• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Gunnarson traded to the Blues for Polak, draft pick

uncus said:
I have no problem with the Polak trade ..... it was the draft pick I cant understand. Maybe Gunnersons hip played some part of this inclusion.
The leafs have one of the softest defences in the league ... this will help.
I do have a problem with the possible slotting of Reilly into the top d pairing. He isn't ready .. not even close. (keep protecting him for at least half of the season)
Also, the team doesn't need both Gleason and Polak. That friggen forth could have been used to trade away Gleason and his contract.
The Ranger experiment must be over.
I still think you might see some sort of Franson, Riemer and Clarkson deal with Edmonton.
Click to expand...

The issues aren't physicality, the problem is inability to transfer the puck up ice into an offensive rush. U can knock a guy on his ass all game but what good is it if u can't get the puck out of your own end
 
LeafGm said:
So, we've traded a guy who's been a solid, all-around dependable top-3/4 defenseman for us in exchange for a bottom-pairing defenseman, and to make it even more baffling, we threw in an extra draft pick and kept some of Gunn's salary so that we don't even get any cap benefit from this trade.

If this is the trading prowess of our two-headed GM Brendave Shanonishan on display, then I have to say, I'm not encouraged.
Click to expand...
That basically sums up my view on it too.

If Nonis & Shanny's view is Rielly and Gardiner are ready to step into #2 role, I think they are delusional, but I can at least dael with that.

If they feel that means Gunnar is now expandable, it is fine, but in the trade they did not really save any cap space, downgraded from a #3-4 to #5-6, and had to throw in a pick and some $$ to make it happen. What's the point of the trade then??? If they really deemed Gunnarsson as expandable I'd rather they trade him away for a pick or prospect to save themselves more cap space than to trade him for Polak.

And when you look at the overall picture, they downgraded from Gunnar to Polak, then bought out Gleason!!! Polak is minimal upgrade over Gleason (if any) ... why not just trade Gunnar for picks and keep Gleason in the #5 hole instead of Polak?? Doesn't that make more sense?

I still hold out a bit of hope for his management but I got a feeling I can completely write off the next 2-4 years in the next 2 days. If Shanny does any 2 of the following list I think we can write off the entire Shanny era for the next few years:
- Offer Bolland $25M/5
- Offer Boyle anything over $2.5M/1 yr
- Sign Brodeur (for any amount)
 
I think Boyle will get around 4 million, and probably for 2 years.

Brodeur on a 1 year deal for around a million isn't too bad.
 
Brodeur posted a .901 SV% last season, as a backup. That is subpar #, even for backup.

That's almost Monster-bad. There are much better options out there.
 
If money is tight, brodeur on a 1mil deal isn't bad. Time for bernier to play 65+ games. If he gets injured, were ****ed regardless.
 
Brodeur's leaving New Jersey because he's not happy with the amount of games he would be playing. He's not a backup the Leafs should be looking at.
 
I'd love to see Emery signed as the back up. The guy killed in Chicago and helped Philly come out of their hole. He isn't capable of playing the whole season, but he doesn't have to here.

Hire Brodeur as a goalie coach if he wants to be close to his son FFS.
 
Brodeur should either accept Jersey's terms or retire. It would be asinine for him to wreck the whole one team in his entire career narrative just to play somewhere random for one year. He's not a starter on any team in the NHL at this stage in his career.
 
MyNameIsJonas said:
Brodeur is still playing only because his ex wife cleaned him out.

This isnt a guy who's going to offer anyone a discount
Click to expand...

According to CapGeek, Brodeur has made over $81 million USD in his career. I don't care if you give up half of that salary in a divorce settlement, you're not hurting for money unless you're a total moron with finances. Brodeur never struck me as particularly stupid.

He does have an ego though, and probably has difficulty coming to terms with the fact that he's no longer a competent NHL goalie.
 
Yeah, I hated the trade at the time but even I accepted the potential that Gunner's hip is beyond him returning to form. If he returns to form, then I think this ends up looking bad for us, if it doesn't...Polak is a pretty decent get for a gimpy defender.
 
Yeah, this looks good if his hip is done. Otherwise, we got poor value for the assets (although I do like Polak and think he's a good addition to the blueline).
 
IMO it looks good either way. Gunnar and Polak are both #4/5 dmen. Gunnar was overused here as the Leafs only had one defenseman in Phaneuf. He matcPolak was relegated to depth duty behind Boumeester and Shattenkirk. Both guys are really somewhere in the middle though.

Polak is a really good skater, and makes smart plays with the puck, most likely from receiving great coaching the last few years. Plus he is a big body that is tough to deal with down low, and he can play the right side.

I don't think we downgraded very much, if at all, and we got the type of player we didn't have before. A big, physical defensive dman that can play the PK, but most importantly can skate. I would make that deal again, injury or no injury.

With Phaneuf-Gardiner-Rielly-Percy on the left side, Gunnar was more than expendable. Bringing in a couple of solid defensemen that skate well on the right side in Robidas and Polak was exactly what the team needed on the back end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top