• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

Montana said:
Your take is ostensibly that you believe you conceived of the maximum return the Leafs could possibly get for Phaneuf, and the best player.....others disagree.
Click to expand...

ok, so tell me -- what would a reasonable return be for phaneuf?

why don't we narrow it to philadelphia. what would be a reasonable return in a trade that sends phaneuf to philadelphia?
 
You think that because your deal wouldn't be at the top of my list, that I don't like the deal you proposed.....I absolutely do, and in a deal with Philly it would be a great return, I just don't think it would be at the top of my list of deals I'd look for, or that it would be the absolute pinnacle of offers we would get for Phaneuf.
 
msun30 said:
it's a better return than columbus just got for nash.

****, it's basically just what philly got for richards.

i think it's about fair.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of those guys is a top-30 forward in te league, and their contracts are far more onerous than phaneuf's.

And even then, their returns were underwhelming, probably because both were moved for personal reasons.

Simmonds and gustafson are just support players so that deal is really just dion for couts...and that only makes sense to me if you think couts has a very, vwry good chance at becoming a legit #1 C... And soon. I'm not sure that's true of him, though.

Say whatnyou want about dion but at worst he's an average #1 dman, and at best he's a topend one....i wouldn't trade that for a few second liners.
 
It's not like Dion has done much of anything to raise his trade value from where it was 3 years ago with Calgary.

Granted i think Sutter made a horrendous deal, but i doubt there were night and day different offers for him at the time.

IMO Coutourier and Simmonds is a ton, and i doubt Philly pays it.
 
zeke said:
I don't think either of those guys is a top-30 forward in te league, and their contracts are far more onerous than phaneuf's.

And even then, their returns were underwhelming, probably because both were moved for personal reasons.

Simmonds and gustafson are just support players so that deal is really just dion for couts...and that only makes sense to me if you think couts has a very, vwry good chance at becoming a legit #1 C... And soon. I'm not sure that's true of him, though.

Say whatnyou want about dion but at worst he's an average #1 dman, and at best he's a topend one....i wouldn't trade that for a few second liners.
Click to expand...


He was already dealt for a horrendous package though
 
it's looking more and more like if you want to acquire a first line C you are going to have to take a risk to do it.

there is undeniable risk in dealing phaneuf for any youngster. not denying that.

but just look at what's out there (or to put it differently, what isn't).

not sure you're going to get more of a sure thing, or even get that 1st line C (or potential 1st line C) without taking a big risk.
 
MyNameIsJonas said:
but i doubt there were night and day different offers for him at the time.
Click to expand...


Was fairly common knowledge at the time that Calgary didn't shop Phaneuf around.....they dealt with Toronto alone, which is why everyone, including other GM's thought it was such a rape at the time.

We could have dealt Phaneuf the next day and received a superior package.......
 
I doubt trading Dion has even crossed Burke's mind one way or the other....but it is an intriguing idea for the leafs to get the C they need
 
It's decent value...it really depends if you believe Simmons really is a 30 goal guy and Couturier can be better than a 2nd line Centre.

But it would be near impossible to replace Phaneuf. Not many 20 something, 40-50 point, big minute, physical men out there. That's the problem with trading him, you just create another big hole in the lineup.
 
Montana said:
Was fairly common knowledge at the time that Calgary didn't shop Phaneuf around.....they dealt with Toronto alone, which is why everyone, including other GM's thought it was such a rape at the time.

We could have dealt Phaneuf the next day and received a superior package.......
Click to expand...

Then everyone affiliated with that decision should have been pistol whipped in Calgary if thats true, but i think the league perception of Phaneuf might be different than that of this board.
 
I still feel Joe Thornton can be acquired......I think San Jose would be perfectly fine handing the #1 spot to Couture, with Pavelski as the #2, if they could get a adequate package for Joe.



....and using Jonas' logic, he'll come dirt cheap given what San Jose paid to acquire him. [/s]
 
MyNameIsJonas said:
Then everyone affiliated with that decision should have been pistol whipped in Calgary if thats true, but i think the league perception of Phaneuf might be different than that of this board.
Click to expand...

I think you have less of an idea what league perception is than the deceased Helen Keller.
 
PlayerToBeNamedLater said:
It's decent value...it really depends if you believe Simmons really is a 30 goal guy and Couturier can be better than a 2nd line Centre.

But it would be near impossible to replace Phaneuf. Not many 20 something, 40-50 point, big minute, physical men out there. That's the problem with trading him, you just create another big hole in the lineup.
Click to expand...

in a year or two phaneuf might only be the 3rd best d-man on the roster.

at whihc point he will be a pending ufa and probably asking for a pay raise, into his 30s.

not too concerned about losing him to be perfectly honest.
 
zeke said:
I'd rather not make that mistake.
Click to expand...

meh, phaneuf is a good player but not the sort of superstar you have nightmares about losing.

calgary did about as poorly as you possibly could in trading him and still nobody is looking at him as the one that got away.
 
msun30 said:
in a year or two phaneuf might only be the 3rd best d-man on the roster.

at whihc point he will be a pending ufa and probably asking for a pay raise, into his 30s.

not too concerned about losing him to be perfectly honest.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but neither Rielly or Gardiner possess Phaneuf's physical ability.

When we get to the playoffs, we are going to need a guy like Phaneuf.
 
zeke said:
Basically i,d rather always be on the other end of a multi-player-for-one-player trade.
Click to expand...

for me it depends.

i don't like trades for volume.

but if there's a good strong centrepiece coming in return then you are taking a risk, but with potential huge returns.

like ottawa trading yashin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top