Like
@JD1 said about Brown, it's quite telling that he and Joseph look like 2 of our best players.
It is more indicative of the amount of real skill and talent we lack, than of their true capabilities(especially on contending teams). Playing so many minutes, because we have nothing else, is making them seem greater than they really are, and will bite us hard at the end because we'll be overpaying instead of underpaying(what smart teams do) for their abilities.
Usually when a team plays against a bottom feeder, they let off a bit and those who are playing huge amount of minutes start to produce, but it's not genuine of how it'd be under more competitive circumstances.
In Joseph's case for example, the minutes do appear to have increased
after his stellar showings, and he's followed it up with continued great looks and efforts(even on top line against toughest competition) he also has pedigree of being notable scorer in junior and AHL so could be late explosion.
My point from all that being: this is what happens when we do not bring in good supplanting talent, even if it's temporary, it forces our young guys to play much higher roles and sometimes demonstrating more than what they'd be capable of in tougher circumstances, making us having to pay more to retain their true worth.
This is why I advocated for bringing in stop gaps, even if we remained somewhat stagnate, would have sheltered the minutes of some of our great young stars and allowed us to pay them more accordingly which would have reaped TREMENDOUS benefit down the line.
Imagine if we got Henrique and Norris didn't play a lot of minutes and scoring at the clip he is, we'd be looking at 5-6 million longterm instead of 7-8. Henrique would have left after providing mentorship role, and Norris' numbers would have exploded with more ice-time and mature play
after his longterm contract.
It's a way smart GMs create winning cultures by bringing in strong mentors, and timing the given increased roles for their younger stars.
