Roman Polak to Leafs

[2badknees]

I like gunnarsson, but hip problems are almost always degenerative. Its not like he was an ideal #2 anyway.  Polak indeed does bring some positive elements to the team. Tough, positionally sound, decent skater.

I'm not going to jump on this "awful trade" bandwagon until some more info/future moves come to pass. Perhaps Dan Boyle in that #2 is on the leafs radar, or more trades pending.

 

[Redleaf]

I like gunnarsson, but hip problems are almost always degenerative. Its not like he was an ideal #2 anyway.  Polak indeed does bring some positive elements to the team. Tough, positionally sound, decent skater.

I'm not going to jump on this "awful trade" bandwagon until some more info/future moves come to pass. Perhaps Dan Boyle in that #2 is on the leafs radar, or more trades pending.

I can't help but wonder if Polak replaces the toughness that will be needed when they trade away Dion?

 

[Rebel_1812]

Polak has better corsi numbers then gunnarson 49.4 to 40.1 as per these links:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=451713&hubname=nhl-maple_leafs
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=454364&hubname=nhl-blues
Polak is also cheaper, but I'm hearing we had to retain salary so that becomes a moot point. I agree moving gunnarson is a good idea because he was a big minute defensive defensemen for a team that is horrible defensively.  Trading him is like firing a coach.  I am not sure if Polak is better then him but considering the Leafs gave up more it make it look that way.

 

[wnc096]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

 

[L K]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

 

[2badknees]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

So it was an essentially no-risk move, for a player that wasn't cracking the lineup due to Gardiner and Reilly playing a similar game, for a guy who had a better shot at playing bottom pairing minutes with a different style. So it's Nonis's fault it didn't pan out into some sort of magical steal? Who cares? Its not like Liles was some huge asset Nonis wasted.

 

[bustaheims]

Capgeek has the Leafs retaining $630K per season in this deal. Hopefully, they're wrong, but, if not . . . that would mean, not only do the Leafs not save any cap space on this deal, they would, in fact, be taking on more.

 

[TML fan]

Retain salary and give up a pick....I love this team.

 

[L K]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

So it was an essentially no-risk move, for a player that wasn't cracking the lineup due to Gardiner and Reilly playing a similar game, for a guy who had a better shot at playing bottom pairing minutes with a different style. So it's Nonis's fault it didn't pan out into some sort of magical steal? Who cares? Its not like Liles was some huge asset Nonis wasted.

Or, and this is a complete stretch.  He could have used the Leafs second buyout on Liles instead of Komisarek (who had 1 year left on his deal).  Kept Komisarek in the AHL like had the previous year and not acquired Gleason's bad contract.  Following a bad decision with another bad decision doesn't make it no-risk.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Polak has better corsi numbers then gunnarson 49.4 to 40.1 as per these links:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=451713&hubname=nhl-maple_leafs
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=454364&hubname=nhl-blues
Polak is also cheaper, but I'm hearing we had to retain salary so that becomes a moot point. I agree moving gunnarson is a good idea because he was a big minute defensive defensemen for a team that is horrible defensively.  Trading him is like firing a coach.  I am not sure if Polak is better then him but considering the Leafs gave up more it make it look that way.

I think when comparing players from two teams with such drastically different possession numbers overall, it is more helpful to look at their relative corsi numbers to see how they performed in relation to the rest of the team.  Almost any player on the top possession teams will have better numbers because of how poorly the Leafs numbers were.

For instance:

Polak: http://www.extraskater.com/players/dashboard?team=stl&pos=D&min_gp=50
Gunnarsson: http://www.extraskater.com/players/dashboard?team=tor&pos=D&min_gp=50

And even that might not make it any clearer.

 

[lamajama]

Just for those keeping up.  A team that struggled significantly to play defense are not bringing back: Gunnarsson, Kulemin and McClement

But are in talks to try and retain Raymond and Franson.

Well, a lot of that is kind of moot since they decided to retain the man responsible for the porous defensive system. So, questionable decisions everywhere.

I see them taking a real good run at McDavid.

As much as I would love that, I just can't see it. We just have too many decent-to-good players vs Buffalo as an example.

Carlyle would have to surpass even his own low bar to do this and I think just having a healthy Bernier will crater this hope.

We're stuck in no-man's land again - 16th to 24th.

 

[wnc096]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

So it was an essentially no-risk move, for a player that wasn't cracking the lineup due to Gardiner and Reilly playing a similar game, for a guy who had a better shot at playing bottom pairing minutes with a different style. So it's Nonis's fault it didn't pan out into some sort of magical steal? Who cares? Its not like Liles was some huge asset Nonis wasted.

Or, and this is a complete stretch.  He could have used the Leafs second buyout on Liles instead of Komisarek (who had 1 year left on his deal).  Kept Komisarek in the AHL like had the previous year and not acquired Gleason's bad contract.  Following a bad decision with another bad decision doesn't make it no-risk.

hindsight is 20/20....i don't think anyone was complaining at the time when they bought out Komisarek.

the other factor is that the leafs Defense was amazingly healthy this year.  Franson, Phaneuf, gunnarson, gardiner, all played 79+ games...reilly played 73 only because he was a healthy scratch. 

Liles was a million times better insurance policy than Komisarek....so at the time I think  it made sense

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

James Mirtle @mirtle

Nonis said Gunnarsson had played through quite a bit of pain the last two years. Chronic hip issue.

