It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that "overpaid" is not relative to the player and his abilities; you know, of course, that it is not simply a matter of one player earning more than another. Clarkson is a glorified third-liner who put up 30 goals with likely unrepeatable shooting percentages and who is overvalued for the marginal impact his physicality and pugilistic skills have on actually winning games. Grabovski, on the other hand, is a low-end tough minutes first line center; he deserves to be paid more than Clarkson because he has a greater impact on the game.
"Worse" may be an overstatement, but we deserved the drubbing for adding a useless non-hockey player and an offensive-only third-liner who has declined visibly over the last four years. Bravo to the Copper and Blue for conducting objective analysis of two teams who've made themselves worse this off-season with their acquisitions and player turnover. Comparing the writers there unfavorably to mainstream cheerleaders and misinformed media-members who think that Kane deserves Selke votes, or who don't know that Ovechkin is a right-winger, does not do justice to men who invest a great deal of time and effort into trying to research and understand the game, rather than relying on flawed perceptions and unsubstantiated narratives unquestioningly.
I take it that such a comparison was your intention with your "doubt them vs the analysts," though you may have intended to state that you reject their methodology and hockey analytics, which is a different kettle of fish.
