Confirmed with Link: Blues acquire Gunnarsson & 2014 4th (Ville Husso) for Polák

[BlueDream]

I picture the Blues being soft in the same way the Redwings were soft in the 90s. I can live with that.

Yeah but are we as good as them?

But I'm willing to see what this team can do. Maybe going with more skill is the way to go against teams like Chicago. We should be able to move the puck around very nicely like others have said.

 

[bluemandan]

gunnar is a better player than polak in just about every way there is. you guys won this trade handily, you'll really like gunnar

So he is more physically dominant than Polak? No. Well, that is a way to be better than someone. If you are wrong about that fact, I can't very well believe your opinion on the rest of the premise.

Seriously, why do people have to tend toward hyperbole when analyzing a trade. Can't you just say, "Gunnar is a solid player who will help you team and I think you won the trade". We all liked Polak and are sad to see him go. It doesn't help to bash him by pretending he offers nothing (which is implied in the statement that Gunner is better in every way). Saying a player is better than another in everyway is just hardly ever true, unless you are comparing the player to Steve Ott

I usually respect your opinions Majorityof1, but I don't understand this.

Mansfield said "just about every way." Meaning there is at least one, and possibly even a few, thing(s) that Polak does better than Gunnarson. If Gunnarson is a better skater, a better passer, has better hockey sense, a better transition game, better offense, better defensive positioning, and a better stick handler while conceding physical dominance to Polak, would it not be fair to claim that Gunnarson is a better player in just about every way?

Polak brings less of a health question to the table certainly. It also remains to be seen how Gunnarson performs against the Western Conference, let alone the Central Division. I'd expect his offensive numbers to take a hit, but his defensive stats may increase a bit with the support he'll have from his teammates.

I also don't think that claiming one player is better than another in just about every way means that the second player is worthless. Sure, there are players who simply don't match up in a comparison: Karlsson and Weber spring to mind for example. But i think it's pretty reasonable to say the top third of the league is better than the bottom third of the league in just about every way. Heck, even plenty of good players are on the losing side of that equation when compared to great players.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I apologize if I do. I just think we need to keep from over rating Polak. He was certainly an unexpected bright spot during the rebuild. Developed better and faster than anyone hoped. But he hit his ceiling a while ago, and the team has continued to get better while he hasn't.

 

[Majorityof1]

I usually respect your opinions Majorityof1, but I don't understand this.

Mansfield said "just about every way." Meaning there is at least one, and possibly even a few, thing(s) that Polak does better than Gunnarson. If Gunnarson is a better skater, a better passer, has better hockey sense, a better transition game, better offense, better defensive positioning, and a better stick handler while conceding physical dominance to Polak, would it not be fair to claim that Gunnarson is a better player in just about every way?

Polak brings less of a health question to the table certainly. It also remains to be seen how Gunnarson performs against the Western Conference, let alone the Central Division. I'd expect his offensive numbers to take a hit, but his defensive stats may increase a bit with the support he'll have from his teammates.

I also don't think that claiming one player is better than another in just about every way means that the second player is worthless. Sure, there are players who simply don't match up in a comparison: Karlsson and Weber spring to mind for example. But i think it's pretty reasonable to say the top third of the league is better than the bottom third of the league in just about every way. Heck, even plenty of good players are on the losing side of that equation when compared to great players.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I apologize if I do. I just think we need to keep from over rating Polak. He was certainly an unexpected bright spot during the rebuild. Developed better and faster than anyone hoped. But he hit his ceiling a while ago, and the team has continued to get better while he hasn't.

Maybe I was too harsh. I am just sick of the massive under-rating of Blues players on the main board.. We have had some harsh luck with injuries and bad matchups in the playoffs, so everyone thinks all our players suck. Toronto fans on the main boards and a few that have come on here have acted like Polak is awful and brings nothing to the table. I like Polak. I am sad to see that he had to go. I think we got better in the trade, so I am ok with it. However, that is in large part due to what hand Gunnerson favors and his ability to pass. I think we will definitely miss Polak's strength and toughness. I don't like seeing Polak denigrated as a nothing return.

I probably ascribed the attitude of many of the Toronto fans to that particular poster and was too harsh. It reads like he is belittling Polak but that may not have been his intent. As such, I apologize. I won't stop trying to defend Blues players when they are insulted by people who don't watch them, but maybe I should make sure they were actually insulted first.

As for the Gunnerson, Polak comparison, he is a better passer, better at defensive positioning, and better defensively with his stick. He is a better puck handler, but not a better skater. He has a worse shot (Polak's might not hit the net often, but it is a cannon), worse crease clearer, worse hitter, worse skater without the puck, and he doesn't have a mystery door that you don't want to open. So that is several things Polak is better at. That is not over-rating Polak. That is just realizing that he is a second pairing D-man forced to a 3rd pairing on a team with good RHD and Gunnerson is a second pairing D-man playing top pairing on a team with horrible D.

 

[gravyface]

Can Polak play the left side?

