Except that could all be 100% false.
Braun and Niskanen were ripped by certain people when acquired and refused to admit that they had good/decent years.
This is a point I was trying to bring up.
People ripped Fletcher for those D moves too - and, they are definitely way better than we expected. I'm not saying GMs are infallible. But. just maybe, maybe - they actually can identify certain traits outside of pure stats - that could lend a player to be successful in a different situation?
In addition, it's okay to imply that GMs aren't necessarily the brightest or make the smartest moves all the time. They certainly can, and do. The better GMs are the ones that make the right move maybe (just a guess) 60% of the time and the wrong one 40%. It's easy in hindsight, and easy in isolation. But to say that
all the GMs (the same ones who passed on Ghost) and
many GMs (those that were willing to pay a 1st + for Risto) are making the
exact same mistake that only us, as fans, see?
I really have trouble believing that, no matter what the numbers say. Here are
the actual facts:
1) His stats are awful from Buffalo, in terms of
analytical stats, and +/-
2) Points are good.
3) His environment was terrible and the impact of that is
immeasurable.
Other key
facts:
1) Is there precedent where an amazing player plays in Buffalo and stinks all around, and then becomes good again after?
Yup.
2) Is there precedent where the Flyers management staff identifies "statistically poor" defenseman in a different situation and they come here and become successful?
Yup.
3) Is there precedence where multiple players who were believed to have on-ice value provided nothing in terms of trade value?
Yup.
Could this work out? Sure. Could it fail? Sure. But I think it's stupid to think that a player, from any team to another, will be the exact same player they were. Why? Because the situation and environment is different. And not measurable. It seems that everybody
knows that facts are not the end all and be all, and are just some data, and can be somewhat arbitrary - but then use them as infallible predictors, all while discounting the situation.
I like what I've seen from him so far. I don't have false expectations that he's going to be immediately good, either. He may still play like he did previously for a while because that's what's he's done for 8 years. So even judging his "metrics" or performance on these 2 games so far is short-sighted at best. It takes time to get those habits out - will he? I don't know.
I'd rather root for his success and move on than try to be 'right' and continue to harp on how he got here, or what he did before here.
One final point: He brings an element that
none of our top 6 d-men have. Period. That can't be argued. Did Ghost? Maybe, he's an offensive d-man who regularly struggled (recently at least) at providing offense consistently and was mediocre defensively. Those that are arguing he has a unique skillset can't then argue that Sanheim can't do what Ghost does (even if he isn't used that way - different issue there.). Nobody brings what Risto does, and that's not really up for debate.
Just my $.02.
