Roman Polak to Leafs

[Rebel_1812]

Well I guess I will be changing my screen name soon then... it was a good run Gunnar!

I really think move has a lot to do with aquiring a right hand shot on D, since Polak is the only one under contract now...Franson would be a second if signed and possibly Grannberg may get a look this season. 

This was something I think that clearly hurt the Leafs all season with dmen playing on their off sides and teams forcing them to move the puck up on their backhand sides.  In fact it might not be a coincidence that both the Kings and Rangers each had a RH shot paired with a LH shot in all 3 of their pairings.  It does make it easier to pass D to D and move the puck up the ice.

I don't think Franson will be resigned, or if he does it will be to a bad contract.  I think he needs to be dealt to shake up the blueline.  He has contributed to a bad blueline for years.

 

[princedpw]

I really don't like these "I guess I'll have to wait and see how it turns out" deals. Even lateral moves make me excited at the possibilities - here I'm just trying to figure out what Nonis is thinking because I don't get it.

I think the thought process here is pretty clear. Nonis either values the kind of player Polak is more than Gunnarsson or he just thinks that Gunnarsson isn't as good as Polak.

... And some Leafs fans aren't particularly trustful of Nonis' judgement at this point.  I imagine some people are worried that Nonis is making the move because he sees attributes such as "grit" "hits" "blocks" "toughness" and they are worried that Nonis (and Carlyle) overvalue such attributes.  I personally don't know how to evaluate these guys but yeah, I don't like Nonis judgement much these days.  I feel the leafs are suffering a death by a thousand cuts, slowly frittering away assets a bit at a time over the years.

 

[dappleganger]

Gunnarsson is a good defenseman but he couldn't clear the zone to save his life. I'm happy with the trade but is there a team that retains more money in trades than the Leafs?

Seems like every trade that gets made the Leafs retain some salary.

 

[Kin]

... And some Leafs fans aren't particularly trustful of Nonis' judgement at this point.

Which is fine, everyone gets to read Nonis and the team how they want, but there's a difference between not understanding someone's thought process and questioning their judgment.

Likewise, there's a difference between questioning Nonis' judgment that Polak will be more valuable to the Leafs than Gunnarsson would and questioning whether or not he's a competent enough negotiator to only pay the price that St. Louis would accept. If St. Louis needed salary and a top 100 pick before they'd make that trade then it should tell you who St. Louis thought was more valuable too.

 

[lamajama]

Gunnarsson is a good defenseman but he couldn't clear the zone to save his life.

Really? That's what you saw? Compared to Dion? Yowza.

 

[dappleganger]

Gunnarsson is a good defenseman but he couldn't clear the zone to save his life.

Really? That's what you saw? Compared to Dion? Yowza.

Gunnarsson was 20th in the league in giveaways. Phaneuf was 28th in giveaways but also played more than 4 minutes more a game than Gunnarsson.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

... And some Leafs fans aren't particularly trustful of Nonis' judgement at this point.

Which is fine, everyone gets to read Nonis and the team how they want, but there's a difference between not understanding someone's thought process and questioning their judgment.

Likewise, there's a difference between questioning Nonis' judgment that Polak will be more valuable to the Leafs than Gunnarsson would and questioning whether or not he's a competent enough negotiator to only pay the price that St. Louis would accept. If St. Louis needed salary and a top 100 pick before they'd make that trade then it should tell you who St. Louis thought was more valuable too.

Right. I don't think that St. Louis really wanted to get rid of Polak, but the price Nonis paid is what it cost to make this work for us. Maybe the hip issues are what cost the little bit extra?

I think this trade for the Leafs is mostly about moving Riley and Gardiner up the line-up. We've all made line-ups on the back end, or at least every time I do it without Gunnar on Phaneuf's side, I have a hard time slotting Gunnar in otherwise. The best I could do is in the Armchair thread and that was pairing Gunnar with Granberg on the 3rd pairing, essentially moving Riley and Gardiner up anyway.

This trade allows Polak to be the #4, currently anyway, depending on what they do with Franson (I believe he's as good as gone when they get their price).

Gardiner/ Phaneuf
Riley/ Polak
Gleason/ Granberg
Holzer

They still have to deal with Gleason, as they probably won't like paying his price on the bottom pairing. While he's useful, I believe they have to deal with that contract and buying him out seems logical to me, especially with the cap not being as high as we thought, that's an extra 3 million.

As I said earlier, as have you, it's early and I expect quite a bit more movement.

 

[rdowdall]

So two years ago, when the Leafs made the playoffs, they played this edgy game, fought everybody, blocked shots, and were generally considered a tough team to play against.

This last year, there was none of that.  In the end, this may have made them ineffective.  The teams scored off the rush and that was about it.

Part of what removed there edge in my mind was the loss of players like Komarov and Grabovski.  I think these two players could really get under the opponents skin, and when tensions ran high, guys like Fraser, Orr and Maclaren beat the other team down, and guys like Kadri, Komarov, and Grabovski kept on driving the other team nuts.

Last year they didn't have the parts on their team to play this style.  Add in the addition of the "swarm" defensive tactic and we have a "missed playoffs" season.

