News Article: The Top 10 Worst NHL Contracts ( two Leafs)

[Bluelines]

Phaneuf career playoff stats
GP 32
G 6
A 9
PTS 15
+/- -18

Subban last season playoffs
GP 17
G 5
A 9
PTS 14
+/- 1 (even on the career with 43 gp)

I know you guys have to dig into the depths of advanced stats to find anything remotely flattering for Dion but look at what really matters.

9 for PK is crazy but you ******** Phanboys are wondering why Dion is on the list and not PK?

Thats why

11 of those 14 points PK scored were in his first 7 games (the first 4 of those games was against a very bad goalie), the next 10 games he scored 3... looks to me like you had a guy on a hot streak against bad defence.....

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

Why not post some facts....to prove that I'm bais.

Gunnar was better defensively last year then Dion....that is a fact based on stats.

Less goals scored against Gunnar when playing more minutes on the PK. Remember he played a lot of PK minutes with Franson etc as Dion was in the Box.
Less total goals scored against Gunnar 5 on 5 while playing against nearly the same tough opponents.
A Higher plus player.

I have literally explained to you, using basic numbers within your range of comprehension, why the bolded is incorrect. You conveniently ignore context, QoC, and the fact that when Gunnar moves away from Dion, he plays against a lower QoC (thus creating the "illusion" that he was better defensively).

More Minutes on the PK against lower QoC.

You conveniently avoid anything that contradicts your closed minded approach. Its really disappointing and degrades the quality of discussion on this board.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Nithoniniel brought up Phaneuf vs Subban at even strength using +-. You came back with 5v5 P/60 which does in fact ignore goals against. Now you're quibbling about SV%.

Are you serious? Points/60 ignores goals against - well no **** it does! I never claimed it didn't. I brought it points/60 because Subban scores more than Phaneuf even strength despite playing on a more offensively challenged team. His point share is considerably higher at even strength. That directly contradicts the notion that Subban is only useful on the PP or that Phaneuf had a better season at even strength.

If you think sv% is a 'quibble' when discussing goals against then I don't really have anything left to say.

 

[Duke Silver]

You will be waiting for ever....you posted nothing to refute my claim that Gunnar was better then Dion Defensively.....and when you posted that post, you posted an insult which was deleted and I will not reply to any posts that include an insult.

People can not have it both ways.....Clarksons contract is horrible because it is bulletproof and two much money, same as Dion's it is a horrible contract, the term is two years to long as well as the Signing bonuses....

Nice excuse though, because what I did do was show you that your so-called "facts" that showed Gunnarsson was better than Phaneuf defensively were absolutely miniscule

Here, I'll copy and paste those facts in this post, which has no insults in it, so it is to your liking.....

After you pointed out the goals against difference for Dion and Gunnar, I pointed out that Gunnar played 330 less minutes. I standardized those goals against to a per-minute ratio:

Phaneuf played 1885 minutes and was on the ice for 101 goals. That's 0.0536 GA/min.
Gunnarsson played 1552 minutes and was on the ice for 78 goals. That's 0.0503 GA/min.

Standardizing Gunnarsson's playing time to 1885 minutes, he would be on pace for 95 goals against. A six-goal difference. That's an absolutely minuscule number.

I then made reference to the fact that Gunnarsson did not play on the PP, where Phaneuf was on the ice for more than a half-dozen short-handed goals. You could use this as a slight against Phaneuf if you wish but you can't tell me Carl "can't-keep-the-puck-in-at-the-line" Gunnarsson would have fared much better.

My bet is that if you took Phaneuf and Gunnarsson's ES + PK time and ran those numbers, Phaneuf would come out ahead. Phaneuf was on the ice for more than 6 shorthanded goals this season, which covers the gap.

So then I tackled your assertion that Gunnarsson, who played "more" PK minutes had two less PPGA than Phaneuf. Of course, the "more" was a leading statement in an attempt to strengthen your argument, but we found out that "more" was actually...

Gunnarsson played 9 more PK minutes and was 2 goals better? Again, an absolutely minuscule difference.

Then you made some reference to Phaneuf possession numbers being "far inferior" to Gardiner's, to which I openly questioned:

Could it be that Dion's possession numbers are worse than Gardiner's because of this quality of competition gap? Hmmm....

