Do you dislike Shattenkirk or do you not like the idea of GMBM trying to grab the "best" rental asset out there before the trade deadline?
Just curious. Because I'm not saying I love Shattenkirk or that I think he's the best defenseman out there, but I definitely would aim to grab the best rental asset to put us over the top.
That logic makes no sense, and is evidence as to why we sucked with Shattenkirk in the playoffs and why this year, without doing what your think we should in that aspect, we ended up winning.
Playoff success is about chemistry, not getting the best players available. Is there times you need to get the best players available? Yes. But look at even team drafting, all of the outlets were covering this before the draft last night. In years past, like a decade plus ago, you would have to draft BPA. Drafting for positional or team need, or character reasons was just so less common. That has changed.
Kempny ended up being a better fit for us than Shattenkirk, it's as simple as that. Shattenkirk may be a better player, but our team didn't need more players with the assets and weaknesses of a player that Shattenkirk brought. We already had Carlson, at the time and Orlov. We had enough risky defenders who may not be as steady in there own end. Kempny was the reverse of those players, who instead of being good offensively and okay defensively, he was good defensively and okay offensively. It ended up being just the comfort type of player to fill out our top four, and have them be a good top four for the playoffs.
This is the kind of stuff that DC is talking about though. How name recognition and perceived "value" automatically mean to some fans "better." Patrick Kane is better than TJ Oshie. But the Caps needed TJ Oshie far more than they need a player of Patrick Kane's ilk. Why? Because we needed a skill guy who played his heart out like Jay Beagle. We needed another on ice leader, to help change the mentality of this team. It's another case of why you can't just look at pure value or perceived quality of talent. It's about much more than that.
And it's the only area where I'm perfectly fine saying BMGM deserves credit when it comes to building this roster. For me it wasn't just that he began to fill holes that we had lacked. By shoring up the defense and prioritizing center depth. But I also think DC has a point when he suggests that it wasn't all built by this intention. The Shattenkirk deal going south seems to me more what BMGM was thinking, make big deals/trades and stick with your guns.
I think it just so happened, that the coaching staff's interest in certain players, as for sure BMGM wasn't making those decisions in a vaccum regarding Nisky, Orpik, Eller, DSP, Oshie. That the coaching staff and scouts acknowledged the tangible assets some of these players brought to the table. This season seemed to me like BMGM just kind of rolled with what he had, and due to circumstance that ended up surrounding our main core group with some of the best, hardest workers in the depth chart we were going to find. When you combine that with the burning desire of some of our core players, notably Ovi? It simply shocked teams. It's how you get the first Cup win in the bank.
So all in all I'd say BMGM probably doesn't deserve that much credit for everything. I think there is some smart moves he made, but I also think a bunch of his moves were kind of just "stepped" into as well. The only reason I have faith in our coaching staff is because I know how involved Rierden and co were with Trotz. But I think players and coaching staff deserve far more credit for this team than anyone else. Clearly BMGM didn't think Chandler Stephenson was an answer for us heading into the season, but the play of himself and the coaches for believing in him is a big reason he succeeded so well in the playoffs.
It's moments like this, where we could end up overpaying for Carlson and hamstringing our roster, and dealing with filling holes again now that BMGM really gets to be judged.
