Chemistry & off- ice camaraderie are so over-rated. The Warriors hate each other & could continue winning titles for as long as they wanted because talent & intelligence trump chemistry. The Hawks had a lot of tension in the lockerroom during their dynasty. I can't tell you how many german World Cup winners hate one another. Hell, I'm sure the golden age avs weren't all buddy-buddy either.
Plus this logic can be used against ever improving the team. Using this logic we shouldn't have played Makar because he could've disrupted chemistry; CBJ shouldn't have added Dutchy & Dzingel; Vegas shouldn't have added Stone; etc.
So I'mma gamble on upgrades, you can bet on chemistry.
Well that's one way to think of it I guess......
First of all, you're looking at this from the most simplistic way possible to try and prove a point. Not really an effective point in any way, unless you also believe that any argument made by cherry picking stats is also effective every time.
Second, a team can have a very poor social cohesion and still be effective in regards to the task cohesion for the group. The two components are separate, and although it is usually preferential to have both it is in no way unreasonable to expect a team/group to have success or failure based on strictly on a lack of one (or in some cases potentially both, especially if other factors come into play). Even ignoring all the other factors that play into the cohesiveness of the group and only looking at those two components, you're out of your mind if you don't think that they have an effect on the capabilities of a group.
Don't get me wrong, some people might take it a bit far (in regards to the information that the majority of us actually have) and overstate the impact (or lack of impact) that a specific acquisition could have on the locker room. However, it is a very real thing that needs to be considered from a team perspective.
Hell even ignoring the research on the impact of the topic directly, you could look at the research on the effect of retaining players. Players tend to be more likely to stay with a team if they have a personal feel of good task cohesion within a team (I don't recall direct research in regards to the same effect with social cohesion but I'd assume it exists to some degree at least).
Finally, in regards to Makar. The Avs had so much information on the kid going all the way back to before the draft, that I'm sure they had a rough estimation in regards to how he would fit into the chemistry of the team. It's not like he's some "oh crap we can add this guy", they've been working towards this for literally years now.
I'd also assume that Columbus and Vegas both did their due diligence in regards to the players they acquired. Teams tend not to just roll the dice anymore and hope things work out with a player. Talent might be the deciding or majority of a decision, but the locker room effect can be a deal breaker.
The Knights are familiar with Stone from his time in the major-junior Western Hockey League with the Brandon Wheat Kings, who are owned by Knights assistant general manager Kelly McCrimmon.
Golden Knights acquire forward Mark Stone from Ottawa
It seems so odd to make statements like that, when there is so much research out there that shows the positive impact that these things have within a group or team setting (as well as the potential negative impact that is possible).
Edit: This isn't arguing one way or the other in regards to the acquisition of the people talked about. Just the comment itself, since it kind of bugged me
Personally I'd prefer to look elsewhere than Hayes or Ferland (especially at what I expect they will go for), if possible. Not the biggest fan of either at this point in time. Nor do I think they would fill the roles expected by their upcoming contracts (unless they don't sign the traditional UFA deals). I'm not completely against the players themselves or if the team goes in that direction though. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about them if the team opts to go that way.
