Just saying it should've been a passable team isn't an argument. The moon should be made of cheese.
What, besides being a fan, is drawing you to that conclusion? They weren't adequate the year before and only improved on the defensive side of the puck (in a league that is progressively more offense oriented).
Just the season before they had gotten swept in the first round in a series where one guy scored like 35% of the teams goals. That sounds like a one man show more than a passable roster.
The year before that they were so bad they drafted Tkachuk.
Recognizing this, the GM went out and made some big moves to acquire some badly needed talent.
I don't think that's an indication the General Manager thought he was improving on a passable roster. He even said publicly the year before the concern was the team wouldn't score enough (passable) goals.
All i'm saying is if you gave GG Lindholm and Neal that the team would've been a favourite for the playoffs and a contender for the division just like the article is suggesting. I think peters is also adequate so the expectation is with this roster that the team should finish in the 5-8 position for the playoffs next year challenging for #3 and hopefully make the second round.
I don't think that's outlandish given the roster as it stands.
If you'd given Tkachuk, Lindholm and Neal equivalents to Hartley, his teams would've been better too.
Why is that crazy?
You don't go out and grab a bunch of offensive players if you think the reason you underperformed offensively is because the coach you just fired had been artificially stifling your offense.
|