Author Topic: Captain Phaneuf  (Read 57995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Potvin29

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 14579
  • Gender: Male
  • Auston 20:16
    • View Profile
Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #615 on: December 13, 2013, 01:59:15 PM »
I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've stated my opinion without qualification; that's what we do here all the time.

Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement?  You can't prove or disprove it until he potentially wins the Stanley Cup.  I think opinions still need to be held to a certain standard, no? 

And I think certain criticisms of players (and even Sundin falls into this one) are unfair because championships are team trophies and it's not Sundin's fault he was never on a Cup-winning team, or Bourque's fault he had to be traded to a Cup-winning team to get one.  Sometimes players' fortunes aren't the greatest, but I don't think that's because these players could not be built around into a winning team.  They just weren't for whatever myriad reasons.

Tried to explain that bet I could.  If it doesn't make sense, c'est la vie.

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26889
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #616 on: December 13, 2013, 02:24:27 PM »
I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

Well, we can think something like that through. If we look back at the last 20 years of hockey who are some of the worst #1 defensemen whose teams won cups? Right off the top of my head the guys who come to mind are Sandis Ozolinsh in '96 with Colorado, Dan Boyle in Tampa, Bret Hedican with Carolina and Sergei Gonchar in Pittsburgh.

Does Phaneuf fit somewhere into that group? Yeah. I mean, Ozolinsh and Gonchar were really terrific offensive defensemen, Boyle wasn't quite at the Olympic level he eventually became and Hedican is the obvious outlier there whose team won in a profoundly strange year looking back.

But the thing that those 4 teams have in common? They killed you down the middle. Pittsburgh had Crosby and Malkin at their peak, Carolina had Staal scoring 100 points and Brind'Amour winning the Selke, Tampa had Lecavalier and Richards and St. Louis winning the Hart/Art Ross and Colorado obviously had Sakic/Forsberg.

So I might not go so far as to say that Phaneuf couldn't be the #1 defenseman on a cup winning team but, if he is, I really have to believe that said hypothetical team would not be one where the defense shook anyone but that could just bludgeon a team with talent elsewhere. That's where I think the problem is there. Winning a cup with Phaneuf as your team's top defenseman seems possible, winning a cup with Phaneuf as one of your team's best players, on the other hand, kind of flies in the face of history.

Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

TMLfans.ca

Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #616 on: December 13, 2013, 02:24:27 PM »

Offline Nik Bethune

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 26889
  • All posts approved by CCP
    • View Profile
Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #617 on: December 13, 2013, 02:28:03 PM »
Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement? 

Well, you could always qualitatively assess Stamkos and compare him to the best forwards on teams that have won cups in the past. A group he'd seemingly fit pretty well into.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility
-Karl Marx

Offline Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19370
    • View Profile
Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #618 on: December 13, 2013, 02:55:48 PM »
I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've stated my opinion without qualification; that's what we do here all the time.

Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement?  You can't prove or disprove it until he potentially wins the Stanley Cup.  I think opinions still need to be held to a certain standard, no? 

And I think certain criticisms of players (and even Sundin falls into this one) are unfair because championships are team trophies and it's not Sundin's fault he was never on a Cup-winning team, or Bourque's fault he had to be traded to a Cup-winning team to get one.  Sometimes players' fortunes aren't the greatest, but I don't think that's because these players could not be built around into a winning team.  They just weren't for whatever myriad reasons.

Tried to explain that bet I could.  If it doesn't make sense, c'est la vie.

Well, Nik answered it far more thoroughly than I would, with examples to back it up.  All I was going to say is that Phaneuf has too many flaws in his game (as good as he is, and has been this season) and that, as captain, he hasn't seemed to be able to elevate the level of the team at all ... which, for example, Sundin pretty clearly did -- and even that wasn't enough.

If the cap were already at $80 or $90M and we already had a Norris defenseman that Phaneuf could complement, then the reported 7x7 would be swallowable to me.  When the spotlight is on him, though?  No.

Offline azzurri63

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 3294
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Captain Phaneuf
« Reply #619 on: December 13, 2013, 05:56:25 PM »
I would honestly take a chance at trading him for some more pieces. I know Potvin you think I harp on Phaneuf and I do, but I totally agree with some of the others. He has played well this season, probably the best since he's come to TO. Like I posted a while back you think being in his last year that has anything to do with it. The money they are talking is in my mind overpayment.  Like McFate said too many flaws. He is said to be the most overrated player in the league and that comes from the players. Whether that is true or not I don't know. Personally don't think he is but I do think he is overrated. Burke traded for him to make a big splash and then made him captain. I have heard from a friend of mine that one of the Leafs current players has stated he is not the best guy in the dressing room. Again you can take that anyway you want. I know he logged a lot of minutes over the years and I have said I think that hurts his game. Believe he is playing slightly less this year. If they could keep him at a slightly reduced cap then keep him otherwise trade him. Better yet trade him and then maybe resign him.