This is evidently based on the rock-solid foundation of "because I said so". And now that I've said that, I eagerly await your presentation of the same five cherrypicked charts you've posted about seven or eight times, carefully selected to minimize value while giving the veneer of authoritative illustration, without regard to the fact that research doesn't count as validation unless you explore ALL alternatives, not just the ones that support your agenda.
And by similar brilliant mathematical logic, Johansen is worthless because he's at least five times Umby's value if not more, but five times nothing is still nothing.
And I fully expect to see some contentless blather about how that's different because "Johansen can actually play hockey" or some other similar drivel.
When two parties are discussing a topic, and one of those parties stands fast to a single opinion and keeps submitting the exact same evidence over and over for same, while the other party submits some evidence against, then some possible conjecture, then other evidence, then a moderated reposition, then a bit more information, then withdraws that information when it's demonstrated to be irrelevant, then another reposition, and then more evidence, but never actually reaches the same position as the other party - the latter isn't the one being stubborn and unyielding. It's about process, not eventual capitulation.
One would think that after Steve Mason had managed to, y'know, actually still have an NHL career after he left, this would have had a moderating influence on your apparent tendency to demonize players. So far, tho, it doesn't look like it, and that's kind of a shame.