If you replace Alfie in the early 2000s and mid 2000s with Sidney Crosby yes I think we win lol. But we will never know. But karlsson at least does not have the best track record. Another team may be trading him away here lol.
I just
A. Don’t idolize players. They’re a means to an end. They’re mostly degenerates. I don’t care about them at all.
B. Don’t love those two players as much as sens fans do. Great players tho
I don't know. That's a lofty claim if it's Alfredsson he's stepping in for and removing. It also feels like an unfair argument since Crosby is a center, and the Senators were notoriously deficient at Center. That would have been a huge boon to the cause in itself more than any increase in quality of play from Crosby over Alfie. Even Crosby had a ton of circumstances helping him along the way and could have just as easily ended up with no cups had he been drafted elsewhere, like many other greats spread across sports. Crosby is also still considered to have been a generational talent basically standing on his own, so it is less about "winners" and "losers" as it is about swapping in the best hockey player over a 15 year period.
Just the butterfly effect alone of adding a small variable and replaying history would turn many "winners" in to "losers". Circumstances make winners more than winners make themselves winners.
Basically every "winning" player respected as a legend played with incredible teams, often chocked with HOF's. Doesn't matter the sport. If it's not that, it's a Cinderella team. Then you have the criticism of someone like Karlsson even though he only had a couple shots at proving because he played the majority of his career on bad teams. Team Sports just muddies the water too much.
And I can't imagine sports fandom without the tribalism, but maybe you feel that still applies even though you see the players sort of as cattle?