Confirmed with Link: [TOR/STL] Leafs trade Carl Gunnarsson and 94th pick for Roman Polak - PT II

[HEAVY DUTY]

Gunnar - Phaneuf
Gardiner - Franson
Rielly - Ranger/Gleason

out of this group, Ranger and Gleason aren't coming back. Phaneuf, Gardiner and Rielly are untouchables. although trading phaneuf would rejuvenate our D, but difficult to accomplish this trade due to his big contract.

that leaves Gunnar and Franson as trade bait. our only real source of improving our D. Gunnar trade happened. Franson for Gorges trade was about to happen, but got nixed.

logically speaking, this trade had to happen in order to improve our mediocre D. other than franson or gunnar, who else would you guys trade in order to improve our D? marlies call-ups will help but it wouldn't be much of a shake up. trading gunnar (and hopefully franson) is the right decision.

 

[UllmansTiger]

Gunnar - Phaneuf
Gardiner - Franson
Rielly - Ranger/Gleason

out of this group, Ranger and Gleason aren't coming back. Phaneuf, Gardiner and Rielly are untouchables. although trading phaneuf would rejuvenate our D, but difficult to accomplish this trade due to his big contract.

that leaves Gunnar and Franson as trade bait. our only real source of improving our D. Gunnar trade happened. Franson for Gorges trade was about to happen, but got nixed.

logically speaking, this trade had to happen in order to improve our mediocre D. other than franson or gunnar, who else would you guys trade in order to improve our D? marlies call-ups will help but it wouldn't be much of a shake up. trading gunnar (and hopefully franson) is the right decision.

No player is untouchable. So far, and yes it's really early days, I'm not convinced they improved their talent overall with that trade. Trading Gunnar might be the right decision but it's far from a slam dunk. The mediocre d would be greatly helped if forwards weren't constantly throwing them to the wolves, that'd be another kind logical step in development of a successful Leafs team.

On it's face, Gunnar for Polak doesn't strike me as a change that really improves the d from mediocre to anything significant.

 

[zeke]

True, but robidas is a massive upgrade over gleason.

 

[diceman934]

12-13 was an asterisk year, Dion had to carry Kostka for the first 20 games before Carlyle put Gunnar with Dion after a 2 game stint with Holzer, and the rest was history. Gunnar played plenty with Dion in the 12-13 season.

Polak was the poorest possession Defenceman on St Louis last year, you were just telling me how important possession was a few days ago, I am confused why you would now want a poor possession player after arguing vigorously with me, possession means successful teams. Are you now agreeing with me, a better evaluation is, the player first, then possession?

Holtzer played 22 games and most of them with Dion....Gunnar played less then half of his minutes with Dion....he was hurt and missed 11 games as well..

I am not agreeing with you about possession at all.....you call it a buzz word.....that about says it all. I did say that we needed a physical D man as Dion was not supplying it....and more right shot D man....we gave up the better player but I understand why. Also Polak would have lead the Leafs in possession stats last season.

 

[thigpen]

One can point to Gunnar's high +/- relative to the team's low +/-, and Polak's low +/- relative to his team's high +/- as being indicative of relative value. (If one assumes both teams are comparable in other aspects)

However, on could also point to Gunnar's high +/- on a low +/- team, and Polak 's low +/- on high +/- team as reflecting the opposite value. (Since a good player on a bad team only looks good relative to his bad team, and the bad player on the good team only looks bad relative to his good team)

The adage, "depends on how you look at it" is no more true than in this case. Making inferences based on limited metrics is not sound assessment, since statistical data is only as reliable as its proper application (scientifically rigorous). And it's not going to help analyze a trade before the players ever play for their new teams. Too many variables. In addition to being lopsided, it could turn out that both players make their teams better, or both worse. Too early to know.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Holtzer played 22 games and most of them with Dion....Gunnar played less then half of his minutes with Dion....he was hurt and missed 11 games as well..

I am not agreeing with you about possession at all.....you call it a buzz word.....that about says it all. I did say that we needed a physical D man as Dion was not supplying it....and more right shot D man....we gave up the better player but I understand why. Also Polak would have lead the Leafs in possession stats last season.

Advanced stats indicate Gunnarson's 2 most popular defensive partner's in 12-13 were first Dion and secondly Liles.

I agree with Polak being the more physical defenceman, and Gunnar being the better defenceman. But I disagree with you saying Polak would have led the Leafs in possession last season. He is not a good possession player.

A good example is Clarkson, he was NJ's best possession player in 12-13, which is impressive because NJ is a good possession team, infact he was 5th in the entire NHL. When he got here, he was not our best possession player. But at least being the best on NJ gives him some cachet for improvement this year.

