I have a hard time picking out individual moves and constructing a narrative. Good GMs have lots of bad moves, and I've criticized a lot of trades that have come up roses. The important thing is the overall trend.
I think it's really important to remember what he inherited. When he was hired, we already had Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Giordano, and Brodie. A big part of the core was already in place. And in my opinion, he's consistently improved the supporting cast behind them, and the roster has consistently gotten better during his tenure.
If Tkachuk and Lindhom are your 3rd and 4th best forwards, that's depth you can win with. The problem is when the top two guys are MIA and they have to be #1 and #2. If Lucic-Bennett-Dube grind down the opposition and then your stars can hop over the boards for an o-zone shift and capitalize, that's excellent value from your 3rd line. But if they're the only line that's going, you're in tough.
Similar story for D: our bottom 2 D pairs have gone from absolute tire fires when he took over to a legitimate strength. Valimaki-Andersson a year ago is incredible for a third pairing, and we had 3+ NHL calibre D eating popcorn in the bubble. But when you can't rely on Giordano to be that elite #1, it puts a lot more pressure on guys like Hanifin or Andersson. Where previously it would be a strength that they can win the secondary matchup, when your top pair gets dummied all of a sudden that's not enough.
So I think it's really unfortunate the way things shook out. The core of Gaudreau-Monahan-Giordano doesn't seem to be good enough to be a contender. But they're too good to bottom out and pick #1, Jonas Hiller notwithstanding. And I don't think obvious tanking moves like trading all of your goalies would go down well. But I really think if they were the type of stars that can win in the playoffs, we'd be singing his praises for what a deep, talented team he built behind them.
|