Re: Roman Polak to Toronto for Carl Gunnarsson and Pick 94
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:24 pm
This trade still pisses me off.
Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or whatever.
http://www.letsgoblues.com/phpBB/
It won't when Husso starts winning Vezina's on the regular.STLADOGG wrote:This trade still pisses me off.
Lol, yeah. That's as good of a guarantee as any I guess.ViPeRx007 wrote:It won't when Husso starts winning Vezina's on the regular.STLADOGG wrote:This trade still pisses me off.
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.ecbm wrote: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...dmiles2186 wrote:It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.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!!!
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.dmiles2186 wrote: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.ecbm wrote: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...dmiles2186 wrote:It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.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!!!
This.ComradeT wrote: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.dmiles2186 wrote: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.ecbm wrote: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...dmiles2186 wrote:It addresses the need to have a lefty shot to pair with Shattenkirk, which has been stated.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!!!
^^^This^^^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.