In the case of Polak you need to see where he is in possession in relation on his own team, he had the worst possession of all Blues defenceman, 4th worst on the entire team. I would not expect him going to a weaker possession team to lead us next year. He had a raw better possession number than most leafs because he was on a better team.

 

[Mess]

On it's face, Gunnar for Polak doesn't strike me as a change that really improves the d from mediocre to anything significant.

The goal of trading a +12 top 4 capable dman for a bottom 6 one was designed to increase toughness at the position more than improve the defensive ability of the unit as a whole.

Ever since Fraser's injury and later trade the Leafs defense lacked backbone and push back ability.

 

[zeke]

Pushback ability is what Mess faves like komi, schenn, finger, fraser gave us, right?

Please, no more pushback ability, thanks.

 

[Mess]

Pushback ability is what Mess faves like komi, schenn, finger, fraser gave us, right?

Please, no more pushback ability, thanks.

Don't you think Gunnar for Polak was about adding toughness to the D-core?

When Fraser was in the Leafs top 6 on D, the Leafs made the playoffs the only time in the last 10 years. Seems Nonis is trying to turn the clock back and recreate that scenario and needed to trade to accomplish it and in my opinion overpaid for toughness.

 

[highslot]

there is a speed issue as well.

kontiola/santorelli/frattin/komorov faster than maclaren, jmac, orr and post injury bolland.

polak and robidas are faster than gleason, gunnarson.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

Leafs are bringing in defensive D to rejuvenate dion into being an offensive threat again. This is going to be great.

 

[UllmansTiger]

The goal of trading a +12 top 4 capable dman for a bottom 6 one was designed to increase toughness at the position more than improve the defensive ability of the unit as a whole.

Ever since Fraser's injury and later trade the Leafs defense lacked backbone and push back ability.

I don't really disagree with that, some toughness and a right hand shot is what they were after, that and a reorganizing of the dmen as a whole ( moving up Gardiner and Rielly ) same goes for Robidas and I'm fairly pleased with that move.

Also, the context of that quote is in reference to 'having' to trade Gunnar the way they did to improve a 'mediocre' d, I'm not convinced that was the best use of that asset overall but we shall see.

 

[Gallagbi]

Don't you think Gunnar for Polak was about adding toughness to the D-core?

When Fraser was in the Leafs top 6 on D, the Leafs made the playoffs the only time in the last 10 years. Seems Nonis is trying to turn the clock back and recreate that scenario and needed to trade to accomplish it and in my opinion overpaid for toughness.

The Leafs also just bought out Gleason after a late season collapse with him.

 

[Mess]

I don't really disagree with that, some toughness and a right hand shot is what they were after, that and a reorganizing of the dmen as a whole ( moving up Gardiner and Rielly ) same goes for Robidas and I'm fairly pleased with that move.

Also, the context of that quote is in reference to 'having' to trade Gunnar the way they did to improve a 'mediocre' d, I'm not convinced that was the best use of that asset overall but we shall see.

STL is closer to a Cup so I understand the deal from their side adding a top 4 Dman for one that was playing 3rd pairing for them to get better defensively.

Leafs paid for physicality by trading their "Steady Eddy" dman to do it so hopefully the intangibles of grit and toughness have the benefit they were going for.

Had the Leafs dealt Franson instead and kept Gunnar the defense would have been stronger. IMO Gardiner and Rielly I can see picking up the slack offensively for a traded Franson but will hard press to be as steady defensively as Gunnarsson was. Gunnar being a +12 on a team that finished 26th overall in goals against is pretty impressive.

 

[UllmansTiger]

STL is closer to a Cup so I understand the deal from their side adding a top 4 Dman for one that was playing 3rd pairing for them to get better defensively.

Leafs paid for physicality by trading their "Steady Eddy" dman to do it so hopefully the intangibles of grit and toughness have the benefit they were going for.

Had the Leafs dealt Franson instead and kept Gunnar the defense would have been stronger. IMO Gardiner and Rielly I can see picking up the slack offensively for a traded Franson but will hard press to be as steady defensively as Gunnarsson was. Gunnar being a +12 on a team that finished 26th overall in goals against is pretty impressive.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded bit. I'm kind of hoping Granberg is a Rouse/Lefebvre in the making that could be a legitimate version in 2 years. Maybe so for Percy and Finn too ( though Finn has higher potential upside, I think ). It's weird looking at this team and realizing just how much work needs to be done when Gunnar/Polak is a reason for chewing ( or that and blue and white fanitis is hitting hard in late July ).

