You know what else is a _FACT_ and that you have alluded to above? That Gillis offered Ehrhoff a contract. So prior to dumping him for a 4th he offered him the same contract Bieksa signed for.
So that tells me that despite his putrid, catastrophic playoffs (your view, not mine) Gillis still wanted him on this team, and attempted to resign him.
So what does that tell you? Perhaps Gillis didn't view him as this putrid liability if he was willing to offer him a contract? Or do you think Gillis tries to resign players he views as horrible?
You can't have it both ways. Unfortunately for our team Gillis, as you said, chose the covenant over the player.
Gillis recognized his worth as a puck mover, that's why he wanted him back. What's the sense in losing that for nothing? In a vacuum, this team is better with Ehrhoff than without. That's not in contention. What is in contention is the degree of importance of Ehrhoff to this team.
In 2011, he outscored the next best D producer by 17 points. Injuries factored in, but based on that production alone, his agent was well justified in asking for 5m+ market value. Gillis balked, why? Why did Gillis choose to enforce the covenant here to what appeared to be the best point-producing Dman on the team?
In other words, if his regular season was great, and his playoffs were at the very least good (as you are contending), why still force him in line with the others? My point is that something had to have hurt Ehrhoff's perceived value to the team. RE: Playoffs. That's why they were as strict with their demands. And it's why they were more willing to break the covenant for the offensive-minded Edler instead.
What objective data do you need to be proven right? You are the one making an assertion here - ie Ehrhoff was the worst player of all time in the playoffs. I think this is a gross exaggeration, shoulder injury aside. In a debate you should back up your claims, instead of asking those refuting them to provide evidence of their rebuttal.
You are the one going on about Fenwick. Not me. I simply repeated your claims. You want proof that they were better at ES in 2011 than 2013 then let's go back to good ol' 5-5 F/A.
2011 - 2nd overall at 1.32
2013 - 11th overall at 1.08
I've even bolded it for you. I'll let you think this through...(quickly or slowly, it is entirely up to you). I disagree that bumping up the sv% would improve our 5-5 F/A to 2nd or 1st overall, and you have absolutely no way to determine how much. In any case sure, sv%, our PP, and yes, the presence of Ehrhoff and balanced D
pairings all contributed to us being better at 5-5 2 years ago.
Question: You said you "disagree that bumping up the sv% would improve our 5-5 F/A". Then you said "In any case sure,
sv%... contributed to us being better at 5-5 2 years ago"... So that means it is a factor or it's not?
As opendoor alludes, it is the most significant of factors. Of course there are others, but this one is the biggest. Therefore, I think it disingenuous to repeatedly tout the exclusion of Ehrhoff as being the biggest factor in the team's ES differences.
You unfounded arrogance is at times breathtaking. Perhaps if you read through the posts better you would fare better in these threads. It's a convenient way to ignore points that you don't have an answer for, but it certainly doesn't do much to help your argument.
Garrison has been with Hamhuis for a grand total of what - 8 games? And you're basing that he's a better fit for our team on that sample size? Vs Ehrhoff who was here for several years. Despite the fact that Edler - Bieksa pairing is a mess? Um...wow. Again, you are so focused on the advanced stats of a particular player you are missing the bigger picture or context at large. In this case both temporally and holistically.
If Ian White were to gel with Edler, the same way Ehrhoff did, and this enabled us to get the Hamhuis - Bieksa pairing back on track, improving the team's ES/5-5 play, specialty teams, and place in the standings, to 2011 levels:
I make that call each and every time. As does every good GM in the league.
_If_ we acquire Ian White.
_If_ he gels with Edler.
_If_ they gel in the same way as Edler+Ehrhoff.
_If_ Hamhuis and Bieksa can be paired together.
_If_ Hamhuis and Bieksa get "back on track".
_If_ these things add up to improved 5-5 play.
_If_ these things actually improve the PP.
_If_ these things result in a higher spot in the standings.
_If_ these improve play to match 2011 levels.
Does this sound like big picture/context or just wishful thinking? Be honest.
Couple of things:
- White isn't on Garrison's level. The undue focus on pairings and handedness is causing you to favour an inferior Dman. Surely you can see that as illogical. Not to mention that the big picture focus on the right side is being diminished by the game due to Garrison playing well there.
- Nothing is preventing Hamhuis to be paired with Bieksa right now. Not technically. They haven't done it because neither player has played well. And when they were together, they were bad. So the coaching staff is "babysitting" Hamhuis right now. Garrison is the rock on that pairing. When Hamhuis gets up to speed, then I think you will see HamJuice reunited. It's sure nice to have Garrison as an option there in the meantime.
- Garrison has spent 155 of his total 448 min with Hamhuis. When together, Hamhuis's Goals For % and his Corsi For % have gone up. Alone, Garrison is better at both. Me thinks Garrison is helping Hammer a good deal.