Gunnarson traded to the Blues for Polak, draft pick
- Thread starter TSN.ca
- Start date
Volcanologist
Well-known member
yeah, our pro scouting has been terrible.
but the results will continue to reflect that, and Shanahan will fire them. I hope.
but the results will continue to reflect that, and Shanahan will fire them. I hope.
Pucklosopher
Member
Personally, I think the Clarkson and Komisarek signings (and Gleason trade) were because they saw a void on the team and so they signed the individual to help resolve that problem. It's not just a roster problem, though. That's part of it. But it's an entire team thing. Just because guys like Komi and Gleason are gritty doesn't mean the rest of the team is absolved from those elements of the game.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
The major, glaring problem with those signings, and they're still prevalent in the team's approach is to put obscene amounts of value on the subjective unknowable above the objective knowable. Feely "we watch the game" bullshit over objective (though in fairness, incomplete) data.
We're still doing that.
leafman101
Well-known member
Nah that's bs. You need guys like Polak. You just can't spend $5 mill on them. And thy aren't. They finally got it right.
Pucklosopher
Member
I think the problems with this Leafs team are largely intangible. Firstly, because defence in hockey isn't something that's really objectively measurable. But also because if you look at the talent - this is not the 8th worst team in hockey. Organizations like the Wings and the Devils are doing better than the Leafs with a fraction of the talent.
The thing is.. Leafs brass has been going about fixing the intangibles the wrong way. Instead of from the inside-out, they keep trying to make a big signing that will fill the intangibles quota, like it's a checkmark on a list. Meanwhile, our top-line cherry-picks the whole game. That is more indicative of the problem with this Leafs team than anything you can find on paper, IMO.
The thing is.. Leafs brass has been going about fixing the intangibles the wrong way. Instead of from the inside-out, they keep trying to make a big signing that will fill the intangibles quota, like it's a checkmark on a list. Meanwhile, our top-line cherry-picks the whole game. That is more indicative of the problem with this Leafs team than anything you can find on paper, IMO.
leafman101
Well-known member
Why not look at teams that have actually won something. La had Mitchell, muzzin, regher and Greene. Chicago had hjalmersson, oduya and brookbank. Boston had ferrence, boychuk and macquaid.
Every winning team has players like that. You can't pretend like big physical defensive dmen aren't valuable in hockey. They clearly are. Just not $5 million valuable.
Pucklosopher
Member
Actually, forget about the word intangibles. The most important question is: how does this Leafs team improve defensively? How do they allow less shots / goals? Defence is an entire team thing, a habit - not something really solvable on paper.
Deckie007
Well-known member
If we had a Doughty, Duncan, Seabrook or Chara it would be different. Alas, we do not.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Polak isn't like these guys though. Not even close to as good. Similar style of play, sure. But not as good. I
Do you watch Hjalmarrson and Oduya play? They're far more similar to Gunnarsson than they are Polak.
Are we really going to pretend that having vezina calibre goaltending didn't cover up for how slow the Bruins blueline was?
Oh, they can be valuable. I'd just like for you to show me where those teams gave up something of value for those physical defenders, and didn't develop them for free.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
We don't measure it perfectly, but we absolutely do measure it. There's nothing intangible about not being able to clear your own zone.
Yes, but there's nothing necessarily "intangible" about that. It's not the "character" or "toughness" or some such bullshit, it's the implementation of a decent system. Our coach has shown over the past number of years to have a system that weighs on his team's possession of the puck. We saw it last season in a team that couldn't clear it's zone and gave up the highest amount of shots in the modern era.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
1) Cover the points: We gave up a grotesque amount of point shots last season, which leads into point 2
2) Stop collapsing: So, winger would stay low in the corner to assist the defender. Puck gets chipped back to the blueline. Impending, wide open point shot would cause everything in a blue and white jersey to collapse really close to the net. Long shot on net often equals either a long rebound, or miss the next and ricochet far from the net. Now we're chasing again because of the ground you need to cover to get to the boards, where the puck is.
3) Triangle break outs: Enough with the 100 foot passes. They have their place but it should only be to establish odd man situations. 80-90% of the time your break outs should be in puck support. We have more than enough speed and skill to create havoc on the breakout, even with a boring, structured breakout.