You know diceman, I may come off strong sometimes, and while I may occasionally deliver my posts in a snarky tone, it is the result of my frustration with distorted facts being thrown around. I may be a dick sometimes, but at least I'm providing the full picture.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

You know diceman, I may come off strong sometimes, and while I may occasionally deliver my posts in a snarky tone, it is the result of my frustration with distorted facts being thrown around. I may be a dick sometimes, but at least I'm providing the full picture.

Well said my friend. Well said.

It is not even just the distorted facts that bother me, its the blatant disregard for truth and the convenience of ignoring facts that oppose some poster's deeply held biases against certain players.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Are you serious? Points/60 ignores goals against - well no **** it does! I never claimed it didn't. I brought it points/60 because Subban scores more than Phaneuf even strength despite playing on a more offensively challenged team. His point share is considerably higher at even strength. That directly contradicts the notion that Subban is only useful on the PP or that Phaneuf had a better season at even strength.

If you think sv% is a 'quibble' when discussing goals against then I don't really have anything left to say.

I see. You are contradicting the notion that Phaneuf had a better season at even strength and for that, points scored are important and goals against are to be ignored.

And you ask me if I'm serious?

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

I see. You are contradicting the notion that Phaneuf had a better season at even strength and for that, points scored are important

Yes, they are. Obviously!

... and goals against are to be ignored.

Not what I said, in fact. It can be useful, if taken in context. The context in this case would be the fact that possession measures (which Subban excels at and Phaneuf is miserable at) are more reliable indicators than goals for/against. And if you still insist on using goals against as a metric, then on-ice sv% is absolutely critical for context unless you want to insist that goaltending strength is irrelevant to goals against. I'd love to hear your argument for that one.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

Yes, they are. Obviously!



Not what I said, in fact. It can be useful, if taken in context. The context in this case would be the fact that possession measures (which Subban excels at and Phaneuf is miserable at) are more reliable indicators than goals for/against. And if you still insist on using goals against as a metric, then on-ice sv% is absolutely critical for context unless you want to insist that goaltending strength is irrelevant to goals against. I'd love to hear your argument for that one.

Subban had a -0.017 QoC last season. Are you joking or do you just not understand how to contextualize possession metrics. Subban posted superior numbers in your mind because YOU FAILED TO ADJUST his numbers for QoC. Subban isnt playing the tough quality of minutes that Phaneuf is, plain and simple.

Numbers never lie.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

Subban had a -0.017 QoC last season. Are you joking or do you just not understand how to contextualize possession metrics. Subban posted superior numbers in your mind because YOU FAILED TO ADJUST his numbers for QoC. Subban isnt playing the tough quality of minutes that Phaneuf is, plain and simple.

Numbers never lie.

Also his Rel was 0.586

 

[Gary Nylund]

Not what I said, in fact. It can be useful, if taken in context. The context in this case would be the fact that possession measures (which Subban excels at and Phaneuf is miserable at) are more reliable indicators than goals for/against. And if you still insist on using goals against as a metric, then on-ice sv% is absolutely critical for context unless you want to insist that goaltending strength is irrelevant to goals against. I'd love to hear your argument for that one.

Nithoniniel said this:
There is a case where Phaneuf had a better season even strength than Subban, though this is likely due to luck factors.

This was your response:
Considering that Subban had a nearly 50% higher 5v5 P/60 playing with forwards who were much more scoring-challenged than Phaneuf did, that argument was pretty bogus too. And you would have to completely ignore the huge gulf between their possession stats, since Subban has some of the best in the league and Phaneuf pretty much the worst.

Nobody is disputing that Subban is a very good offensive player. But if you want to assess his overall value at even strength, you have to consider defense as well. Your response completely ignored this. I wonder why?

And you keep talking about context ... the mind boggles.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

I agree that teams front load contracts make players more attractive down the road in real money, but by adding in Bonus money into the contract, it is paid dollar for dollar on a buyout and makes buying out and moving the contract difficult.

I agree that Dion is not going to get bought out any time soon, but it does not change the fact that his contract is structure in a way that makes it less likely to happen. We are discussing the players contracts in this thread, I simply posted as to why his contract is a bad one. Two years to long and the structure of the deal makes it so.

PS: Thanks for an adult like debate as always! No laughing and insults just an opinion supported by examples or data!

I don't follow your line of thought for why you believe his contract makes him harder to trade at all.

His contract (including signing bonus) goes 8, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6.5, 5.5. Dion is here for the time being and him having less actual dollars to be paid in the future will make him more attractive to budget teams like Panthers, Islanders, Canes, etc. who count real dollars more then cap dollars.

