This makes the most sense as Gardiner and Rielly should both be a year more experienced and can take some ice time from Dion. I'd resign ranger and dump Franson too.
Sportsnet: Leafs are Shopping Phaneuf - MOD WARNING #394
- Thread starter Warden of the North
- Start date
- Status
This makes the most sense as Gardiner and Rielly should both be a year more experienced and can take some ice time from Dion. I'd resign ranger and dump Franson too.
no people would be saying it was dumb to trade Dion, he only got X back... its typical
How is it typical when it's true? Nothing we get for Dion will come close to replacing Dion so why are we taking a step backwards for no reason? If the team doesn't plan on plunging itself into no mans land/forced rebuild then trading him is dumb (depending on the return of course).
The team is in no mans right now with Dion.
-5th last two seasons ago
-Made the playoffs last year but largely cause of special teams. Having the 2nd best PK was unsustainable as was the depth created by AHLers who got a jump on the rest of the league like Kostka, Fraser, Komarov.
-8th last this past season
Horrible advanced stats no matter what statline you choose to look at whether it be shot differential, CORSI, etc.
Toronto is at a cross roads with Dion. I can see the reasons to keep him but then you have to ask yourself what are you winning with him in the next few years and could he just be another Bryan McCabe or Sheldon Souray in their early 30s level Dman in a few short years when we need really need him.
OR
Do we deal him for valuable futures, gain cap space, suck that extra little bit to gain a higher draft pick. If we go this route it'll be more short term pain but there is also a lot more potential upside.
I think the people (myself included) think trading Dion would be good because it would be improvement through subtraction. We would be better next season without Dion, both because it would give our younger defenders (Gardiner, Reilly, possibly Percy/Granberg) more minutes for development, and because a lot of Dion's mistakes cost us games. This is only an assumption, but so is saying that removing Dion from the team will automatically make us worse next season.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
you would have to make more moves than just Dion.
If the plan is to tank, I don't think losing Dion automatically makes us a bottom 3 team. We will have to take assets back most likely, so it's not like those guys will just roll over.
On top of that, the guys like Kessel, JVR , and Lupul will be eating away key prime years while we tank. It's not like we can tank, grab the third overall next year and suddenly be a Cup contender.
You have to go all out if that's the plan. Trade just about everyone other than Morgan, and maybe Jake and Nazzy and hope you get lucky in the next few drafts. Then you add that to the kids in the A who seem like a decent support cast. Maybe in 5 years you have a competitive team that has top end potential. of course to do that, you need to get real lucky in the next few drafts with successful top 5 picks and hopefully counted among those are a true elite superstar.
You are making an assumption that removing Dion means taking a step backwards. The team has sucked with Dion as the #1. The team also sucked with Toskala as the #1 goalie. Was removing Toskala a step backwards?
you've got a tone of cap tied up long term upfront and looking to move your top defensemen .....other moves will definitely need to be made
MakeTheIronSing
Registered User
First, youre completely speculating on the return of Phaneuf so you can't just dismiss the the validity of the trade.
Second, Phaneuf is a part of the "no man's land/forced rebuild" anyways. He is on a team that has failed to do anything of value so I don't really see the difference in keeping him and trading him away when the results have been the same.
Duke Silver
Truce?
Wouldn't that be the case for every player who has been here for the last 3-4 years, using that logic?
APV
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2009
- 822
- 43
Purity*
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2010
- 8,446
- 1
The people who are saying they want ROR either don't watch the Avs or are just falling victim to "shiny new toy" syndrome.
Colorado is great for him because he fits the system extremely well and has developed good chemistry with his team there, he can play wing or centers so he's always paired with their most talented players.
If he comes to Toronto, I predict he puts up a very average 40-50 points while providing his very overrated 2-way game (it's become overrated this year anyway).
Not only that, but Colorado would require an overpayment to give him up, something I'm not willing to do. And besides, who says Colorado would want to trade him? Like I said, he fits their system very well.
And not only that, AT WHAT ****ING POINT do we start developing our own players like that instead of TRADING for other teams developed players? It's also a knock on everyone who wants Kadri traded, god that's getting annoying. It's no secret that all the successful teams have developed that type of player, not traded for them.
And reading some of these ridiculous replies in this thread, some of them say we're a better team without Phaneuf?
LOL no no, they got the wrong idea entirely. Trading Phaneuf and not replacing him is a tank move, nothing else. And I am all in favor of that 
Colorado is great for him because he fits the system extremely well and has developed good chemistry with his team there, he can play wing or centers so he's always paired with their most talented players.
If he comes to Toronto, I predict he puts up a very average 40-50 points while providing his very overrated 2-way game (it's become overrated this year anyway).
Not only that, but Colorado would require an overpayment to give him up, something I'm not willing to do. And besides, who says Colorado would want to trade him? Like I said, he fits their system very well.
And not only that, AT WHAT ****ING POINT do we start developing our own players like that instead of TRADING for other teams developed players? It's also a knock on everyone who wants Kadri traded, god that's getting annoying. It's no secret that all the successful teams have developed that type of player, not traded for them.
And reading some of these ridiculous replies in this thread, some of them say we're a better team without Phaneuf?
LOL no no, they got the wrong idea entirely. Trading Phaneuf and not replacing him is a tank move, nothing else. And I am all in favor of that 
ToneBone03
Trust the Shanaplan
If this is all, in fact, just meaningless chatter and Phaneuf stays with the Leafs, I think we need to get someone to play alongside him.
