive in that state of the game repeatedly. His huge shot also doesn't hurt.

BTW as well, Franson is already done with the Leafs.

Edited by King of the ES, 12 November 2012 - 06:27 AM.

  • 0

#978 nzan

nzan

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:07 AM

Couldn't agree more. If Phaneuf had instead played for say, Nashville and Washington, he would be much more liked here.

y'know where he's liked even less? Toronto. the people that watch him on a daily basis can't stand him because he's such a defensive liability.
  • 0

#979 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,169 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:19 AM

You guys are crazy. Phaneuf would be in our top 4, but definitely not a #1. He is not defensively responsible, and can shoot, but not quarterback a PP. He is horribly inconsistent, and previously over rated. I don't think you could convince any hockey people outside Toronto that he was anywhere close to a top 10 D in the league, and likely more towards the bottom of the top 20 if that. I also know a couple people that know him, and apparently he is a douche. Take that for what it is, regurgitated unreliable info, but it doesn't fall far from where I had him estimated.

I agree with your Phaneuf summary except for the top 4 idea. He benefits from the typical TO Laffer pump up. Who are you pushing down Hamhuis or Edler? I have never seen either of those two quit in a game contrart to Dion who has numerous times.
Not a Canuck quality pick. His play has continued to drop since Calgary moved him.
  • 0

#980 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:03 AM

I personally would welcome a Phaneuf trade. He can replace Edler as far as I'm concerned. I feel Edler will be pulling an Ehrhoff and there will not be any replacement for him. Edler disappears in the playoff. If the argument for trading Luongo is that he weakens during the playoffs, the same can be said for Edler. If we could add Byfuglien too, our defense would be an absolute power to play against.

Phaneuf - Byfuglien
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garisson - Tanev

Luongo or Schneider

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 12 November 2012 - 11:29 AM.

  • 0

#981 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,951 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:01 AM

I personally would welcome a Phaneuf trade. He can replace Edler as far as I'm concerned. I feel Edler will be pulling an Ehrhoff and there will not be any replacement for him. Edler disappears in the playoff. If the argument for trading Luongo is that he weakens during the playoffs, the same can be said for Edler. If we could add Byfuglien too, our defense would be an absolute power to play against.

Phaneuf - Byfuglien
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garisson - Tanev

Luongo or Schneider

Wait, so you'd be happy with trading away assets for someone who makes $6.5M rather than re-signing Edler since you think he's pulling an Ehrhoff? I'd much rather have Edler at the $5+M he's going to get than pay more for Phaneuf in cap hit and in what we give up to get him.

I think you've got last year's playoffs too fresh in your mind as well. Edler has been one of our better D-men in a number of series, particularly when it comes to physical play. He is one of the best every year offensively as a bonus.

Here's the stats from the playoffs for the last 4 seasons.
2011/2012:
Hamhuis 3pts -2
Edler 2pts -2
Bieksa 1pts +0
Ballard 1pts -1

2010/2011:
Ehrhoff 12pts -13
Edler 11pts -4
Bieksa 10pts +6
Hamhuis 6pts +5

2009/2010:
Bieksa 8pts +2
Ehrhoff 7pts -1
Edler 6pts +9
Salo 6pts +2

2008/2009:
Edler 8pts -2
Salo 7pts +0
Bieksa 5pts +3
Ohlund 3pts +5

While his plus/minus isn't always perfect, his PP time doesn't help him any in that regard. Even still he was far and away the best in that stat in 2009/2010 (he and Salo had the toughest QoC that year) while consistently being one of our top point producers every year. Hamhuis and Bieksa do a lot of the heavy lifting defensively, but Edler is by no means sheltered (despite time with the Sedins) to the extent Ehrhoff was when he was here - and never was a -13 like Ehrhoff either.

In other words, no thanks to trading Luongo++ to get back someone like Phaneuf rather than just re-signing Edler.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#982 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

I would welcome a Phaneuf trade. I'm sure he would get inspired playing for a President's Trophy franchise. He's the only defenseman worthy of notice in Toronto. They need a total rebuild and with Reilly, Schneider fits best. A Luongo/ Phaneuf led defense is as good if not better as a Kiprusoff/ Phaneuf led defense, except Vancouver has an excellent supporting cast in Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa and Edler.

This is a win now team. Phaneuf is the type of 1D who will punish the opposition relentlessly if given the chance. In Toronto, he IS the defense; hockey is a team sport and he's alone out there so he's exposed. Take Phaneuf out and put Weber, Suter or Chara in and they'll be exposed too. Phaneuf is young enough to get better with time and the system Vancouver has instilled can only benefit him and his play.

The argument that he's overpaid does not stand as one can argue that many Canucks are indeed overpaid. In fact, most players in the league are overpaid. Does that mean the Canucks shouldn't teade for anyone? No. The player's talent ought to he assessed and salary shouldn't even be discussed by fans; it is a management subject. Fans are about the worst judges of player/ salary value.

