Dion: The Aftermath

Jean Lefebvre
February 01 2010 08:52AM

Calgary fans don't quite know what to make of the whole Dion Phaneuf situation, so how can so-called outsiders be expected to have a handle on the matter?

Opinions about the stop-the-presses Flames-Maple Leafs varied wildly, and that's largely because opinions on the key component of the swap are all over the map.

To some, Phaneuf is a surefire Hall-of-Famer who has merely taken a slight detour on the road to a roomful of Norris Trophies. To others, he is Nuke LaLoosh on skates -- (multi-)million-dollar talent acommpanied by a 10-cent head.

One of the most curious reactions comes from former Globe & Mail columnist William Houston, who is peerless when it comes to writing about sports media topics and should likely stick to that. In scoring the deal a victory for Brian Burke and the Buds, Houston offers one caveat -- Darryl Sutter has closely watched Phaneuf for his entire career "and suddenly gave up on him after one lousy half season."

Houston presumably means the 2009-10 season to date, which actually qualifies as a slight improvement on Phaneuf's career chart. Pointed questions about the heavy-hitting rearguard have been asked by locally based critics for several seasons now and it's only now that some of the out-of-market types are catching up.

Further, anyone who uses the Scott Stevens comparison -- as Hockey Night in Canada's Ron MacLean recently did -- when talking about Phaneuf is somewhat behind the times. As Mike Milbury was quick to point out when MacLean tried to draw a parallel between the two No. 3s, Stevens' problem early in his career was that he was wild and out of control and that sometimes "his eyes rolled back into the top of his head." Phaneuf, on the other hand, combined his fondness for big collisions with unexplained episodes of passiveness and seeming indifference in the defensive zone.

Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun and TSN's The Reporters came up with a real beauty when he suggested the Flames giving up on Phaneuf was like the time the Hartford Whalers pulled the plug on another talented rearguard who seemed to have lost his way a tad -- Chris Pronger.

Discounting the significant differences between the two defencemen (Pronger has never scored more than 14 goals in a season while Phaneuf has already surpassed that total three times), let's point out that Pronger was 20 years old when the Whale sent him to St. Louis (in exchange for Brendan Shanahan no less) while Phaneuf will be 25 in April.

TSN's Bob McKenzie, on the other hand, made some excellent points in his post-trade analysis. For starters, with tongue in cheek, he suggested the Flames won the deal according to the team-that-gets-the-best-player rule because Ian White is that player. He then goes on to say that the true and correct verdict will come only when it's ascertained if Phaneuf can bring his game up to match his talent level.

Wrote McKenzie: "Most pro scouts would suggest Phaneuf is operating in the 50 to 70 per cent range. The question then becomes, will he get there? To 100, or close to it, that is. Or maybe even more importantly, does he really want to get there?"

This is where opinions split on the deal. When Phaneuf's potential is considered, the deal from Calgary's standpoint is a risky one at best and an awful one at worst. When his actual performance is the prevailing factor (and if the opinion is reached that his career flatline is a chronic condition) then Darryl Sutter was wise to get something for him while he still could, especially if you subscribe to the theory that a change to the moribund Flames' core was imperative.

While others mention Stevens and Pronger and Larry Robinson and other blue-line greats, there's a possibility that Phaneuf's career path will follow that of Ed Jovanovski. Like Phaneuf, Jovanovski made a huge splash early in his career as he went to the Stanley Cup final with the Florida Panthers as a 19-year-old. Any flaws in his game at that point were attributed to youth and many people foresaw Norris Trophies in Jovanovski's future. But Jovanovski's game never matured the way his supporters hoped. He has certainly had a very nice career, but he's fallen a notch or two short of true greatness.

Jovanovski was only 22 when the Panthers handed him off to another club -- the rearguard was the centrepiece of the Florida package that pried Pavel Bure out of Vancouver in 1999.

This latest Calgary-Toronto trade was a completely different sort of deal -- the players the Flames received were more on the order of Pavel Brendl than Pavel Bure -- but how will opinions on the move evolve if Phaneuf turns out to be a good but Norris-less defenceman like Jovanovski instead of the legend Pierre Maguire has always envisioned?

32a247e515fecc03210581093e1a5ee8
Lefebvre is in that awkward stage of hockey following -- old enough to fondly remember the Cleveland Barons and too set in his ways to accept charity points and games where there's a winner but apparently no loser. As a long-time ink-stained wretch, he's also a firm believer in the old Bobby Knight quote about journalists: "All of us learn to write in second grade, but most of us go on to better things."
Avatar
#1 RossCreekNation
February 01 2010, 09:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good stuff Jean. Keep em coming ;-)

I think the Jovanovski comparison is probably the closest of any mentioned.

As for the deal, it has the potential to work out good... yet it has the potential to turn out awful. My initial reaction was not exactly excitemnet, nor disdain. I had hoped that they'd land a top-notch forward, but the added depth is nice. I've warmed up to it since first announced.

Hagman's a 25+ goal scorer (with 19 already), and he plays a gritty game (for a Euro).

