Agreed fully on your first paragraph. Been banging this drum for couple years now. To much vet and dollars tied up now on the depth chart so he was unlikely to get a spot.
The special teams explanation was just a convenient excuse. Nothing changed on this roster from the beg. of the offseason till now. Since it was a matter of 3 pp players ahead of heinola, those 3 were likely not going anywhere anyway so really there was no shot for him (whether right or wrong is a different discussion). Bowness notes experience as well.... This is where the org imo could've benefitted on playing the youngsters down the stretch last year. or ahead of the likes of sbisa, Beaulieu, dhalstrom, bitetto for instance in previous years. Remember it took sbisa and Beaulieu getting waived and hurt for Stanley to get a shot too.
I can see this turning similarly to the Lundkvist situation in NYR. However, he had a superior nhl depth chart in front of him to deal with compared to heinola or samberg.
On a bite of sidenote, not directed to you but in general... Where does the "bowness is good for young dmen" stem from? The average age of Dallas defense (weighted by TOI) was 29 years old last year. I understand Heiskanen performed strongly there, however, he was a high end prospect basically destined to be great. I don't know if Bowness really "made" him, I think you put any coach there and he flourishes. He in fact did with Montgomery as a rookie. Idk if there's enough to conclude if RB is good or bad