Personally, I think this defense is pretty meh. Do you guys think the plan is go after some future free agent, trade or just let the kids grow into it? Is the plan to lose next year as well? I mean if we don't sign Stamkos then what? This team will have problems making the cap floor next year.To be frank, unless the goal was tanking, what was the benefit of unloading Phaneuff? The Oilers have proven being all young isn't that great.Just interested in the fans opinion on this.
Here's the problem -- there is anyone in the system with even a remote chance of "growing into that role". Most of the Leafs defensive prospects project as bottom pair guys, with possible top 4 upside... nobody who appears that they could develop into a top pair shutdown guy.
So, realistically, they're going to have to look outside the organization. I guess the hope is, with the cap staying flat, perhaps that represents an opportunity to acquire that player either through trade or free agency. Their group up front should be fine, even without Stamkos.
As for why they did it, I suspect, they simply looked at the bodies they have, and said "we want Rielly to anchor the top pair, we want Gardiner to anchor the 2nd pair, and we don't like Dion Phaneuf at $7m on either of them". So, they knew he needed to be replaced.
Was it premature? Yes. But, I suspect they looked at it as follows. If, one year from today, they were offered the trade of Lindberg & a 2nd in the upcoming draft for Dion Phaneuf, no retention, would they take it? The answer was probably, and given that, it wasn't worth the risk of that deal evaporating in 1 year's time. Of course something to consider in that deal, is that they moved Phaneuf, took back a bunch of bad contracts, but assuming no subsequent moves, after the 16-17 season, the only remnants they'll be left with are Tobias Lindberg, a 2nd round pick, and the rights to Jared Cowen. It's how the Kessel deal should have gone. Take on some short term pain... be left with a couple of assets long term.
