When I say I think he could score more if given PP time and your response is basically that it's akin to putting a 20-point defender there ... that's a lousy response.
It's not about Joshua's 'goal total'. It's about what players were effective, what players provide ingredients this team needs, what players fit the age group going forward.
And it's absolutely insane right now that people are wanting to ditch Garland/Joshua after their play this year to invest in what is going to be a brutal contract for Lindholm who has been mostly terrible for the past two years until a small sample of play with ... Garland and Joshua.
And dear god I hate these stupid arguments like just universally applying SH% regression (dumb), 'slow players age worse' (wrong) or that Joshua is old (signing for his age 28-31 years probably) or that Joshua was somehow bad in the playoffs (literally WHAT THE f*** - the guy was 2nd on the team in ES points, 1st in hits from the 3rd line, best forward in multiple games).
When you look at his excellent play, size/grit/PK ability on a team lacking these things, and his age and development curve *this is a player we should be investing in*.
I can understand the frustration when it comes to the idea of ditching a guy like Dakota to afford to keep Lindholm. In some sense. It really just depends on what the $$$ values for each is...because overall, Lindholm is still a massively better and more impactful player. I think the salary ask difference probably makes both of them a walk-away scenario though.
I think what you're getting at with the point about Garland and Dak being they guys to raise Lindholm's play has some merit. But that's also the point in general. Garland is the guy who runs the show. The other pieces are peripheral. We've got more than enough examples of this on different teams and different samples too believe in that. I still don't fully understand Garland...but the tiny little bastard is an insane line-driving bottom-6 winger. It's bizarre because he's useless in the Top-6...but he's a guy you prioritize and keep.
Joshy is the other end of that. He had some good results while playing with that line-driver...but he did diddly squat without him. Just picking a thing out of that...4.2% of his minutes with Suter and Beauvillier. Literally nothing happened. Tiny sample and that's the case with absolutely anyone else with Dakota. He played with Garland an enormous amount with him. It's basically two thirds of his ice time. And it's where the massive bulk on his production came from.
If you can keep that Garland-Dakota chemistry around, by all means...do it. If it's affordable. But i just don't see an avenue to that. $4M is insane for a 28 year old one-year wonder big guy who scored at an unsustainable rate and hasn't shown a shred of upside beyond that.
It's annoying to talk about scoring rates and stuff...but in this case, it has some merit if you drill down to the usage and context. I also don't know how they replace what Joshua offers as a physical presence that we need more of, not less. Nor do i know exactly where his PK minutes are backfilled.
But i just do not think that you can spend $4M on a bottom-6 winger because he makes the boards go boom. I think at that point, you have to look at other options for the role. Even though they're also very expensive.
