no one said they are necessary, you can win with them you can win without them. It depends on how your team is built. The kings can lose a great deal more in the regular season but still be succcessful in the playoffs. The bruins can be successful in the regular season AND in the playoffs with guys who can thow. There is not one path.
But because the kings ( who despite having not many guys who throw) have a lot of team toughness they might not need a specialist. But the notion that a team like montreal who is decidely NOT like the kings and lacks team toughness, that they could be as succesful as the kings with no specialist is, in my opion, completely intellectually dishonest.
as you your nick lidstrom comment, yeah that's a fair playing field. But philadelphia seemingly did ok against far more "talented" teams. Boston seemed to do ok against a "more" talented vancouver team.
if you can win by gooning it up, then that's a perfectly viable way to seek the cup its not for everybody and it might not even be sustainable, but who cares ?
Team toughness is fine.... having Kyle Clifford on the Kings who can fight and play hockey is a great addition. Boston has guys who can fight and play hockey in the McQuaid, Lucic, Chara type. These aren't goons.
Wayne Simmonds on Philly can sure fight. He's not a goon.
Chris Neil can play third line minutes... He's not a goon.
I have no problem acquiring a player who fights (but can also PLAY HOCKEY). I have a big problem with a one-dimensional goon who is a liability every time he steps on the ice.
I don't think anyone here, not me, not Kriss E, not Mathman, not Lafleur's Guy, not any of the people who have argued against a goon is against getting actual good players who can drop the gloves when necessary.
This argument that you need "team toughness" is something we all agree on.
Where we don't agree, is that some cement head who plays less than five minutes a game is going to make Desharnais and Pacioretty tougher on the first line. He's never on the ice with them, and with the way the instigator rule is today, you can't protect from the bench the way you could in the 70s. It doesn't happen if you aren't on the ice at the time of the incident. Instead you just end up punching their goon in a staged fight while the real perpetrator goes unpunished.
One other thing that has made the goon useless is the salaries today. A guy like Matt Cooke makes millions, and part of the reason he makes millions is because he's a piece of **** to play against. He's got some talent and he can get away without playing that style... but lets look at some less talented agitators.
If Patrick Kaleta isn't running around and hitting the other team's best players, he's got no use in the NHL, and teams will get rid of him. The difference between an AHL and NHL salary is so great that there is no deterrence to being punched in the face. So what? You get a black eye or two over the course of a season. Maybe lose a few fights and a few teeth. Small price to pay to be a millionaire when you retire, instead of a guy who never made it to the show. The only thing that effects these guys is suspensions and hitting them in their wallet (which the NHL is unwilling to do in any effective way given our small suspensions and low fines), so we get what we have today.
Goons don't stop it. Not in 2014 cause the instigator protects the Kaleta (and I'm not saying get rid of the instigator, because what happened in the early 90s was a guy like Kaleta would drop the gloves and start a fight with a star player, so you'd be bringing that back)... as well as the high salaries making guys be willing to sacrifice getting beat up.
So what do you do? Simple, you need 1) team toughness, a bunch of players who can drop on occassion (say 2-3 times a year) and can play 15 minutes a night without hurting you. And if you can find top 6 guys all the better. 2) a mentality from every player on the team to stick up for the guy beside him, and not look to the goon to do their fighting for him.