Gunnarsson was a quiet, unassuming, safe option on defense. Nothing flashy, not a lot of mistakes, playing in the 3/4 hole will help him immensely. Apparently his hip surgery was long overdue and was playing with significant pain last couple of years, so I wouldn't consider the guy soft by any stretch.

 

[BlueDream]

Can Polak play the left side?

Gunnarsson was a quiet, unassuming, safe option on defense. Nothing flashy, not a lot of mistakes, playing in the 3/4 hole will help him immensely. Apparently his hip surgery was long overdue and was playing with significant pain last couple of years, so I wouldn't consider the guy soft by any stretch.

He never played the left side here.

 

[542365]

He never played the left side here.

Nor do I think he would be successful on the left side. Polak's outlet pass is probably his biggest weakness as a player, and forcing him to go to the boards and use his backhand to get the puck out(or hold the puck in the offensive zone) seems like a disastrous plan in my eyes. He really doesn't handle the puck all that well on his forehand, so putting him on his backhand would be risky.

 

[Multimoodia]

Can Polak play the left side?

You've heard of the ten plagues of Egypt?
There would have been eleven, but it was decided putting Polak on his wrong side would be too cruel a fate to hand down even to the followers of Ra.

 

[BlueDream]

You've heard of the ten plagues of Egypt?
There would have been eleven, but it was decided putting Polak on his wrong side would be too cruel a fate to hand down even to the followers of Ra.

Oh man.

 

[LightSoundGeometry*]

Maybe I was too harsh. I am just sick of the massive under-rating of Blues players on the main board.. We have had some harsh luck with injuries and bad matchups in the playoffs, so everyone thinks all our players suck. Toronto fans on the main boards and a few that have come on here have acted like Polak is awful and brings nothing to the table. I like Polak. I am sad to see that he had to go. I think we got better in the trade, so I am ok with it. However, that is in large part due to what hand Gunnerson favors and his ability to pass. I think we will definitely miss Polak's strength and toughness. I don't like seeing Polak denigrated as a nothing return.

I probably ascribed the attitude of many of the Toronto fans to that particular poster and was too harsh. It reads like he is belittling Polak but that may not have been his intent. As such, I apologize. I won't stop trying to defend Blues players when they are insulted by people who don't watch them, but maybe I should make sure they were actually insulted first.

As for the Gunnerson, Polak comparison, he is a better passer, better at defensive positioning, and better defensively with his stick. He is a better puck handler, but not a better skater. He has a worse shot (Polak's might not hit the net often, but it is a cannon), worse crease clearer, worse hitter, worse skater without the puck, and he doesn't have a mystery door that you don't want to open. So that is several things Polak is better at. That is not over-rating Polak. That is just realizing that he is a second pairing D-man forced to a 3rd pairing on a team with good RHD and Gunnerson is a second pairing D-man playing top pairing on a team with horrible D.

polak a 2nd pairing D man? whaaat ?

 

[Multimoodia]

polak a 2nd pairing D man? whaaat ?

I guarantee had Polak been a left side defenseman the Blues would've never traded for Gunnarsson and he'd be playing beside Shattenkirk.

 

[BlueDream]

I guarantee had Polak been a left side defenseman the Blues would've never traded for Gunnarsson and he'd be playing beside Shattenkirk.

Disagree. What makes you think that? I'm sure he would have gotten a shot at some point, but there's no way they would view Polak as a long-term partner for Shattenkirk given that they CLEARLY stated they wanted more puck-moving ability next to him. Some of you need to stop acting like the only reason they acquired Gunnarsson is because he's a lefty because that's only half of it. He's also a better puck-mover which is what they were targeting.

That guarantee you made about Polak is really just false. If the Blues don't want Jackman there anymore, then surely they wouldn't want Polak either, who is absolutely awful at handling the puck.

 

[Multimoodia]

Disagree. What makes you think that?

Watching the Blues as coached by Ken Hitchcock, which makes it pretty flipping apparent.

I'm sure he would have gotten a shot at some point, but there's no way they would view Polak as a long-term partner for Shattenkirk given that they CLEARLY stated they wanted more puck-moving ability next to him. Some of you need to stop acting like the only reason they acquired Gunnarsson is because he's a lefty because that's only half of it. He's also a better puck-mover which is what they were targeting.

I suspect getting another puck mover wouldn't have mattered quite as strongly if they had one on the third line that could move up beside Shatty when needed. What the Blues really needed is/was a better defender than Jackman playing alongside. Polak with a puck mover is pretty effective, it's when he has to do more himself he becomes tragically exposed.

Polak isn't as good a 2nd pairing as Gunnarsson of course, but I remain relatively sure if he was a leftie the Blues wouldn't have sought to trade him (of course since it seems Toronto wanted him [Truculence!!!!] that doesn't really matter) but if you are certain you know better then obviously I'll bow to your depth of understanding since it seems to eclipse everyone else's.

 

[BlueDream]

Watching the Blues as coached by Ken Hitchcock, which makes it pretty flipping apparent.

Well yes, if Hitchcock was our GM then Jackman-Polak would for some reason be our top pairing, but thankfully that isn't the case.