4) Possess the ****ing puck more: Bring in strong possession depth players. No more goon lines stuck in our zone for 90 seconds, no more Jay McClement checking lines chasing the puck their whole shift. Bring in quality depth that can competently move the puck through the neutral zone, get it deep, and keep it there as much as possible.
zeke
Well-known member
muzzin? Hjalmarsson? Oduya?
how are they remotely like Polak?
Mitchell? Regehr? Ference?
when has Polak ever been as good as they were?
zeke
Well-known member
The problem is that they keep misdiagnosing a lack of TALENT as a lack of CHARACTER.
over and over and over again.
MyNameIsJonas
Well-known member
I'm feeling a Shawn Thornton character signing.
Leafin'
Well-known member
I would be willing to bet we in fact do sign Shawn Thornton.
I have no problem with the trade. Gunnarson was very meh to me.
Our draft was relatively weak in that we didn't move up or get any additional picks. The prospects we got i don't know enough about to comment, so i will reserve judgement for the future.
I will give Shanahan and Nonis until opening day to see what the roster looks like.
I have no problem with the trade. Gunnarson was very meh to me.
Our draft was relatively weak in that we didn't move up or get any additional picks. The prospects we got i don't know enough about to comment, so i will reserve judgement for the future.
I will give Shanahan and Nonis until opening day to see what the roster looks like.
number17
Mod Squad
To be fair, I haven't seen Polak play as much as I'd like, so maybe the trade is not as disastrous as I thought. And it IS true you don't need a bunch of redundant defensemen on the backend - all 6 softish, skilled, good skating dmen (not say that's what we have, but just saying a group of 6 like that) won't work very well. You do need a mix of muscle and finess on your 6 D unit to make it work. Having said that, if you handle the puck like a hand grenade, then you will always struggle to play key roles in the NHL.
Nonis publicly admitted Polak is a 4-5 D, and if you consider the fact that Gunnarson was our 1st unit D playing upward of 20 min a game in PP, PK and ES, that's when you realize the trade is a DOWNGRADE - and this is despite the fact Gunnaron was not a true 1st unit guy, he's very easy a 3-4 D, so going from a 3-4 D to a 5-6 D is a downgrade.
So we downgraded to go for a different kind of dman, that alone might not be so bad, but we also have to throw in a pick and retain some salary to make that trade happen???? Immediately you know it isn't a good trade even IF Polak is a good fit on this team.
And here's the other problem. A major problem with our D last few years was Phaneuf was the only dman playing where he should. Gunnar should have been playing
on 2nd unit and he played on the 1st. Franson should have been playing on 3rd unit and he was playing on 2nd. Gleason should have been #6 or #7, but he was playing as high as #4. Gardiner was inconsistent, Rielly was a rookie. We really needed another top unit dman to help Phaneuf so we can push everyone else down a slot.
In trading a #3-4 guy for a #4-5 guy, not only we haven't got that all important #2D, we now essentially brought everyone up a slot!
If we traded Gunnar for, say, Polak and a 2nd or Polak + a prospect I may have been ok with it. But we had to throw in some cap space and a pick to make that trade happen tell us it's a bad trade. There's just no way to defend that.
Nonis publicly admitted Polak is a 4-5 D, and if you consider the fact that Gunnarson was our 1st unit D playing upward of 20 min a game in PP, PK and ES, that's when you realize the trade is a DOWNGRADE - and this is despite the fact Gunnaron was not a true 1st unit guy, he's very easy a 3-4 D, so going from a 3-4 D to a 5-6 D is a downgrade.
So we downgraded to go for a different kind of dman, that alone might not be so bad, but we also have to throw in a pick and retain some salary to make that trade happen???? Immediately you know it isn't a good trade even IF Polak is a good fit on this team.
And here's the other problem. A major problem with our D last few years was Phaneuf was the only dman playing where he should. Gunnar should have been playing
on 2nd unit and he played on the 1st. Franson should have been playing on 3rd unit and he was playing on 2nd. Gleason should have been #6 or #7, but he was playing as high as #4. Gardiner was inconsistent, Rielly was a rookie. We really needed another top unit dman to help Phaneuf so we can push everyone else down a slot.
In trading a #3-4 guy for a #4-5 guy, not only we haven't got that all important #2D, we now essentially brought everyone up a slot!
If we traded Gunnar for, say, Polak and a 2nd or Polak + a prospect I may have been ok with it. But we had to throw in some cap space and a pick to make that trade happen tell us it's a bad trade. There's just no way to defend that.