TSN: Phaneuf asked to waive No-Move clause | Update: He said no.

[Rysto]

What about going 4/4? It would force us to expose 3 of Ryan, Pageau, Brassard and Smith. Not great, but a lot more replaceable than a d-man it would seem.

 

[The Lewler]

Why all this chatter about trading him ?

Gotta be projecting cap problems with his cap hit , because he's not replaceable next year unless you fleece someone.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Why all this chatter about trading him ?

Gotta be projecting cap problems with his cap hit , because he's not replaceable next year unless you fleece someone.

Exactly.

Last year we go out and acquire a top four defenseman because it was a huge hole in our lineup. We get great results.

Now we're talking about trading him? Just go 4/4.

 

[Qward]

I wonder how they approached him.

I wonder if they would have said "We want to lock up our core. With your cap hit, we are more likely to be able to negotiate with LV for them to take a smaller piece. This is not a negative on your, your leadership or your abilities. This is a strategy we feel will help us keep all our key D and build on that moving forward."

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

This gives me a bit of an ick feeling. I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong, per se. Dorion asking Phaneuf to waive was the right move for the team. Phaneuf refusing to waive is right for him, personally. Dorion exploring a trade so he can protect Ceci and Methot is still the right move for the team. But man, the optics of this are pretty awful. The message I get from it is, "Take one for the team or you might not be with the team much longer." I can't imagine that kind of thing goes over well when it comes to attracting players to sign here.

 

[SpezDispenser]

Phaneuf solidified our blueline bigly last year.

Losing him without a replacement of equal caliber would be a disaster.

Seriously.

 

[Masked]

I wonder how they approached him.

I wonder if they would have said "We want to lock up our core. With your cap hit, we are more likely to be able to negotiate with LV for them to take a smaller piece. This is not a negative on your, your leadership or your abilities. This is a strategy we feel will help us keep all our key D and build on that moving forward."

Who cares how their approach was? They most likely approached his agent anyways.

Such a silly thing to care about.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

This gives me a bit of an ick feeling. I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong, per se. Dorion asking Phaneuf to waive was the right move for the team. Phaneuf refusing to waive is right for him, personally. Dorion exploring a trade so he can protect Ceci and Methot is still the right move for the team. But man, the optics of this are pretty awful. The message I get from it is, "Take one for the team or you might not be with the team much longer." I can't imagine that kind of thing goes over well when it comes to attracting players to sign here.

Problem is, we don't know if that's what the team did, or if this is all blown up by the media. From what I understand, all this trade talk regarding Phaneuf was brought up by media, not the Sens.

 

[pm88]

Phaneuf solidified our blueline bigly last year.

Losing him without a replacement of equal caliber would be a disaster.

Losing Methot would be an even bigger disaster. A tough, nasty, top 4 d-man who has great chemistry with EK65 is extremely difficult to replace. As much as Phaneuf had a solid year for us, Methot has been really, really good for this team pretty much the moment he put on an Ottawa jersey. They won't be able to replace him right away, that's for sure.

If I'm the Vegas GM, I'm definitely targeting Methot as the guy I want. They need some tough, physical veteran players on their team that can still play to complement all of the young players I'm assuming they'll have on that team

 

[Flamingo]

Problem is, we don't know if that's what the team did, or if this is all blown up by the media. From what I understand, all this trade talk regarding Phaneuf was brought up by media, not the Sens.

That's my impression too. Just talking heads spouting what-if scenarios.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Problem is, we don't know if that's what the team did, or if this is all blown up by the media. From what I understand, all this trade talk regarding Phaneuf was brought up by media, not the Sens.

Good point. Hope it really is just speculation and nothing more. Not that I'd particularly care to lose Methot OR Phaneuf, frankly.

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[Denny47]

I'm curious, what do you guys value more? Marc Methot or Dion AND Freddy?

Obviously Methot is the best of the 3 right now. But I'm having a tough time justifying trading a serviceable Phaneuf (with probably another ugly contract coming back) only to have LV snag Freddy a few days later.

I know we have other young guys on the way, but unless we get a decent dman in return for Phaneuf, I'm not a fan of being in a position where we are one serious injury away from forcing Chabot into a top 4 role right away.

What do you guys think?

 

[SPF6ty9]

I'm curious, what do you guys value more? Marc Methot or Dion AND Freddy?

Obviously Methot is the best of the 3 right now. But I'm having a tough time justifying trading a serviceable Phaneuf (with probably another ugly contract coming back) only to have LV snag Freddy a few days later.

I know we have other young guys on the way, but unless we get a decent dman in return for Phaneuf, I'm not a fan of being in a position where we are one serious injury away from forcing Chabot into a top 4 role right away.

What do you guys think?

