This "what could have been" and "you don't know this" nonsense in calling it a loss...I'm finding it hard to believe you aren't grasping at straws. Del Zotto was losing us games while we were in the middle of a playoff hunt, and that was with sheltered minutes. You could just as easily say he was devaluing himself, and that keeping him out of the lineup was the only reason we got anything at all -- it's that easy to be speculative and act as if it were an actually tangible argument.
Your 'tangible' argument is effectively "this is a win, everything else is narrative". What have you provided that is tangible? You want to so badly believe that this is a win that you are willing to dismiss any possible objection. That's an argument?
To debate this:
Explain his usage just last year (50 games ago)? He was the Total TOI leader and #2 in TOI/GP among dmen. Were they trying to tank his value last year by playing him??
Del Zotto is a better player than Pouliot and Gudbranson. Only way I can make a case here is stats. I don't rely on Green's opinion to determine good/not good.
What is your tangible argument?
Why didn't they move him before he was banished to the press box?
Let's see who's grasping at straws here.