It's not a rush. It's guys coming into camp and being one of our 12 best forwards or 6 best D. And they don't get rewarded for it. We ice a worse team, we reward worse play and, surprisingly, we have worse seasons.
If an NBA's team five best players are all forwards, should that be their lineup?
If an NFL team has 3 good running backs, should they play the wishbone?
If an MLB team has five good outfielders, should they play the other two at 1st and 3rd?
There's best player, and then there's best fit. There's talent, and there is role. Those things are much more equal in importance than you seem to allow.
Tomas Tatar is a (much) better and (much) more talented player than Luke Glendening. In a situation where a defensive stop is of paramount importance I would rather have Glendening on the ice than Tatar. That exchange in role and responsibility happens a lot. Brian Rafalski was a really, really good dman. I'd rather Ericsson out on the ice for a PK each time and every time.
The thing is, you can't set yourself up to make that decision in the moment when you are composing a roster. You have to make sure you have a sufficient spread of different types of resources available so that, if possible, a coach can have some lineup and strategy flexibility when those situations arise.
If you stuff the roster with the 12 'best' forwards you're very likely only going to be able to play a very few types or styles of game. If you season talent on the roster with "grit" you allow yourself more options and greater ability to respond to specific game situations accordingly.
What that means is occasionally a "better" forward will get passed over for a "lesser" one. Sometimes it's a poor assessment of talent and choosing between similar players incorrectly for a similar role. Other times it is consciously choosing a player that is more limited in some aspect but more accomplished in a different, specific one.
And Sheahan was the third line center for the entire season.
"And Andersson was skating on what should have been our third line in the playoffs. "
By pointing out that in the playoffs he was skating mostly with Jurco (who should not have been on the third line) and then a fairly close split between Weiss (who should not have been on the third line) and Sheahan (who possibly should have been but possibly not) I was describing the things that led me to disagree with your quoted statement.
If you feel the third line should have been Jurco-Sheahan-Weiss, ok... but I'd totally disagree with that too.
The lines were mostly:
Helm-Datsyuk-Tatar
Abdelkader-Z-Nyquist
Miller-Glendening-Ferraro
Andersson-Sheahan-Jurco-Weiss
... with Sheahan getting a slight plurality of his IT time up between Nyquist and Tatar.
It was a mistake not using him as such, instead of using him as a slop line once the playoffs began. It was asking it to be mediocre, and it's what we got.
A) 28.99% EV 14 NYQUIST,GUSTAV - 15 SHEAHAN,RILEY - 21 TATAR,TOMAS
25.21% EV 18 ANDERSSON,JOAKIM - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 15 SHEAHAN,RILEY
10.08% EV 41 GLENDENING,LUKE - 20 MILLER,ANDREW - 15 SHEAHAN,RILEY
5.04% EV 13 DATSYUK,PAVEL - 15 SHEAHAN,RILEY - 21 TATAR,TOMAS
B) He was third on the team in PP IT/g behind Abdelkader and Z.
I don't think he was exactly buried or stripped of offensive opportunity. He spent 34ish% of his ES IT up with Datsyuk, Nyquist and Tatar (and probably more when you work in the straggler combos), and spent 35ish% of his ES IT down with Andersson, Jurco, Glendenning and Miller (and probably more for the same reason).
That seems fair for a guy with a balanced skill set, right?
And no one is running Andersson out of town.
"His (Andersson's) minutes were limited because he sucks, but he was still out there. Until the Wings do differently, I don't see any reason to believe that, given the availability of the roster spot, the Wings won't just make a similar play this fall. Plop Andersson into the lineup..."
What's that, a seal of approval? He sucks and makes the sound 'plop' when his name is written on a lineup card?
Yes or no, you'd prefer Andersson off the roster for any other option (besides perhaps Cleary) sight unseen? All you know is that Andersson's gone, but Cleary's not replacing him. You'd say yes in like 3.8 seconds, right?
You're not reaching for the pitchfork, but you're not exactly hiding the torches either.