I've wanted Ladislav Smid on the Leafs for a long time and I think he'd be the perfect guy to play with Phaneuf.
I've wanted Ladislav Smid on the Leafs for a long time and I think he'd be the perfect guy to play with Phaneuf.
If Phaneuf is dealt for futures then dealing guys like Franson, Lupul, Gunnarson, Gleason and potentially Kadri (depending if they see him as a long term solution) this off-season and next season would also be happening.
We'd also be bringing in some vets who could later be recycled like we did with Versteeg, Beauchemin, Lombardi, etc.
Kessel-Bernier-JVR-Rielly is what we'd have to build around.
Trading Dion in the short term would absolutely hurt and their are no guarantees that dealing him would work out for us. However, keeping him also comes with low upside.
As an example of how dealing a big ticket player can actually help turn around a franchise would you rather be the Blue Jackets with Rick Nash making 7.8 million right now?
OR
The Blue Jackets with 1st rounder (Kerby Rychel), Dubinsky (4.2), Anisimov (3.28) + having enough cap space to sign Nash's replacement in Horton last off-season and sucking enough to get the 2nd overall draft Ryan Murray two drafts ago?
The Blue Jackets did make some other moves but the Nash deal really was a big part of what looks like their teams turning it around and it was considered a bad return at the time.
Dealing a big ticket player like Phaneuf wouldn't just come with extra assets, it would also come with a lot of extra cap space to rededicate.
No matter what happens with Phaneuf this team is a few years from being good and I've argued to keep him but just as easily see how we could greatly benefit long term by trading him.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
The people who are saying they want ROR either don't watch the Avs or are just falling victim to "shiny new toy" syndrome.
Colorado is great for him because he fits the system extremely well and has developed good chemistry with his team there, he can play wing or centers so he's always paired with their most talented players.
If he comes to Toronto, I predict he puts up a very average 40-50 points while providing his very overrated 2-way game (it's become overrated this year anyway).
Not only that, but Colorado would require an overpayment to give him up, something I'm not willing to do. And besides, who says Colorado would want to trade him? Like I said, he fits their system very well.
And not only that, AT WHAT ****ING POINT do we start developing our own players like that instead of TRADING for other teams developed players? It's also a knock on everyone who wants Kadri traded, god that's getting annoying. It's no secret that all the successful teams have developed that type of player, not traded for them.
And reading some of these ridiculous replies in this thread, some of them say we're a better team without Phaneuf?
a lot of players appear better because of the system they play in. Clarkson might end up being a prime example of that
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
right, but the Jackets are to me an example of what you don't want to end up like. They are a young scrappy team, but I don't see them becoming a Cup contender in the next five years. To me they will be the team that gets in for two years and then misses the next. so we could go through all this change and just wind up with another group that won't challenge for the cup.
Give Dion a different role and he could be so much better. Stop putting the weight of the whole D on his shoulders. Let him shoot the puck more, let him be more creative offensively and Dion takes on a whole new dimension. He was at one time a very good offensive player.
It is too bad they decided not to pay him in a "different role". They paid him like a #1 Dman. Unfortunately, this more than anything is what will bring up complaints about him unless he plays up to what the Leafs paid him. His pay sets the bar for what he should be doing.
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 21,675
- 6,270
The people who are saying they want ROR either don't watch the Avs or are just falling victim to "shiny new toy" syndrome.
Colorado is great for him because he fits the system extremely well and has developed good chemistry with his team there, he can play wing or centers so he's always paired with their most talented players.
If he comes to Toronto, I predict he puts up a very average 40-50 points while providing his very overrated 2-way game (it's become overrated this year anyway).
Not only that, but Colorado would require an overpayment to give him up, something I'm not willing to do. And besides, who says Colorado would want to trade him? Like I said, he fits their system very well.
And not only that, AT WHAT ****ING POINT do we start developing our own players like that instead of TRADING for other teams developed players? It's also a knock on everyone who wants Kadri traded, god that's getting annoying. It's no secret that all the successful teams have developed that type of player, not traded for them.
And reading some of these ridiculous replies in this thread, some of them say we're a better team without Phaneuf?
ROR would be a solid 2 way player on any team . Naturally the better line mates he has the more he'd produce but that would be true with every player . I don't think you have to worry about us acquiring him though because i don't see him being traded .
Also i'm all for developing our own players , i'm just against the idea of pretending that if we just keep prospects long enough they'll all turn into quality players .
We haven't been some elite team that quality prospects get buried in the minors because of lack of space at the NHL level . We didn't even have a legit prospect to bring up when we ran into injuries at center and had to burn assets to get help from outside .
Trapper
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2013
- 23,966
- 11,448
There is no other role for Phaneuf. He's being paid to be the no. 1 D. He's not Tyler Bozak who is being used as a no. 1 C when we all know he isn't. Bozak is also getting paid as a no. 2 C. Same with Gunnarsson. He's getting paid in line with a 2nd pair D but being asked to be Phaneuf's partner on the top pair while Dion makes 7 million. Ok. Moving Phaneuf to the 2nd pair is not an option and finding a true no. 1 D is not going to happen soon either.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: ECSF-Florida Panthers vs Boston Bruins (FLA leads 2-1)- Latest: Over the volcano
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 4 New York Knicks @ Indiana Pacers - NYK Leads Series 2-1Wagers: 6Staked: $2,400.00Event closes- Updated: