A GM needs to hire a scout and expert to help make a decision on a player he is seeing all the time? I can understand that when the player is from another team...not their own guy.
You know what I mean.
If there is a lack of objectivity in personnel decisions, that's a much greater concern than Brown himself. And I'd like to know how you know that many GM's don't see it that way.
Perhaps a lack of objectivity is the wrong phrase. It is just that the decision will not just come down to statistical analysis. The judgement and eyes of the GM and scouts will have an impact.
I know that many GM's don't see it that way, because they make trades like it...
The second part conveniently neglects that it disappeared for the remaining part of the series yet that gets swept under the rug. Why is two games of success (for argument's sake) being used and four games of failure and one scratch being ignored in that assessment?
It is all about expectations. A player like Mike Brown is not expected to have seven great playoff games. IMO, Brown was a big factor in two games, and a non-liability in the other four. Getting that out of a fourth liner is a win-win...
The standards will be different for Brown...not scoring in a game is not equivalent for failure. If Brown had had more stellar playoff games, he'd have gotten more money.
The third part holds a key word that is a big problem...presumably. There's no reason to assume that just because DW gave him the contract that everyone else would.
We can never prove it, but that is typically how the market works. You can obviously find comparables to Brown across the league.
The fifth part...no you don't. You can fix them both at the same time or either before the other...it makes no difference.
Really? You think it is equally important to have a functioning 3rd and fourth lines than it is a 1st and second lines.
If your depth and secondary players aren't getting it done, it will be hard to win a Cup. But if your star players aren't getting it done, it is going to be hard to get out of the first round!
IMO, you need those secondary players to chip in now and again. But your core players, at least as a group, need to always be doing something. Scoring by committee in the playoffs never really works.
The sixth part...it happens and will happen a lot. That's why most teams that do succeed get a lot of help from their defense, goaltending, and depth scoring. None of those seemed to show up either.
Don't obfuscate defense and goaltending with depth scoring. Your defense and goaltending can be as key as the forwards? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
If your point is that the key players on defense and in goal don't show up for the Sharks enough, that is also true. But that goes to the overall point that the Sharks's core isn't showing up. Expecting Brad Stuart and Tommy Wingels to cover for Marleau or Boyle's poor play is a bad idea.
To the last part, if the depth scoring shows up, the focus eventually gets drawn away from the top guys and they might find success...or the coaching staff alters the lines to try and generate something. Neither of that really happened outside of switching Hertl and Pavelski now and then.
I see it completely the other way. If the top player show up, the focus gets drawn on them and the depth player have more leeway.