A buyout is very unlikely as contracts continue to rise around the league. It's far more likely that we'd be forced to retain salary in a trade for Phaneuf down the road if anything.

If we didn't give Phaneuf 7 years he would have had plenty of other suitors willing to offer him 7 years because he's only 29 and would have been the best Dman to hit the UFA market in a long time.

I hope you realize Letang + Niskanen got 7 years. Carle & Wiz & Girardi & Macdonald got 6. 33 year old broken down Orpik got 5. Old man Streit got 4.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

It sure got awfully silent in here once logic, facts and statistics were introduced.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It sure got awfully silent in here once logic, facts and statistics were introduced.

Don't worry, it won't last long.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Subban had a -0.017 QoC last season. Are you joking or do you just not understand how to contextualize possession metrics. Subban posted superior numbers in your mind because YOU FAILED TO ADJUST his numbers for QoC. Subban isnt playing the tough quality of minutes that Phaneuf is, plain and simple.

Numbers never lie.

Cool. I notice you didn't adjust for QoC either. What correction do you suggest? It needs to be about 12 C/60 per unit QoC to make up for the vast difference in Corsi/CorsiRel between the two. I would be more than willing to see the work to justify that kind of correction.

...

I notice you still didn't address anything about on-ice sv% but thanks for trying. Do you know how much better Subban's 5v5 GA/60 would be if he had the same on-ice sv% as Dion? Just curious. Also if you happen to have some evidence lying around that on-ice sv% is a repeatable skill, that would be great to see too. Have a look at what Dion's numbers were like the two previous seasons.

 

[-DeMo-]

Did you ever consider the fact that Dion has not played well down the stretch because he had been mis-used and greatly overplayed for the first 55-60 games?

We have lacked depth for the last 2 years because management refused to give the team a competent 3rd/4th line and bottom D pairing. Our star players get burned out carrying the team every year and we suffer the annual collapse. It's not difficult to see that the good teams are deep and dont rely on their stars to carry the load in literally every situation.

I agree we lack depth but if Dion is getting tired he's out of shape then. Suter averaged more then 6 minutes more per game then Phaneuf did, also went to the Olympics and went to the 2nd round of the playoffs and didn't get tired. so if Phaneuf is wearing down he needs to be in better shape. it's not like he's in the top 10-20 in ice-time. he's 27th among NHL dmen in total ice time.

 

[34]

he has a NMC so that won't be happening

That sucks.

At this point, you really just have to sit him in the press box. He does not deserve to be on the ice.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I notice you still didn't address anything about on-ice sv% but thanks for trying. Do you know how much better Subban's 5v5 GA/60 would be if he had the same on-ice sv% as Dion? Just curious. Also if you happen to have some evidence lying around that on-ice sv% is a repeatable skill, that would be great to see too. Have a look at what Dion's numbers were like the two previous seasons.

Buddy you were the one who didn't like the claim that Phaneuf had a better season then PK at even strength and then posted numbers to support your claim that completely ignored defense.

If you thought SV% was important then you could have included your analysis but no, you completely ignored defense.

If you want to assess how good a player is at even strength then you need to take into account both offense and defense. But you completely ignored defense.

You have mentioned several times that context is important when talking about stats. That is very true. But it seems that you don't practise what you preach considering you posted analysis which looked at offense only completely ignoring defense.

I'm here to help.

 

[glue]

Did you ever consider the fact that Dion has not played well down the stretch because he had been mis-used and greatly overplayed for the first 55-60 games?

We have lacked depth for the last 2 years because management refused to give the team a competent 3rd/4th line and bottom D pairing. Our star players get burned out carrying the team every year and we suffer the annual collapse. It's not difficult to see that the good teams are deep and dont rely on their stars to carry the load in literally every situation.

Certainly took that into consideration. I'm not denying he doesn't have a Keith or a Pietrangelo to play with....but to suggest that its solely cause he's been misused...sorry I'm not buying that. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong..just saying thats my opinion and clearly based on the number of threads discussing Dion, it is not so black and white. There are a lot of people with opinions on either side.

That's just it

Tavares
Pk
Stamkos

All have individual accolades. Phaneuf does not

Exactly, these are bad examples. If any of those guys played poorly time and time again in pressure situations...I maintain they would be criticized the same way.

Yeah I'm also getting sick of the way people keep mentioning that Dion is the captain, as if he's supposed to drag the team to victory all by himself.
.

