GregStack said:
The Patriots have let go key players due to monetary restraints. It's not a poor argument. The patriots have been lucky enough to be able to sign players of equal value for less money because they've been winning, without that ability they would not have won 3 in 4 years.
Then obviously they were not key players. Success does not continue when you shed key components to your accomplishment. What YOU might perceive as a key player may not indeed be a key player for the team, and is proved by the continued success of the team itself.
For example, I was never a believer that Wayne Gretzky wa the straw that stirred the Edmonton Oilers. He was the go to scorer on the team, but he was not the guy who made the team go. I felt that player was Mark Messier, and there was evidence to support that when the Oilers won a Stanley Cup without Whiner and with Messier playing the role of world beater. The Oilers also took the largest hit to their team when Messier left for New York. The franchise changed dramatically at that point and had lost its soul. Wayne Gretzky will always be the greatest scorer in NHL history, but I think the greatest Oiler in team history is Mark Messier. He was the heart of that team and he made it tick.
A present day example is the Avalanche. That is why I think the Avs will continue to be dangerous, even without Forsberg. For as good a player as he is/was, he was not the heart and soul of the Avalanche IMO. Joe Sakic is the man in Colorado and is the guy that makes that franchise what it is. The Avs will survive without Forsberg, but as soon as Sakic leaves town the team is headed for a big down fall.
Key players may not be the guy you think they are. Some times the biggest star may not be half as important to the team as a second liner or a role player who leads on and off the ice.