bigdirty
Registered User
- Mar 11, 2010
- 3,456
- 1,036
The players going out have far more NHL experience and NHL production then the players coming in, but its perceived we have increased our depth by bringing in cheaper less experienced players.
Dave Bolland has more NHL playoff games experience and production then all the replacements combined for example.
I wonder what that belief is based on?
Lots of transactions that can change team dynamics through the changes made in player personnel, management Dubas and assistant coaches.
Take a closer look at the more experienced, more productive players we moved out.
Gunnarsson - Good player, injury took it's toll. Polak is at least an equal to Gunnarsson.
Ranger - Played terrible, we're not really losing anything worthwhile.
Gleason - Overpaid and slow as hell.
McClement - Definitely not as good last year as he had been.
Raymond - Wouldn't have minded if we kept him. But there's a reason why butter-soft players often become journeymen.
Bolland - 5.5 million for 5 half-seasons?
Orr - Not really a hockey player.
McLaren - Only marginally better than Orr.
Kulemin - Good player, though not irreplaceable.
D'amigo - Decent prospect, plenty more where that came from.
The belief that we've improved our depth is based on the fact that we cut a bunch of deadweight, and didn't lose anyone who isn't easily replaced.