azzurri63
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:azzurri63 said:Significantly Insignificant said:azzurri63 said:Significantly Insignificant said:azzurri63 said:L K said:AvroArrow said:I thought Polak was serviceable last year as a bottom pairing guy. This year? Total crap.
He was a slow defenseman last year. He wrecked his leg. He's immobile now. That he has played in 9 of the 20 games since he has signed is a joke.
I have no idea why we resigned him although he's not the only issue on this team. One thing I don't get is you telling me Lamoriello couldn't or can't make a trade to improve the D?
Trading to improve the D while hurting the team elsewhere, easy.
Trading to improve the D while maintaining the current team, hard.
Why would it necessarily hurt the team. You telling me they couldn't have traded a prospect or a draft pick to pick up someone better than Polak. He'll I would bring Dermott up before I resigned Polak.
Well looking at it from a what's best for Dermott point of view, having him bounce in and out of the lineup probably isn't the best for him, whereas platooning Carrick, Polak and Borgman probably isn't going to hurt anyone in the rotation.
Also, Carrick is a better option than Polak. For whatever reason they are going to play Polak. Trading assets to get another player to watch Polak play seems like a waste of assets.
Missed what I said they should have never signed him. Could of made a trade without sacrificing much to obtain someone better than Polak.
I'm not so sure you could have. If you are going to trade an asset for something that is going to spend 1 or 2 games out of every 3 in the press box, I think that is a waste of an asset. I think as a depth signing, or a situational player, Polak is not horrible. But as an everyday player, the Leafs have better options, such as Carrick. It's just that they don't use him.
Holy dude are you listening? You make a trade to pick up someone who at worst is a top 6 at worst. He doesn't play every 3rd game.