When I look at NHL players and their value to a team, I focus on 2 things:
1) The player's role on a team. You cannot win games with a team of Duncan Keiths. You cannot win games with a team of Dan Carcillos. You cannot win games with a team of Jonathan Toews (actually, you probably could, but that's beside the point.) Each team needs to have players that play specific roles- you need your scorers, your secondary scorers, your agitators, your hitters, your special team guys, face-off men, etc. Every single person on a successful team must have a clearly defined role that they can play well, else they do not belong on the team. It's harsh but true.
An example of this is the Troy Brouwer trade. I loved Brouwer, and I thought he brought a lot to the team the year we won the Cup. But when we traded depth guys, we asked Brouwer to go from a fourth line, gritty hitter to a top line secondary scorer, and we asked him to make that jump in less than a year. He did his best, but he couldn't adjust fast enough. His role wasn't clearly defined, and he line jumped the rest of the year until he was finally traded. He has grown with the Caps into that kind of a role for them, but he wasn't able to with us. Which leads me to my second point:
2) The player's growth through his career. It is abundantly clear that not all NHL players have the same level of talent. We aren't looking for everyone to be an All-Star here. What a player needs to do, however, is realize his strengths and weaknesses and evolve his game to become a productive and reliable teammate. If you can't score goals, you need to hit well. If you aren't big enough to hit, you can win face-offs. If you're not a center-man, you can block shots. There's dozens of examples.
A phenomenal example of this is Michael Frolik. When we picked him up before the playoffs in 2011, we wanted him to be a secondary scorer. That was his original assigned role. He couldn't do that. He scored a little, but not to the extent we needed him to. I'll admit I wasn't the biggest Frolik fan because I thought he didn't have a role. He was a waste of lineup space. This year has been a breakout year for him. Why? No, he's not putting up career numbers. He has evolved his game into something that suits his strengths and is something that helps the overall team, becoming the #1 PK unit with Marcus Kruger. This is huge in that it gives them ice time while resting other players so that they can perform better as well.
Bringing this back around to Stalberg-when he came to the team we wanted him to be a top line guy and provide speed for guys like Hossa, Toews, etc. We tried him on the top line. It failed miserably. Thus began the 'Brouwer effect'- Stalberg started line-jumping. Many people will say he found a 'home' on the third line this year. But seriously?
I hear the arguments- Stalberg's got speed. He is FAST. But that is quite literally his only strength. Throughout Stalberg's time here, I have been waiting for his growth to show- for him to use his huge body to hit, for him to get more shots that actually hit the net, for him to stop turning pucks over when he tries to do too much. Reason I don't like Stalberg? He's not fixing the problems in his game. His role is not clearly defined. Our third line has scored a lot this year, but what's the original role of it? To agitate and stymie the top line of the other team. To do that, you need to be strong defensively, and Stalberg is NOT strong in this regard. When Bolland came back in, someone needed to go. You going to take out Carcillo, Kruger, or Frolik, who, while maybe not as speedy or used as often as Stalberg, have clearly defined roles and plays those roles? Or Saad, who did what Stalberg couldn't on the top line? You want to move Stalberg to the fourth line (because he won't fit anywhere else), a checking line, when the guy can't or won't hit?
Some are arguing that this benching is a wakeup call to the whole team- anyone's expendable if you're not playing well. But for Stalberg personally, it's much more than that. It's a clear and direct message: Find your role, grow your game, or we don't want you here. We can find speed somewhere else- you need to directly contribute to this team, and if you don't, we're deep enough that we can sit you down and still have a strong team to win games.
Speed alone doesn't win hockey games. And that is why Stalberg deserves to sit.
