The case for Yandle with regards to five on five play is the furthest thing possible from a slam dunk "his benefits outweigh the bad". When you consider that the PP has been both good and awful with him here it muddies the best thing he has going for him. As much as you don't want it to, his lackadaisical approach to the defense part of his job and his often appalling timing on bad plays do factor into how he is evaluated. Goalies get traded all the time because they can only turn out above average production in the regular season yet fold like a cheap lawn chair in the playoffs. Why is that off limits when discussing Yandle?
This is borderline incoherent, so I'm going to take it sentence by sentence.
Regarding the PP, the performance of the players around him is only so important. Even when the powerplay was bad, he was better than everyone else. Had he not been there, it would have been even worse. That matters.
I didn't say his defense didn't factor into his evaluation. That's asinine. Please stick to the points I actually made, not the ones you want me to make. I'm not really interested in defending arguments you're fabricating.
Goalies don't get traded "all the time," much less for bad playoff performances. I'm sure it's a factor in their valuation, though, as it is for defensemen. That's my point:
everything is a factor. All anyone wants to talk about are some misplays, though. Let's talk about his special teams play, his transition game, his offensive contributions, even at even strength.
It all matters.
Which is greater, the TOI a team spends at even strength or on the powerplay? I also don't buy the argument that the PP will drop off to the bottom of the league without him. It was there with him, so he's just one factor. He's good at it, but an equally calm shot from the point would probably have adequate success. You'd also have to figure in the upgraded firepower up front. In the end, it would likely be a wash. When you consider the WCF team had the 2nd worst PP in the league with arguably better personnel, you can see that a lot of it is coaching. Yandle would be missed but he is not irreplaceable.
Obviously the team spends more time at even strength, but powerplay time is more important. The Coyotes scored 56 goals on the powerplay in about 451 minutes. That's why Yandle matters.
Again, you're arguing against something I never said. Will the powerplay finish dead last without Yandle? No, probably not. Could it be better if he were replaced? Maybe, but it's not really worth arguing in the abstract since we have no idea who those players even are, much less how they'd fit here.
A lot of it is coaching, but you're not going to convince anybody that personnel isn't important, too.
The point of trading Yandle in that situation would be to gain five on five solidarity and forward depth, while sacrificing some "mobility" on the back end. He's a specialist on a team that doesn't need one and can't afford one right now. That he is on the trade block and has been seasons past is the best case against Yandle. Clearly the hockey minds in the front office can envision life without him and what a return would do for this franchise. A lightning rod for sure, but one the franchise can do without.
The Coyotes were fine at 5 on 5 this year, and they were better at it when Yandle was on the ice. Penalty killing was a much larger issue, but Yandle played all of 12 seconds a game on the PK (and his presence on the powerplay freed up other, better defenders to play the PK more). Could you find another defenseman to improve the PK? Sure, but you can do that without moving Yandle.
There's also zero evidence that he's "on the trade block," and you could argue that the "rumors" indicate how highly other teams value him as much as how the Coyotes may be looking to move him. It's not really a valuable point either way.
How do you improve without trading him? There's not much money to go around. Drafting takes time this franchise doesn't have. Nobody else on the roster is really worth enough in trade to make it worthwhile. So you're asking the fans to pin their hopes on Ribeiro and a few bottom six signings. That's not exciting, it doesn't sell tickets, and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team. The shortened season was the mulligan. This last year was the test, and they failed.
"There's not much money to go around." Yandle isn't paid all that much for an elite offensive player. If you're bringing in forwards who would offset his impact, they're likely going to get paid a lot more.
"Drafting takes time this franchise doesn't have." Why do they have less time than anybody else? There's no need to make a knee jerk move here. There's possibly (maybe) a chance they'll have to move if they can't turn a profit in the next few years, but the franchise would continue to exist past that point either way, so there's no real incentive for anybody to be making rash decisions in the short term.
"Nobody else on the roster is really worth enough in trade to make it worthwhile." No one I'd be comfortable trading, but I'm not comfortable trading Yandle, either, and for the same reason.
"So you're asking the fans to pin their hopes on Ribeiro and a few bottom six signings." I'm not asking the fans to do ****. There are lots of ways to improve the forward corps without trading Yandle. Let's also not forget that he and Michalek are really the only legitimate veterans this team has going into next season as of now.
"That's not exciting,"
Who cares?
"it doesn't sell tickets,"
Winning does. Trading fan favorites does not.
"and doesn't look like a smart way to improve the team."
[places hands over mouth to make farting sound]
"This last year was the test, and they failed."
The "they" there seems to be the entire team. So why is only Yandle on the coals here?