Page 3 of 3

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:24 pm
by STLADOGG
This trade still pisses me off.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:08 pm
by ViPeRx007
STLADOGG wrote:This trade still pisses me off.
It won't when Husso starts winning Vezina's on the regular.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:08 pm
by STLADOGG
ViPeRx007 wrote:
STLADOGG wrote:This trade still pisses me off.
It won't when Husso starts winning Vezina's on the regular.
Lol, yeah. That's as good of a guarantee as any I guess.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:20 am
by dmiles2186
ecbm wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
ecbm wrote:I can't see how the moves so far address the team's shortcomings. THAT'S WHY WE'RE READING INTO THINGS, ARMY!!!
It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.
Did Shattenkirk not playing with a left-handed shot strike you as a significant problem last season? Never really occurred to me. I think the thing Army actually wanted here was the draft pick-and I have no problem with that especially considering the Blues' D prospects. Still leaves me to speculate as to what the front office has planned to address needs...
No, it didn't strike me as a significant problem. But per JR and other sources, the Blues were looking for a compatible lefty shot to play w/ Shattenkirk, that's all I meant.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:11 am
by ComradeT
dmiles2186 wrote:
ecbm wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
ecbm wrote:I can't see how the moves so far address the team's shortcomings. THAT'S WHY WE'RE READING INTO THINGS, ARMY!!!
It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.
Did Shattenkirk not playing with a left-handed shot strike you as a significant problem last season? Never really occurred to me. I think the thing Army actually wanted here was the draft pick-and I have no problem with that especially considering the Blues' D prospects. Still leaves me to speculate as to what the front office has planned to address needs...
No, it didn't strike me as a significant problem. But per JR and other sources, the Blues were looking for a compatible lefty shot to play w/ Shattenkirk, that's all I meant.
Given our meager PP, pairing up right- and left-handed shooting D could be a significant improvement. Much better one-timer opportunities, which were sorely missing from the blue line when the good guys were on the power play.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:20 am
by ViPeRx007
ComradeT wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
ecbm wrote:
dmiles2186 wrote:
ecbm wrote:I can't see how the moves so far address the team's shortcomings. THAT'S WHY WE'RE READING INTO THINGS, ARMY!!!
It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.
Did Shattenkirk not playing with a left-handed shot strike you as a significant problem last season? Never really occurred to me. I think the thing Army actually wanted here was the draft pick-and I have no problem with that especially considering the Blues' D prospects. Still leaves me to speculate as to what the front office has planned to address needs...
No, it didn't strike me as a significant problem. But per JR and other sources, the Blues were looking for a compatible lefty shot to play w/ Shattenkirk, that's all I meant.
Given our meager PP, pairing up right- and left-handed shooting D could be a significant improvement. Much better one-timer opportunities, which were sorely missing from the blue line when the good guys were on the power play.
This.

What we lost in toughness with this trade, we make up for with improved puck movement, which should ultimately mean more scoring chances. If this improves our powerplay then I'm all for it. I think it will.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:28 am
by Robb_K
Getting Gunnarsson and Husso for Polak was a very good trade (as long as Gunnarsson's hip heals successfully-which it should). Gunnarsson may not be the classical "crease clearer with a nasty streak), but he has for years played consistently well in his own zone vs. opponents' #1 and #2 lines, and played with poise against hard forechecking. Unlike Polak, he doesn't panic and lose the puck on a turnover, or just dump it off the wall, only for the opponents to skate it right back in. He also can skate the puck away from trouble, and out of the defensive zone, and make the good first pass, starting up the offence. Polak does little of that very well. Playing next to either Shattenkirk OR Pietrangelo, he gives The Blues 4 defencemen who are capable of skating the puck out of trouble, leading the rush, and starting the offence off quickly, before defenders can get into position. He eats up a LOT of minutes without over-exposing a defensive weakness (unlike Polak, with his susceptibility to a hard forecheck. I like this trade VERY much even up. Getting a potential quality NHL starting goalie (Husso) out of it, as well, makes it a great trade.

I DO, however, agree that The Blues need to add toughness. But, I don't see this trade hurting Cole's chances for minutes. He's GOT to nail down full time on the 3rd shift, and hope, in the future, to win some PK time.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:06 pm
by ecbm
Understood about the lefthanded shot. Personally I don't feel like it'll make much difference but I hope I'm wrong. I just think this team needs to find some physicality on defense quick. Gunnarson strikes me as another in the Petro-Boumeester-Shattenkirk mold. Being a goalie myself, I appreciate those guys but I really appreciate defensemen who can clear the crease of a big body. I don't see that on the current roster.

Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:36 pm
by Jackman5
ecbm wrote:Understood about the lefthanded shot. Personally I don't feel like it'll make much difference but I hope I'm wrong. I just think this team needs to find some physicality on defense quick. Gunnarson strikes me as another in the Petro-Boumeester-Shattenkirk mold. Being a goalie myself, I appreciate those guys but I really appreciate defensemen who can clear the crease of a big body. I don't see that on the current roster.
^^^This^^^