(On the same subject as Hitchcock as GM, Sobotka wouldn't be in the KHL either. He'd have been signed to a 7-year, $56-million deal.)

I suspect getting another puck mover wouldn't have mattered quite as strongly if they had one on the third line that could move up beside Shatty when needed. What the Blues really needed is/was a better defender than Jackman playing alongside. Polak with a puck mover is pretty effective, it's when he has to do more himself he becomes tragically exposed.

Polak isn't as good a 2nd pairing as Gunnarsson of course, but I remain relatively sure if he was a leftie the Blues wouldn't have sought to trade him (of course since it seems Toronto wanted him [Truculence!!!!] that doesn't really matter) but if you are certain you know better then obviously I'll bow to your depth of understanding since it seems to eclipse everyone else's.

It's always good when the person who makes the guarantee in the first place comes back with this statement.

 

[Multimoodia]

Well yes, if Hitchcock was our GM then Jackman-Polak would for some reason be our top pairing, but thankfully that isn't the case.

(On the same subject as Hitchcock as GM, Sobotka wouldn't be in the KHL either. He'd have been signed to a 7-year, $56-million deal.)

I suspect Hitchcock has some influence over personnel decisions otherwise he wouldn't be here. Most veteran coaches seem to.
Since Polak showed himself to be perfectly adequate with a real puck mover on his line and I bet the Blues would likely try to find an upgrade in another area. It just so happened that Gunnarsson fit very well, Toronto is run by fools, and Polak's on the wrong side to get maximum value for the Blues.
I do agree though that if someone were to look in Hitchcock's house there's probably a voodoo doll with Sobotka's agent's face on it.

It's always good when the person who makes the guarantee in the first place comes back with this statement.

When you act a twerp (and you have to know when you're doing it, your posting style changes) you get a backhanded compliment from me.

 

[Hooliganx3]

polak a 2nd pairing D man? whaaat ?

It was actually stated before the Bouwmeester trade if Polak could play the left side he would have been Pietrangelo's partner.

 

[542365]

It was actually stated before the Bouwmeester trade if Polak could play the left side he would have been Pietrangelo's partner.

I don't think that's really saying much because we had Wade Redden, Carlo Colaiacovo, and Ian Cole in that spot.

 

[BlueDream]

And luckily we got Bouwmeester because Polak isn't good enough for Pietrangelo.

 

[Majorityof1]

It's lucky we got Bouwmeester because of, you know, Bouwmeester. He really speaks for himself. He was a great pick-up for us regardless of who else we had.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

And luckily we got Bouwmeester because Polak isn't good enough for Pietrangelo.

It takes an awfully good partner to cover for Pietrangelo. This is very true. JBo has been a god send.

 

[Kasparov]

i went over to the Leafs board to see how they felt about this. I was happy to see, as per usual, they are throwing a fit. If this guy can come back from the surgery and do well, i'm okay losing the physicality that Polak brought to the team.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

It's lucky we got Bouwmeester because of, you know, Bouwmeester. He really speaks for himself. He was a great pick-up for us regardless of who else we had.

To basically just give up a 1st round pick for a defenseman of his caliber was really a great trade.

 

[David Dennison]

I always wanted to see Bouw and Polak together.

 

[P0LiUM]

Watching the Blues as coached by Ken Hitchcock, which makes it pretty flipping apparent.


I suspect getting another puck mover wouldn't have mattered quite as strongly if they had one on the third line that could move up beside Shatty when needed. What the Blues really needed is/was a better defender than Jackman playing alongside. Polak with a puck mover is pretty effective, it's when he has to do more himself he becomes tragically exposed.

Polak isn't as good a 2nd pairing as Gunnarsson of course, but I remain relatively sure if he was a leftie the Blues wouldn't have sought to trade him (of course since it seems Toronto wanted him [Truculence!!!!] that doesn't really matter) but if you are certain you know better then obviously I'll bow to your depth of understanding since it seems to eclipse everyone else's.

Heyo,
Just thought I'd mention that the leafs made this trade because they needed a RHD as badly as you needed a LHD (according to this thread, I don't know enough about your defensive pairings).

LHD last year: Ranger, Gardiner, Gleason, Rielly, Liles, Fraser, Gunnarsson
RHD last year: Franson, Phaneuf (Actually shoots left, likes playing off hand).

We had one, count em, one right handed shot on D last year. Interesting tidbit, to complement the truculence thing: Franson was second in league hits last year with 282.

 

[Mystifo]

Leafs fan coming in peace. For some reason people are thinking Polak is going to be on our top pairing with Dion. I have never watched much of Polak but looking at his numbers they don't scream at me able to handle top pairing duties.


Are my concerns valid or is there something the numbers don't show? I.E Buried by depth.

 

[SirPaste]

Leafs fan coming in peace. For some reason people are thinking Polak is going to be on our top pairing with Dion. I have never watched much of Polak but looking at his numbers they don't scream at me able to handle top pairing duties.


Are my concerns valid or is there something the numbers don't show? I.E Buried by depth.

He was behind Petro and Shatty so he was buried a little bit, however I don't see him being able to handle top pairing minutes