Stajan is a playmaking center coming off a 55 pt. season. He can win some faceoffs (which this team lacks), and he can play both special teams. The hope here is that he can find some quick chemistry with Iginla and be re-signed.

Ian White has more pts. than Phaneuf, and as Darren Dreger tweeted last week, he is 2nd in ES ice time behind only Duncan Keith. Quite a season from White, considering he was a healthy scratch for the first 11 games last season, and then used as a forward off and on before earning a permanent spot back on the blueline.

Strangely, my Dad suggested almost this exact deal (centered around Phaneuf for a combo of Stajan/Hagman/Ponikarovsky/White) last Wednesday. He has also asked me what I thought of Ian White on at least three separate occasions over the past two months (must be all those CBC Leafs games he gets to "scout").

In any case, this deal can't/won't be fully analyzed for a while.

Check out what I wrote less than a week ago...

Would Brian Burke do the Flames another favour? After taking Wayne Primeau off their books (the Flames could use a decent faceoff man, no?), this past summer, could any of Matt Stajan, Alexei Ponikarovsky or Niklas Hagman be of interest to Daryl Sutter? Are any of them of interest to you? Stajan & Ponikarovsky are impending UFA's, while Hagman is signed for two more years at $3 million. He's also an ex-Panther, something the Flames seem to have an affinity for (see: Nilson, Marcus; Jokinen, Olli; Bouwmeester, Jay). Could have something to do with Flames Director of Player Personnel Duane Sutter and his past with the Panthers. Perhaps something to watch for.

*By no means did I think it would be Phaneuf that would be moved to land any of them, though*

Avatar
#2 RossCreekNation
February 01 2010, 10:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As per Boomer (FAN960)...

White (#3) paired with Regehr, Stajan (#18) on Iggys line, Hagman (#11) with Olli and 45, Mayers (#19) with 23 and 33

Avatar
#3 b1ackhat
February 01 2010, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I think that this is as fair of an assessment as I have read anywhere Jean. Thanks!

The problem with Phaneuf is that he has all of the tools to be able to dominate the league and to a large extent has already been the best of class. If you judge him on that alone he is a great player and this trade makes no sense.

However, if you judge a player by playing to his potential however you hit the nail on the head that he hasn't even come close. This is where he is very frustrating.

Coming from TO's position - needing to sell hope, needing to sell jerseys and needing to improve today this is a slam dunk trade on their end. But as a Flames fan I am not sad to see him go to the Eastern Conference where we never have to think of him save once or twice per year.

Avatar
#4 RossCreekNation
February 01 2010, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

A pic of Matt Stajan at practice.

Avatar
#5 Bob Cob
February 01 2010, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Start of the Flames downfall, should have moved Regher instead.

Avatar
#6 loob
February 01 2010, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Bob Cob wrote:

Start of the Flames downfall, should have moved Regher instead.

Really?? I disagree.

Avatar
#7 Wanye
February 01 2010, 01:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
loob wrote:

Really?? I disagree.

Boys, boys. I have put it to a poll.

"No need to fight, you can both marry me." - Grandpa Simpson

Avatar
#8 RossCreekNation
February 01 2010, 01:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Wanye

Nice. Tough one IMO. Could've been persuaded either way. Hmm... no vote.

Avatar
#9 walkinvisible
February 01 2010, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

i wrote my own condemnation of dion less than a month ago and i re-posted it over at mine this morning.

my biggest question is this: who in their right minds (as a fan, teammate, coach or GM) would be satisfied with a player coasting along at 70% ??? the cliché is, of course, 110% every night (unless you're markus naslund, then you cap out at 100%), but in my world i want a player that's doing everything he can to help the team win. if dion has been holding back +/- 30% of his potential for the past two or three seasons, then good effin' riddance. i think i'll like this #3 better. if he wants to give his "all" in the big smoke, then good for leaf fans....

ps: it sounds like the jumbotron nerds have spent the better part of the day removing lurch from the stuff we'll see tonight. funny. ;)

Avatar
#10 zoom15
February 01 2010, 06:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
walkinvisible wrote:

i wrote my own condemnation of dion less than a month ago and i re-posted it over at mine this morning.

my biggest question is this: who in their right minds (as a fan, teammate, coach or GM) would be satisfied with a player coasting along at 70% ??? the cliché is, of course, 110% every night (unless you're markus naslund, then you cap out at 100%), but in my world i want a player that's doing everything he can to help the team win. if dion has been holding back +/- 30% of his potential for the past two or three seasons, then good effin' riddance. i think i'll like this #3 better. if he wants to give his "all" in the big smoke, then good for leaf fans....

ps: it sounds like the jumbotron nerds have spent the better part of the day removing lurch from the stuff we'll see tonight. funny. ;)

If a guy can destroy most opposition at 1% of his potential and win the Hart who cares what his potential is.

20 goals in this league as a defenseman year on year gives you a free pass with 30 GMS in the NHL

Comments are closed for this article.