I'm not sure who's saying that, nobody is expecting Dion to single handedly lead the team to success. What is being said though is that when the team is playing poorly, if his play is also just as horrible during that time, then he is simply not a good leader, regardless of whether the end result is the team winning or losing.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I'm not sure who's saying that, nobody is expecting Dion to single handedly lead the team to success. What is being said though is that when the team is playing poorly, if his play is also just as horrible during that time, then he is simply not a good leader, regardless of whether the end result is the team winning or losing.

Interesting. So at point do you say someone is not a good leader? Is it one bad game? 5 games? 10 games? 20 games? Where does that arbitrary line go that divides those that are good leaders from those who aren't?

 

[57special]

It's easy to make blanket statements like that when you completely ignore the fact that the first year of Dion's new contract will be this coming season. Ignorance is bliss though.

The fact that Parise's contract is not in the top 3 is a joke.

Parise is the top forward on a good team. Not only is he a really good two way forward, but he also is the hardest worker( in contrast, to, say, Semin)on the team . He and Suter have come in and established an excellent team culture and work ethic, which is easy to sniff at till you don't have it. No complaints about him in MN at all.

Heatley's contract, OTH, was pretty bad, but he, and it, are gone now.

 

[Peter Puck]

There is a reason why Subban only played one meaningless game under Babcock in the Olympics. He was not trusted defensivly.

There is a reason why Therrien rarely plays PK on the PK. He's not trusted defensively

There is a reason why PK rarely plays vs the best offensive players. He is not trusted defensivly.

There is a reason why his own GM did not want to give him his salary demands, only after the owner stepped in did he give PK his bloated contract... 9 mil is what you pay a Lidstrom type or Neidermeier typ in their prime.

PK is an extremely athletic man, extremely skilled skater, he has a great shot but he is fish out of water in the defensive zone. Currently he is one trick pony, one day he may be a great all around defender but he is is no where as good as his friends from TSN like to report.

Subban: Goals against while short handed per 20 minutes is 1.8
Phaneuf: Goals against while short handed per 20 minutes is 2.5

How much did Babcock trust Phaneuf?

Maybe the Habs don't use Subban on their PK for some other reason (hint: they prefer to save him for 5 on 5 and PP).

Phaneuf doesn't seem to be very good on the PK.

 

[Trapper]

Interesting. So at point do you say someone is not a good leader? Is it one bad game? 5 games? 10 games? 20 games? Where does that arbitrary line go that divides those that are good leaders from those who aren't?

Is Phaneuf a bad leader if no one listens to him?
Is Carlyle a bad coach if no one listens to him?
Hard to say since we're not there.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

I'm saying that both player's contract fall into the same category (term wise), but that Parise's is worse as his term is longer. With the kind of term that both players have, at the end of their contract, their contracts will seem worse as their skills diminish due to age. I don't see an issue with the $s as they fall into median range.

However some context is also not a bad idea. If Phaneuf is a middling ranked #1 defender (as most objective ratings place him) in the league, and he occupies a key position (the teams #1 defender) and impact on overall team cap, it will be harder for the Leafs to be a top echelon team.

There is absolutely no comparison between Parise and Phaneuf's contract. The latter's term is not too long because he is a defenceman, who tend to be serviceable even into their mid 30s. Parise is a winger, whose offensive production has already regressed from his NJ days, and he's already 30. Yet he has 11 years left on his contract.

Phaneuf's contract is going to look even better with the cap going up. Deal with it.

Perhaps you misplaced your corrective lenses, but I could have sworn I said: "Parise's is worse as his term is longer"?

Isn't Dion 29?

Sorry but even your haughty attitude isn't going to convince me that you can predict the future and know exactly how different people will age. Deal with it.

 

[ALEXJD93]

Buddy you were the one who didn't like the claim that Phaneuf had a better season then PK at even strength and then posted numbers to support your claim that completely ignored defense.

If you thought SV% was important then you could have included your analysis but no, you completely ignored defense.

If you want to assess how good a player is at even strength then you need to take into account both offense and defense. But you completely ignored defense.

You have mentioned several times that context is important when talking about stats. That is very true. But it seems that you don't practise what you preach considering you posted analysis which looked at offense only completely ignoring defense.

I'm here to help.

Are you saying that Phaneufs perceived defensive abilities are worth more than what the analytics say about PK last year?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Are you saying that Phaneufs perceived defensive abilities are worth more than what the analytics say about PK last year?

No. I'm just saying that while +- has it's flaws, it's certainly better than just looking at offence. Preventing goals is as important as scoring them.