A Vancouver team that includes Phaneuf is a much better team than the current defense by committee. Defense by committee doesn't instill fear in the opponent; it only proves Moneyball doesn't work. With defense by committee, there is no anticipation like when Chara or Weber are about to get on the ice. Few in the league have this aura and Phaneuf is one of them.
  • 0

#983 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:48 AM

I would welcome a Phaneuf trade. I'm sure he would get inspired playing for a President's Trophy franchise. He's the only defenseman worthy of notice in Toronto. They need a total rebuild and with Reilly, Schneider fits best. A Luongo/ Phaneuf led defense is as good if not better as a Kiprusoff/ Phaneuf led defense, except Vancouver has an excellent supporting cast in Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa and Edler.

This is a win now team. Phaneuf is the type of 1D who will punish the opposition relentlessly if given the chance. In Toronto, he IS the defense; hockey is a team sport and he's alone out there so he's exposed. Take Phaneuf out and put Weber, Suter or Chara in and they'll be exposed too. Phaneuf is young enough to get better with time and the system Vancouver has instilled can only benefit him and his play.

The argument that he's overpaid does not stand as one can argue that many Canucks are indeed overpaid. In fact, most players in the league are overpaid. Does that mean the Canucks shouldn't teade for anyone? No. The player's talent ought to he assessed and salary shouldn't even be discussed by fans; it is a management subject. Fans are about the worst judges of player/ salary value.

A Vancouver team that includes Phaneuf is a much better team than the current defense by committee. Defense by committee doesn't instill fear in the opponent; it only proves Moneyball doesn't work. With defense by committee, there is no anticipation like when Chara or Weber are about to get on the ice. Few in the league have this aura and Phaneuf is one of them.

Style of play dictates the type of defensemen a team employs. The Canucks are not designed as a defensive team and the defense are encouraged to join the offensive push. An offensive orientated team are subject to getting caught up ice more often. The Canucks have chosen this style, and , as a result, defensive stats take a hit. The Canucks will fair better with schneider in goal as he can play odd man rushes better. The defensemens stats, I;m willing to bet, were better playing in front of Schneids, than Lou, even with our " Committee" defense. Phaneuf would be an interesting addition, especially with his big shot eg Salo !
  • 0

#984 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

Why? Do you want me to point out the fact that he has more goals, assists, All-Star nominations, he's younger, he's bigger, he's a better bodychecker...?

Everyone here disagreeing with me is not surprising at all. Ask fans of 30 teams if they'd rather have Dion Phaneuf or Dan Hamhuis, and 29 of them would say Phaneuf.


That's because they don't follow Hamhuis close enough, and they don't see how good, reliable, and important he is. We didn't know until he got here (For the most part) I sure didn't.

Let's compare stat's from last season, with Hamhuis and Edler.

Phaneuf - 12G - 32A - 44P - (-10) - 92PIM

Hamhuis - 4G - 33A - 37P - (+29) - 46PIM

Edler - 11G - 38A - 49P - (Even) - 34PIM



Hamhuis plays on the top pair, goes against the toughest opponents, usually only get 2nd PP time, and is a +29.

Phaneuf Plays on the top pair, is the anchor on the 1st PP, but is a -10 because he is inconcsisent, and makes weak plays defensively, and as you can see that leads him to taking more penalties, because he something goofs defensively and there team has the worst penalty killing in the league.

Edler, who is very much a similar player to Phaneuf, Big, Hits, Heavy shot. He had more points, Less PIMs, better +/-, and he plays on the 2nd pair. So Edler is really just as good as Phaneuf, he can do everything Phanuef does, but he takes less penalties and is better defensively.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 12 November 2012 - 01:38 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#985 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

Ask 29 GMs if they'd prefer a 4.5m Hamhuis or a 6.5m Phaneuf, guaranteed 29/29 would choose Hamhuis.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#986 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:10 PM

Ask 29 GMs if they'd prefer a 4.5m Hamhuis or a 6.5m Phaneuf, guaranteed 29/29 would choose Hamhuis.

Heck, even Phaneuf would probably choose Hamhuis over himself.
  • 1

Posted Image


#987 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:24 PM

1. Chara
2. Weber
3. Campbell
4. Karlsson
5. Phaneuf
12. Edler
28. Bieksa
33. Garisson

Dan Hamhuis does not appear in the top 50 for the 2012-2013 campaign.

Regardless, a league-wide top five defenseman wouldl surely play over anyone currently on the Canucks.
----------------

From NHL.com's top 50 Defensemen:

"Dion Phaneuf always plays the game hard. Every time he throws a check he makes sure you will feel it. Last year, it was 214 of them. Like several other defenders in the league, he is a complete player. He has offensive talent, matched with a tough presence on the blueline."

Phaneuf posted 44 points in Toronto last year. The Leafs were taking huge strides and making a strong push for the playoffs until injuries halted that. Phaneuf and company will look to get back on track and make the playoffs.

Edited by Canucks_Hockey_101, 12 November 2012 - 02:28 PM.

  • 0

#988 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:37 PM

1. Chara
2. Weber
3. Campbell
4. Karlsson
5. Phaneuf
12. Edler
28. Bieksa
33. Garisson

Dan Hamhuis does not appear in the top 50 for the 2012-2013 campaign.

Regardless, a league-wide top five defenseman will surely play over anyone currently on the Canucks.
----------------

From NHL.com's top 50 Defensemen:

"Dion Phaneuf always plays the game hard. Every time he throws a check he makes sure you will feel it. Last year, it was 214 of them. Like several other defenders in the league, he is a complete player. He has offensive talent, matched with a tough presence on the blueline."

Phaneuf posted 44 points in Toronto last year. The Leafs were taking huge strides and making a strong push for the playoffs until injuries halted that. Phaneuf and company will look to get back on track and make the playoffs.



1.) If Phaneuf is as good as suggested, then Burke would be overpaying in a major way, no? Most folks would scoff at the idea of Loungo being traded for any other top-2 d-man. Would Burke really trade away a 27 year old guy who is one of the top d-men in the NHL (as is being suggested) in order to plug his net? He would be be gaining a goalie while making his defense that much worse. This just doesn't make much sense to me.


2.) If Burke did make Phaneuf available, what would it mean?

a. Would it be a sign that Burke is desperate enough to trade away such a quality player? If this was the case, rather might not Burke be exploited in a way more useful to fill Canuck team needs - take a lesser roster player (3C or RW), and quality picks/prospects rather than Phaneuf? Heck, even in addition to Phaneuf?

b. Or, is it a sign that Burke realizes that Phaneuf is overpaid for his worth, and therefore is expendable to the first team to which he can be unloaded, and if it's for an asset the Leafs really need then all the better?


3.) Assuming Phaneuf was traded here, where would he play? There could be a lot of moves made necessary in order to fit in just one guy.

I believe he's usually a left side d-man, something of which the Canucks have in abundance. Assuming he does play the left side, who moves over and/or is traded? I suspect that Ballard is the guy on top of many people's lists of who gets moved out. Were Phaneuf traded here, I could see Ballard going to Toronto with Luongo, just to make room on the Canucks' blueline, and as something to help Burke plug the hole on his blueline.

(And yes, there would have to be "something else" going to Vancouver with Phaneuf to even out the cap hit.)


4.) Assuming Phaneuf was traded here, how's he going to fit with the cap structure of the team? He'd become the highest paid player on the Canucks.

With a lot of guys reaching UFA status next year, someone would have to be let go, or perhaps be traded (beyond those who would already be moving on). Once again, it looks like a lot of moves made necessary in order to try an fit in one guy.

Phaneuf has two years left on his deal. Assuming he would like to stay here, what would he want to remain a Canuck? Who will have to be moved out in order to pay Phaneuf? I suspect that Edler would have to be moved (even with the changes to the new CBA).

Assuming Gillis doesn't make Phaneuf an offer which appeals to him, Phaneuf could walk. So, in two years time the d-corps could look like: Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis, Tanev and various other prospects or maybe UFA signings. Ballard (see #3), Edler (traded due to cap considerations) and Phaneuf would be gone.

I'd like to see some kind of greater gain for two years (now 1.5) of Phaneuf.


5.) Assume Phaneuf was traded here, and he did make the difference in winning a Cup in either of the two years he was here. Also assume that everything listed above ensued from trading for Phaneuf (other player moves, cap issues, all in order to make room for Phaneuf).

Would two years of Phaneuf, and a Cup, versus all of the team changes related to cap issues and making room for Phaneuf resulting in a weaker team in three years time, be worth it to you?


Or, would you prefer to take a chance on a team which has the potential to win a Cup in the next two years, even without Phaneuf, and be stonger for years to come with the addition of some decent roster players and good prospects/picks?


regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 12 November 2012 - 02:40 PM.

  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#989 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:19 PM

Phaneuf - 12G - 32A - 44P - (-10) - 92PIM

Hamhuis - 4G - 33A - 37P - (+29) - 46PIM

Edler - 11G - 38A - 49P - (Even) - 34PIM


+/- is a team-based statistic. Toronto sucks, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Their leader in that category, Clarke MacArthur, ended up with a whopping +3.

Edler, who is very much a similar player to Phaneuf, Big, Hits, Heavy shot. He had more points, Less PIMs, better +/-, and he plays on the 2nd pair. So Edler is really just as good as Phaneuf, he can do everything Phanuef does, but he takes less penalties and is better defensively.


They're not similar players. Nobody's thinking twice about going into the corners or cutting into the middle if Alex Edler's on their tail. He hits, just not frequently enough. And he's far more of a gentleman. Phaneuf is the kind of guy that you do not enjoy playing against. Big difference.
  • 0

#990 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

Ask 29 GMs if they'd prefer a 4.5m Hamhuis or a 6.5m Phaneuf, guaranteed 29/29 would choose Hamhuis.


Disagree completely. Phaneuf's better today and is 3 years younger. I like Hamhuis but he's not Dion Phaneuf.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.