 

[2badknees]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

So it was an essentially no-risk move, for a player that wasn't cracking the lineup due to Gardiner and Reilly playing a similar game, for a guy who had a better shot at playing bottom pairing minutes with a different style. So it's Nonis's fault it didn't pan out into some sort of magical steal? Who cares? Its not like Liles was some huge asset Nonis wasted.

Or, and this is a complete stretch.  He could have used the Leafs second buyout on Liles instead of Komisarek (who had 1 year left on his deal).  Kept Komisarek in the AHL like had the previous year and not acquired Gleason's bad contract.  Following a bad decision with another bad decision doesn't make it no-risk.

If not for Gardner and Reilly bucking severe odds, and both cracking the lineup, Liles would likely have played on the roster. You can play hindsight games all day, but Nonis was in a position due to good fortune with his draft picks being NHL ready,  where he had a guy on a big ticket in the AHL in the present unlikely scenario.  There's far more relevant leafs GM moves to critique.

 

[13th fan]

I would call this a baby step trade,  at best a lateral move!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

When I think of team issues, being "soft" isn't one of them.  Gleason was supposedly this tough presence and I thought he was brutal.

I don't think gleason was brought in for his toughness....i think he was brought in because he was the only avenue available to move Liles.  They had to take a bad contract back to move out a bad contract.

And yet, in the case of Liles, they moved out a bad contract for one that is slightly worse. We took on an addition 125K in salary/cap hit.

So it was an essentially no-risk move, for a player that wasn't cracking the lineup due to Gardiner and Reilly playing a similar game, for a guy who had a better shot at playing bottom pairing minutes with a different style. So it's Nonis's fault it didn't pan out into some sort of magical steal? Who cares? Its not like Liles was some huge asset Nonis wasted.

Or, and this is a complete stretch.  He could have used the Leafs second buyout on Liles instead of Komisarek (who had 1 year left on his deal).  Kept Komisarek in the AHL like had the previous year and not acquired Gleason's bad contract.  Following a bad decision with another bad decision doesn't make it no-risk.

If not for Gardner and Reilly bucking severe odds, and both cracking the lineup, Liles would likely have played on the roster. You can play hindsight games all day, but Nonis was in a position due to good fortune with his draft picks being NHL ready,  where he had a guy on a big ticket in the AHL in the present unlikely scenario.  There's far more relevant leafs GM moves to critique.

Well on July 30 when they signed Mark Fraser, they had around $4.6 million left to sign both Kadri/Franson.  They eventually signed both and went into the season very close to the cap and had issues all season long with making moves, and couldn't really make any deadline moves in part because they did not have much wiggle room.  Liles was a player who had already been a healthy scratch a number of times under Carlyle (at one point 12 straight games) and so it's not like they were going into the season with Liles penciled into the lineup ahead of Rielly.  He was being healthy scratch'd before Rielly even arrived.

 

[drummond]

People will love Polak, he is pretty tough bordering on mean, which is exactely what the Leafs need, but much better than Gleason or recently departed Fraser. However, there is no way he can play with Dion on 1st D unit. Dealing Gunnar means promotion for Rielly.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I don't think you can grade this trade until all the off-season moves are made and we see what the team looks like on opening night.

Last year our shots against was horrendous and I think a big body like Polak clearing out the crease in front of Bernier will help reduce that somewhat. We do need a right-handed shot on the blueline to balance things out a bit, with Franson being the only one and not guaranteed  to return next year.

It might not have been the best return for Gunnarsson, but this deal did address some team needs on the blueline as much as people want to complain about it. Gardiner and his puny, stick-man 184 lbs isn't clearing any crease while Polak at a bruising 236 lbs will punish forwards who step into the blue paint.

You don't need every d-man to be a slick skating, puck moving, offensive wizard. It is good to have at least one stay at home bruiser who will be hell on the other teams forwards and we were sorely missing that element last season. I think the team tried to get that from Gleason, but he doesn't really fit the role.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Polak has better corsi numbers then gunnarson 49.4 to 40.1 as per these links:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=451713&hubname=nhl-maple_leafs
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/story/?id=454364&hubname=nhl-blues
Polak is also cheaper, but I'm hearing we had to retain salary so that becomes a moot point. I agree moving gunnarson is a good idea because he was a big minute defensive defensemen for a team that is horrible defensively.  Trading him is like firing a coach.  I am not sure if Polak is better then him but considering the Leafs gave up more it make it look that way.

I think when comparing players from two teams with such drastically different possession numbers overall, it is more helpful to look at their relative corsi numbers to see how they performed in relation to the rest of the team.  Almost any player on the top possession teams will have better numbers because of how poorly the Leafs numbers were.

For instance:

Polak: http://www.extraskater.com/players/dashboard?team=stl&pos=D&min_gp=50
Gunnarsson: http://www.extraskater.com/players/dashboard?team=tor&pos=D&min_gp=50

And even that might not make it any clearer.

But they contribute to the teams possession numbers from takeaways and giveaways.  If your looking for team dependant numbers it would be best to look at +/-.

 

[drummond]

I am telling you Shanny is right, he is damn tough guy. The  Leafs have plenty of offensive minded D, what they need is a guy who clears the net and hits without mercy and punishes opposition. Polak is considered the toughest Czech in the NHL. I know it means nothing, but you all complained that Gunnar is weak etc.... In that regard Polak is definately an upgrade. Point wise probably not, but production will be expected from others. Would love to see Polak - Granberg shotdown pairing.