He was the best defenseman on last season's Stanley Cup winning team.
That doesn't say much. He was the #1 D-man for NYR. Was he a franchise D-man? Not even close. He was like prime Vlasic and not strong enough offensively. Then we had the red haired pirate and Girardi setting records for defensive turnovers. Such a smart idea to dump Strålman who could actually move the puck and skate ahead of these. Yeah, great. Like ditching Zubov ahead of Derian Hatcher(s).
The NYR teams had Lundqvist as a franchise star goaltender. No other player ever played like a star at that level during his career. They could be #1 anything, but they were never a franchise player like Fox or Panarin, who always deliver and strongly.
You could argue McDonaugh played like a star in one playoff run, just because he outscored his pathetic forwards. Then there were two, but Lundqvist was still obviously ahead, so there were never any questions about any Conn Smythe. If NYR ever won a cup the answer for the trophy would be automatic. So, not really a star. And you need a system to win a Cup, 3 star players and some depth. NYR had barely depth and/ or not enough star players.
Then we had Gaborik under Torts and Nash under Vigneault. Just great. f***ing great. The three useless ones (Fumblez, Dreaden and current GM Dreary) under whoever, Richards diminshing into nothing, it never ended, there was no strategy.
Saying McD was the best D-man on a cup run where Lundqvist was in net is like saying: "Well, he's really solid defensively and on a legit team he would probably play on the 2nd pairing. You know, holding the fort when the franchise D-man has to rest." That was the NYR #1 D-man.
As for Staal and Girardi, total trash, yes, they were great at blocking shots from them being unable to handle a puck like a professional defenseman. The biggest turnover machines I've ever seen. Total jokes. Yeah, so cool bleeding because you suck because
YOU turned the puck over, as per standard. And the dinosaur coaches couldn't see that.