This is some pretty strong revisionist history, Gardiner's first season under Babcock was also solid. His usage has changed dramatically this year and he struggled in the first quarter but has looked okay recently. We need him to be more than okay but there is still half a season left so I guess we'll see.
Babcock-era Gardiner overall has been a good player.
what part of it is revisionist?
the rumours were always quite strong that Jake had one foot out of the door. Carlyle said he flat out told Nonis that it would be dumbo for them to trade Jake without him playing 300 NHL games.
Shanahan and babcock both referenced that he (and Kadri) needed their support. Kadri had his "poor year" (due to shooting percentage, etc) and Jake was meh. (if you want to call it pretty solid, that's fine, but I think for the contract that he has and where we expected him and needed him to be it's not good enough).
Then last year happen and he was really really great.
and now he's not good at all.
again.
and honestly, it wouldn't even bother me so much, if he were younger and it would make more sense, or if this isn't generally the same thing year in year out, minus last year. I personally don't think he's strong enough to mentor younger/less experience partners which is why the Z + Jake pairing isn't very hot, and I don't think it's wise to commit to someone who only gets hot 1/2 the year - but is
bad for the first half. like Good Jake is really great, but we need (especially if he wants to get paid) Good jake all the time then Playoff Jake when he triggers, and I don't think that will ever ever happen.