All this is a lengthy way of saying that I think they are trying to get back to that edgy team that drove the opponents nuts, and a guy like Polak is useful in that scenario.

 

[Kin]

All this is a lengthy way of saying that I think they are trying to get back to that edgy team that drove the opponents nuts, and a guy like Polak is useful in that scenario.

So you're saying that they want to make this team more like the team from two years ago and their way to do that is to trade the guy who actually was the team's #2 defenseman from two years ago?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

As much as I don't have a real opinion on the trade as I don't know Polak well, I think people here highly overrate Gunnarsson.

 

[Kin]

As much as I don't have a real opinion on the trade as I don't know Polak well, I think people here highly overrate Gunnarsson.
[/quote

There's really nothing that increases a Maple Leafs' value more than getting traded away from the club.

 

[Andy007]

Oh please, people have been high on Gunnarsson for years. He's been the team's best all-around defenceman for the last two, anyway. It's not like Franson was traded and all of a sudden people are crawling out of the woodwork to lament his loss or complain that he should have yielded a first rounder.

Besides, most of the negativity here stems from the fact that the Leafs added a 90ish overall pick AND retained salary in the deal.

 

[bustaheims]

Besides, most of the negativity here stems from the fact that the Leafs added a 90ish overall pick AND retained salary in the deal.

And traded away the type of player they need more of, not less of.

 

[rdowdall]

All this is a lengthy way of saying that I think they are trying to get back to that edgy team that drove the opponents nuts, and a guy like Polak is useful in that scenario.

So you're saying that they want to make this team more like the team from two years ago and their way to do that is to trade the guy who actually was the team's #2 defenseman from two years ago?

Well, I don't think the Gunnerson who played last year was the same as the Gunnerson that played two years ago.  He wasn't horrible, but he wasn't as reliable as he was two years ago.  Maybe some of that is Phanuef, but I can't say for sure who to blame for a regression.  He just didn't look to be the same player on the ice last year.  Whether that is a loss of confidence, or his hip, or his defence partner, who knows?

So yeah, they traded the guy that looked to be unable to play his role from two years ago, for a guy that can Mark Fraser's role this year.  Not saying it's the right move.  I'm just saying that's what I think they did. 

 

[2badknees]

And traded away the type of player they need more of, not less of.

I'm going to make a bold prediction, and say that gunnarsson won't be playing in the NHL 4 years from now due to a degenerative hip - with his ability and playing time dropping each year until.

I'm guessing Nonis is making a similar prediction.

 

[Kin]

He's been the team's best all-around defenceman for the last two, anyway.

Yeah, see, I sort of think that's my point. Nobody would have said that during the season because they were too busy saying how Phaneuf is the best defenseman the team has. I'm by no means a Phaneuf fan but unless your definition of "all-around" doesn't include offense at all then I think it's pretty tough to justify that Gunnarsson has been anything besides a pretty good #2 defenseman during that stretch. A #2, it should mention, that just about every single line-up mock-up that has been made on this board during the last year has sought to improve upon.

Besides, most of the negativity here stems from the fact that the Leafs added a 90ish overall pick AND retained salary in the deal.

No, I got it. Most of the negativity surrounding the Bernier deal last year also involved that crippling salary retention.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Oh please, people have been high on Gunnarsson for years. He's been the team's best all-around defenceman for the last two, anyway.

Besides, most of the negativity here stems from the fact that the Leafs added a 90ish overall pick AND retained salary in the deal.

People thinking that Gunnarsson is anything more than a number 4 or 5 on a good number of teams in this league is greatly exaggerating what Gunnarsson brings to the table.

Also, I'm not stating that people are suddenly praising Gunnarsson for his skills...I think people have always viewed him for more than what he is.

 

[mr grieves]

That's why advanced stats aren't super useful here. You can either hold the flaws of the Maple Leafs against Gunnarsson, in which case Polak looks better, or you can use relative numbers in which case Polak is unduly penalized for playing with the best group of defensemen in the NHL. That Gunnarsson looks better compared to the Leafs' shamble a defensive grouping than Polak does to the team of Olympians he was playing with isn't really saying much either.

as much as it pains me to agree with Nik, that is the point I was trying to make.  Gunnarsson is the big minute defensive guy on a team that has been horrible defensively for years.  He has to been seen as part of the problem.  This is a good shake up move because Dion isn't going anywhere.

I dunno. This sounds a bit like bad player on good team > good player on bad team. And that seems a bit too simplistic to me.

Rather than looks at those relative advanced stats, which probably unfairly penalize Polak, I'm curious to know who they played against and how they did. If Polak played farther down the Blues depth chart because he was behind one of the defense corps in the league, could we say something about him by looking at how he did against the players he was up against?

 

[Kin]

So yeah, they traded the guy that looked to be unable to play his role from two years ago, for a guy that can Mark Fraser's role this year.

It just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense if you think that they want to capture an identity that revolved around hitting people and blocking shots and then trade Gunnarsson for someone with fewer hits and blocked shots.

 

[Bullfrog]

But Polak hits HARDER.