I think that Phaneuf has, at the very least, some ability to move the puck. I've watched him since his calgary days and he's always been good at skating the puck up the ice and getting it deep.
Also, I dont really view it as an "overcommitment of financial assets" as you put it when you factor in the salaries of the players we sent the other way. And I really dont see how Komi comes into this at all.....he has never, ever had Phaneufs offensive ability. Also, I'm just not seeing how it's shortsighted since we didn't give up any futures....they were all current players.
As for the Beauchemin deal, it was Lupul's bad contract that allowed us to get Gardiner and I thought he showed some pretty good chemistry with Kessel in an admittedly small sample size.
No, not at all. He's got the ability to rush the puck when the other team gets caught changing, but he has absolutely no poise under pressure in his own end, and that is by far the most important element of puckmoving.
It absolutely is an overcommitment of financial assets, as illustrated by the players we traded away. The diference between Phaneuf & White's salary was $3.5m. That difference is Matt Stajan, who would've been a massive upgrade to our centre situation last year. Furthermore, Phaneuf didn't add anything to the blueline that we didn't already have. Schenn & Komisarek were the big-minute physical guys. Beauchemin was a hybrid with a hard and accurate shot from the point. Ian White was a dangerous puck rusher. What he did do -- was put us short on puckmoving ability because we lost Ian White.
It was shortsighted because Burke made the move to make a statement because he was upset with his team, while ignoring the long term cap impacts of the move he made.
Getting a project like Gardiner simply wasn't worth losing a valuable defenceman in Beauchemin and taking on a bad contract like Lupul.
And what if Komisarek never returned to form which he really never did? Are you implying that Komisarek would get healthy and play the role Phaneuf is now? Komisarek has never been an offensive dman and I always have seen him more as a complimentary player. I'm not a fan of Phaneuf's contract but I still think he plays an extremely important role on our team and we're better off with him than without. I also feel Phaneuf was a huge part of Schenn's growth in this past year. And why is it a shortsighted move? Stajan and Hagman had no future with this franchise, White was a good guy but he can be replaced. Phaneuf was only 24 at the time and he proved in past years that he could be an absoulte force on the back end. He also showed leadership qualities and represented the type of player Burke wants our young players to play like. The addition of Aulie to the deal makes it that much better for now and into the future. So basically I do agree that Phaneuf has a bad contract, but I still think it was a great move for our team because Phaneuf still is a great young player.
The Anaheim trade was certainly risky but so far it has worked out. If Lupul can continue to play like he did at the end of the year then I feel his contract is justified. He is one of the few players that has found chemistry with Kessel which is extremely important because we invested a lot in Phil so we need as much out of him as possible. Lupul appears to be finally healthy so he can work hard all summer and come back even better. I think he will be extremely impressive next year after a summer of hard workouts. The addition of Gardiner to that deal is just gravy.
I think your idea to stay the course could definitely work in the long run, but that's not the only way to get things done. Burke is an aggressive GM and he's going to make bold moves whether you like it or not. Some work out, some don't but I still feel our organization is in a much brighter spot than it was when Burkie first took over.
Komisarek's play wasn't even that bad. Sure, he struggled at the beginning, so did Beauchemin. Lots of players struggle when they get to their new teams. Burke's problem was that when he traded for Phaneuf -- he put Komisarek in a positon to fail, and that's how you put your team in a position to fail. When you have the ability to spend to the cap, you should be well into the playoffs if you can get the most out of all your players.
You've got no basis to suggest that Phaneuf impacted Schenn's development. You weren't in the room.
The failure of the Anaheim trade wasn't about risk, it just wasn't a good trade to make. Even if Lupul stays healthy, it's not a good deal. We traded a valuable defenceman for a forward who blocks our progress towards becoming a good team. His so-called "chemistry" with Kessel lasted about as long as Versteeg's chemistry with Kessel, and happened in late games of the season which have always been abnormally good for us. Plus, even with Reimer in goal, that line was one of our worst on the ice at any given time.
Staying the course isn't the only way to get things done. Trades are and can be good, it just so happens that these weren't good trades.
