Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl
There's no guarantee that two other young guys in our system will do any better that Englland & Smid have done as the 3rd pairing D.
However, Engelland & Smid have been responsible for being on the ice for most goals against per 60 min. That's how they are costing the team. I get the fact that hockey is a team game and they aren't the only ones responsible for the goals against but still.
|
I understand they are out there the most for goals against, I'm not arguing they aren't our "worst" d-men that dress (which is why they are the 3rd pair). But in order to cost the team, there needs to be better options to replace them with that we are choosing not to use. Smid and Englland rounding out our top 6 for example are an upgrade over the D overall last year.
There is a difference between "costing" the team and opportunity to improve the team. Sure, upgrading those two would be great, but that's easier said than done.
I also agree there is no guarantee that there aren't younger guys who could step up, but realistically, seems like Wotherspoon might be the only one that truly could be an upgrade. Maybe he isn't yet, or maybe he is and the team just wants to develop him further, regardless his time will come.
The point being, D is a weak spot on this team, we have no depth. But being overly worried about Smid and Englland is silly. We have no cap contstraints that are costing us with them, and the terms are very managable moving forward. This is a team that has very little in the pipe for D prospects, and had very little good on the roster last year outside of our current top 4. It's going to be a work in progress to improve, and Treliving did improve the D in the offseason and Burke helped with adding Smid prior. Are they the perfect solutions? Of course not. Are they upgrades and reasonable moves given our cap situation and asset situation on the back end as we work towards something better, absolutely.