There's still hope that trading Franson might get them something that could help, I mean, it's kind of inevitable really, might as well see if they can re-Gunnar themselves or better.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

there is a speed issue as well.

kontiola/santorelli/frattin/komorov faster than maclaren, jmac, orr and post injury bolland.

polak and robidas are faster than gleason, gunnarson.

Exactly, we'll be having a mobile crease clearer and a veteran puck mover with solid defensive ability. I think we're going to see a much better D core with both in.

Gardiner, in my opinion, is going to exceed Gunnarsson. He's more mobile, much more superior in moving the puck and can be eased into that Vlasic-esque role. Modern hockey requires puck possession and Jake is much better than Gunnars in that regard and will enable Dion to play a more simple stay-at-home, shooter role.

 

[Eb]

Exactly, we'll be having a mobile crease clearer and a veteran puck mover with solid defensive ability. I think we're going to see a much better D core with both in.

Gardiner, in my opinion, is going to exceed Gunnarsson. He's more mobile, much more superior in moving the puck and can be eased into that Vlasic-esque role. Modern hockey requires puck possession and Jake is much better than Gunnars in that regard and will enable Dion to play a more simple stay-at-home, shooter role.

I agree with this and this comment is great and gets me excited for October.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Leafs are paying 200K of Gunnarson's contract for the next 2 seasons, this is often forgotten in the deal for Polak.

The deal is 200K retained salary, a 4th rd pick, and Gunnar for Polak for possibly only 2 seasons.

How can this not be a great deal for St Louis?

 

[ChuckWoods]

Leafs are paying 200K of Gunnarson's contract for the next 2 seasons, this is often forgotten in the deal for Polak.

The deal is 200K retained salary, a 4th rd pick, and Gunnar for Polak for possibly only 2 seasons.

How can this not be a great deal for St Louis?

It is a great deal for St.Louis

But its not a bad deal for Toronto either.

Solid move by both clubs that fill different team needs for each club.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

It is a great deal for St.Louis

But its not a bad deal for Toronto either.

Solid move by both clubs that fill different team needs for each club.

The deal should have been Gunnar for Polak straight up if it was a deal to fill team needs for both.

Nonis, IMO, did not need to throw in 200K of retained salary or a 4th rd pick. If I were Armstrong I would have done the deal anyway since he was getting the better defenceman.

Nonis was schooled in this deal by Armstrong IMO.

Burke would not have thrown in the 4th or 200K retention in salary, he would have probably insisted we get back a pick and salary the other way.

 

[smitty10]

It is a great deal for St.Louis

But its not a bad deal for Toronto either.

Solid move by both clubs that fill different team needs for each club.

Agreed.

The Leafs need what Polak brings to the table, while St. Louis needs a lefty to play in their top 4. Gunnar's time here ran out and we desperately needed a couple of righty's to play in our top 6. Add his toughness, size and mobility to the equation and there's no downside for the Leafs. I love this acquisition and think it'll make a world of difference for Gardiner/Rielly.

 

[diceman934]

It is a great deal for St.Louis

But its not a bad deal for Toronto either.

Solid move by both clubs that fill different team needs for each club.

Like I said early in this thread, I agree 100%

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Like I said early in this thread, I agree 100%

If the deal was Gunnar for Polak, I would stomach it better. Even though we traded a better defenceman overall to fill a team need.

From a value stand point, it was a deal of a GM that seemed desperate. No need to give Armstrong a gratuity of a 4th rd pick and 200K x2 when a straight deal would have sufficed.

It was Bad deal from a value or asset management Point of view.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Another thing, Nonis is very bad at retaining picks.

It's budget 101, if you do not mine the nickels and dimes, you will soon be running a deficit budget.

Nonis has been leaking picks ever since Burke was fired. All these lost picks will come back to bite us one day. Just like it does for people that do not know how to look after their own personal Budgets.

Note - St. Louis used the 94th pick in this trade to grab the #1 rated Goalie (Euro) on CSB's list Ville Husso. A real heady move by Armstrong who understands the value of not only retaining picks, but adding them.

 

[Jacquestrapless]

Another thing, Nonis is very bad at retaining picks.

It's budget 101, if you do not mine the nickels and dimes, you will soon be running a deficit budget.

Nonis has been leaking picks ever since Burke was fired. All these lost picks will come back to bite us one day. Just like it does for people that do not know how to look after their own personal Budgets.

Note - St. Louis used the 94th pick in this trade to grab the #1 rated Goalie (Euro) on CSB's list Ville Husso. A real heady move by Armstrong who understands the value of not only retaining picks, but adding them.

One day? We've been trading away picks and prospects since the Quinn Era. I question MLSE and its competency related to hockey-executive decisions. Hell, I haven't heard a single management firing since the collapse. I haven't heard Belza's name mentioned once. But, that is for another thread.