I’ve always tried to explain to you that there’s a difference between regular season hockey and playoff hockey. You seem to be the only one confused. Sample sizes have always been important, but only when measuring the same statistic. Regular season games are not the same as playoff games. While their sample size it greater, it doesn’t tell you anything accurate.
I'm well aware that you claim that regular season and playoff hockey are way more different than they are in order to dismiss relevant information. The issue here is the inconsistency. When it was a team that lost in the playoffs after an incredibly successful season, you claimed the rest of the season was irrelevant, and we should only look at playoff outcomes - no context necessary. When it was a team that was incredibly successful in the playoffs after struggling through the season, you claimed that the playoff outcomes were irrelevant, and we should only look at the regular season. When faced with this contradiction, you said that "results in both tell you the quality". So I asked how you weight each one, and you refuse to answer. Instead, you seem to have reverted back to suggesting that everything that happens in the regular season is completely irrelevant and worthless and tells you absolutely nothing about a team. I asked you what sample size we need for the playoffs, since you stripped contender status for 1 series while refusing to assign it for 4, and you refuse to answer that too. You say sample size is important, and yet you seem perfectly fine ignoring it.
Dubas doesn’t understand the importance of roles on a team.
He absolutely did. Whether you agree with the moves themselves or not, he addressed areas of need, filled roles, and pivoted quickly when necessary. If anybody is showing red flags in this regard, it's Treliving. He didn't really address anything that needed addressing, and seemed to forget entire roles and attributes existed. Too focused on 'snot', which accomplished nothing.
You have never blamed anything except bad luck.
No, you just weren't listening. You called any context (and many of the factors you are now pointing to) irrelevant until the GM switched to Treliving.
Cool.... so we've established the best choice at the time was still a bad option.
No, we've established that Treliving chose to re-sign Samsonov, and then chose to go into the playoffs with no goalie changes. With hindsight, we know that there were other goalies that did better this year. So the question is, is it okay to use hindsight against a GM when the choice made at the time was reasonable? Should we consider the situation and realistic options or just demand results?
Perhaps we should discuss why Tre walked into such a bad situation?
Treliving walked into a goalie coming off a good season - that Treliving had the choice and cap space to re-sign - and a backup signed to a great contract. If you think that's a bad situation, then the answer to your question is that we didn't draft one of a few goalies a decade ago.
We had some cap space, but the roster was in shambles after we went all-in with a pile of UFA rentals.
We had some assets, but our pool of picks and prospects has been diminished by years of trading them for UFA rentals.
The roster wasn't in shambles, and we didn't go all in with UFA rentals last year. Our net asset loss for pending UFAs was Sandin/2nd/3rd/4th. Treliving chose to not re-sign them, but we had a number of internal graduates and plenty of cap space to replace players and address what needed addressing. While we had traded some picks over the years like any team in our position, we still had plenty of assets, and we had drafted well and held onto the prospects. Treliving was not restricted by cap space or assets in his goalie decision.
