Confirmed with Link: [TOR/STL] Leafs (retain $200k ?) trade Carl Gunnarsson and 94th pick for Roman Polak

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kyle93

Registered User
Mar 30, 2012
34,749
57
I hate looking at Gunnar's tweet yesterday about welcoming his fellow Swede to the leafs organization and today, no more Gunnar :(

We have a bad habit of trading away our good Swede's.
 

gordonshumway

Registered User
Sep 18, 2010
196
56
I hate looking at Gunnar's tweet yesterday about welcoming his fellow Swede to the leafs organization and today, no more Gunnar :(

We have a bad habit of trading away our good Swede's.

Yep, couple years down the road, this trade will be mentioned in the same breath as the Steen giveaway.

I think it's a pretty sh*tty trade, people can rag on Gunnar's deficiencies all they want, but the simple fact is he was the steadiest dman Leafs had. This argument that he's not a top4 dman on a contender is laughable, you'll see him in the Blues' top4 shortly, and pretty sure they're more of a contender than Leafs are. The other thing that pisses me off is we got their third pairing guy and still had to retain salary AND give them a pick.. wtf Nonis?!? Sideways move imo and not an improvement as some people try to make it sound like. If folks thought Phaneuf was terrible, wait till you watch him next season without Gunnar covering his a**.
 

Mr Knies Guy

Registered User
Jul 5, 2008
10,979
1,406
I never liked Gunnar on the top pairing and hes definitely out of place there. But theres no doubt that from an asset standpoint this deal is quite brutal. However, Franson is just about a guarantee to be gone and no way STL deals polak for Franson instead of Gunnar. So we deal the slightly weaker D that STL wanted in order to shake up and get a RD back while opening a slot up top. Smart? Most likely not and I really can't stand Nonis. This smacks of trading Kubina for nothing to open up spot for ****** Komisarek. That turned out so well.


To me this deal reeks of a strong feeling of knowing they've got Boyle or a D of similar ilk in hand. If not then Nonis and Co really are as stupid as thought to be because why would you trade a guy off your top pairing for a guy who's never dealt with top pairing duties?

Still though, it's a brutal trade, terribly lopsided with the pick AND retention.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
I never liked Gunnar on the top pairing and hes definitely out of place there. But theres no doubt that from an asset standpoint this deal is quite brutal. However, Franson is just about a guarantee to be gone and no way STL deals polak for Franson instead of Gunnar. So we deal the slightly weaker D that STL wanted in order to shake up and get a RD back.


To me this deal reeks of a strong feeling of knowing they've got Boyle or a D of similar ilk in hand. If not then Nonis and Co really are as stupid as thought to be because why would you trade a guy off your top pairing for a guy who's never dealt with top pairing duties?

Still though, it's a brutal trade, terribly lopsided with the pick AND retention.

They don't know what they are doing I'm convinced o that much. It is a bad trade, we retain salary and give a pick..for our 1st pairing guy, who LA wanted in the Bernier trade.

West teams know how to identify talent for whatever reason and Gunner is a great 4D on a contender. We got fleeced.
 

Bluelines

Python FTW!
Nov 17, 2013
12,349
4,559
I think the best way to describe him is he is another Tim Gleason type defender.

1A - Phaneuf
Gardnier - Gleason
Reilly - Polak

Not sure this D is going to address or has the ability to address our issues from last year.

Where do guys like Finn, Percy and Grandberg fit in?

Gleason and Polak both have 2 years remaining on their contracts.
 

Bluelines

Python FTW!
Nov 17, 2013
12,349
4,559
To me this deal reeks of a strong feeling of knowing they've got Boyle or a D of similar ilk in hand. If not then Nonis and Co really are as stupid as thought to be because why would you trade a guy off your top pairing for a guy who's never dealt with top pairing duties?

Still though, it's a brutal trade, terribly lopsided with the pick AND retention.

I sure hope not, the game has passed Boyle by, he wasn't even in SJ top 4 defenders last year and played a lot of easy minutes, starting 52.5% of his time in the O zone, easily the highest out of any SJ defender. If we want guys that are gifted in the O zone, invest those minutes Gardnier or Rielly. I'd much rather see our young guys learn how to master the PP, rather than see an aging vet take those valueable learning minutes away from guys who are probably our long term point producers on the back end.
 

AINEC*

AINEC
Jul 4, 2011
7,332
2
I don't mind trading for Polak, as we do need defense-first defensemen. It just makes no sense when you're sending Gunnarsson the other way... AND a pick... AND retaining salary.
 

MugenSilverSiR

Registered User
Jun 30, 2008
360
0
I hope he's like a Dmitri Yushkevich. I'll love the trade! What I didn't like was we had to give up a pick and also pick up some of Gunnars tab....wtf?
 

Mr Knies Guy

Registered User
Jul 5, 2008
10,979
1,406
I sure hope not, the game has passed Boyle by, he wasn't even in SJ top 4 defenders last year and played a lot of easy minutes, starting 52.5% of his time in the O zone, easily the highest out of any SJ defender. If we want guys that are gifted in the O zone, invest those minutes Gardnier or Rielly. I'd much rather see our young guys learn how to master the PP, rather than see an aging vet take those valueable learning minutes away from guys who are probably our long term point producers on the back end.

Believe me I hope not as well. Not trying to justify the idiocy of Nonuts just simply trying to wrap my head around it
 

Chandrashekhar Limit

From the runaway slave to a modern day king.
Apr 2, 2009
18,140
249
Milky Way
Gunnar was **** last year. I don't mind this trade. A 4th has no value, so its more of a one for one swap. We gave up a little bit extra but its not as bad as many are making it seem. Polak is a very solid defensive d.
 

HoweHullOrr

Registered User
Oct 3, 2013
11,585
2,198
Oh ffs one of our better D-man going out? I hope Polak is worth it. Don't know much about him. He is coming from one of the best defensive teams in the league though so that's... something.

We haven't heard of (are familiar with) Polak here? That explains a few things.

But, having said this, its a lateral move at best. It gets our other defenders playing their correct/preferred side ……..
 
Last edited:

sw13

Registered User
Jan 31, 2014
182
0
One thing I'll agree with Simmons is a very immobile defense just got less mobile. Regardless of what Shanahan says about his skating ability, I don't buy it. Carlyle is STILL the damn GM of this team... Awful. One step forward and two steps back always with this franchise. I hope this means Gleason will be bought out. I do not care how many shots he blocks. Moving the puck out of your zone and keeping it out is more important. Not a fan of this move especially what we gave up. I hope Gardiner plays 25 a night now. He better.
 

sw13

Registered User
Jan 31, 2014
182
0
I hope he's like a Dmitri Yushkevich. I'll love the trade! What I didn't like was we had to give up a pick and also pick up some of Gunnars tab....wtf?

Yeah that's what makes no sense to me. Capologist Loiselle at it again. If it was just a Gunnar/Polak swap, fine. The extra incentive is baffling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->