I'm still on the side of make a deal with Vegas and keep the top 4 together. Unless they're being totally unreasonable. Losing Phaneuf and Claesson just seems like disaster waiting to happen. Who would our 4th D be? Harpur? Borowiecki?

 

[Masked]

Dion seems to be talking a lot in the past tense in that interview.

 

[Ouroboros]

I could potentially see the Sens dealing Phaneuf for a defenseman that doesn't need to be protected in the expansion draft, but has a contract that makes Vegas unlikely to claim them.

Jonathan Ericsson, Paul Martin, Jason Garrison. Something like that perhaps.

 

[pm88]

I'm curious, what do you guys value more? Marc Methot or Dion AND Freddy?

Obviously Methot is the best of the 3 right now. But I'm having a tough time justifying trading a serviceable Phaneuf (with probably another ugly contract coming back) only to have LV snag Freddy a few days later.

I know we have other young guys on the way, but unless we get a decent dman in return for Phaneuf, I'm not a fan of being in a position where we are one serious injury away from forcing Chabot into a top 4 role right away.

What do you guys think?

I think losing Methot would be a big blow. He has been a quality, quality d-man for us for several years and he can still play the game at a high level

 

[Here I Pageau Again]

Maybe I'm overrating Claesson --- but I would be pretty unhappy to lose Methot or Claesson. Even Phaneauf has value (maybe not as much as he's paid but still).

If we lose 2 of our top 4, it is even worse! Losing both Methot and Phaneuf would be no good IMO.

 

[Denny47]

I think losing Methot would be a big blow. He has been a quality, quality d-man for us for several years and he can still play the game at a high level

huge blow for sure. But I'm almost thinking in a quantity over quality mindset. Lose those two guys, get no D in return, one bad injury (to Methot??), leaves our d real gutted

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

Dion seems to be talking a lot in the past tense in that interview.

Maybe that's because he was talking about the run that they had. You know, using proper grammar and such.

 

[Viletho]

I'm curious, what do you guys value more? Marc Methot or Dion AND Freddy?

Obviously Methot is the best of the 3 right now. But I'm having a tough time justifying trading a serviceable Phaneuf (with probably another ugly contract coming back) only to have LV snag Freddy a few days later.

I know we have other young guys on the way, but unless we get a decent dman in return for Phaneuf, I'm not a fan of being in a position where we are one serious injury away from forcing Chabot into a top 4 role right away.

What do you guys think?

I would argue that, salary aside, Phaneuf bring more than Methot to the table.

Methot as the edge on the defensive side, but is it that far off?
While Phaneuf has an immense gap on offence compare to Methot.

Phaneuf is a more complete defenseman than Methot.

But now come salary and term, which is important. But player for player, contract aside it's phaneuf, IMO

 

[Denny47]

I would argue that, salary aside, Phaneuf bring more than Methot to the table.

Methot as the edge on the defensive side, but is it that far off?
While Phaneuf has an immense gap on offence compare to Methot.

Phaneuf is a more complete defenseman than Methot.

But now come salary and term, which is important. But player for player, contract aside it's phaneuf, IMO

In that case, take everything I said and switch Methot with Phaneuf. Different contracts and therefore different trade parameters, I know, but I'm more curious if people are comfortable making that deal and potentially losing Claesson right after, just to keep our top shutdown guy (whoever you think that may be).

 

[Viletho]

In that case, take everything I said and switch Methot with Phaneuf. Different contracts and therefore different trade parameters, I know, but I'm more curious if people are comfortable making that deal and potentially losing Claesson right after, just to keep our top shutdown guy (whoever you think that may be).

To be clear, i think it's a good point to ask about Methot or Phaneuf and Claesson.

I would rather lose only Methot than 2 pieces.

But i wanted to say that i disagree with Methot better overall than Phaneuf, even if i can understand why we can prefer Methot, which explain my view on the subject that i choose Phaneuf and Claesson

 

[Ouroboros]

Knowing the teams on this list would help a lot in figuring out whether a deal is possible or not.

 

[Denny47]

To be clear, i think it's a good point to ask about Methot or Phaneuf and Claesson.

I would rather lose only Methot than 2 pieces.

But i wanted to say that i disagree with Methot better overall than Phaneuf, even if i can understand why we can prefer Methot, which explain my view on the subject that i choose Phaneuf and Claesson

For sure, totally get where you're coming from. I was just asking cause, personally, I am not a big fan of trying to make a trade here (other than a reasonable side deal to keep the top 4 together). Although not ideal, I think we have the depth to afford losing one dman (Methot). I don't, however, think we have the depth to lose 2.

This is all hypothetical of course as I'm just thinking with the assumption of no new dmen via trade or free agency.