You could be forgiven for cursing the television and slamming your remote after watching Andrej Sustr cough up a turnover behind the goal line that quickly led to a Canadiens’ goal. You could be excused if you seethed with anger as you watched the last two minutes of the second period unfold: a Mikhail Sergachev dipsy-doodle goes haywire and Max Pacioretty nearly feasts on the mistake. On the very same shift, Pacioretty sees another breakaway opportunity because of a bad line change and poor positioning. Anton Stralman gets beaten on the outside by Paul Byron, and Byron has a look at a shot from the low slot. “I’ve had it!” you say. “This defense is not built to win a Stanley Cup! Trade for Ryan McDonagh! Make a deal for Erik Karlsson! Do something! Anything!” you implore.

And my counter to you would be at: At what cost? There is an element of inscrutability to the defenseman position that adds an extra level of intrigue for the Lightning as the trade deadline approaches.

NHL fans are smart. We understand that mobility is important. Being a stay-at-home blueliner is bad. If your team generates more shot attempts against the opponent when a certain defenseman is on the ice, he is justly lauded for his possession acumen. If he can do so against the other team’s best players, and his coach can put him in there in for the majority of defensive zone draws, he has the magic formula. The exemplary defenseman dominates in Corsi and does so against the stiffest competition, and when consistently plopped in parts of the ice where escaping is onerous. Check every box on this rubric and the money and accolades will follow.

But there is something incomplete about this criteria. Part of the assessment is not dependent on outcome (a slight uptick in shot attempts by a defenseman’s presence does not always make the difference between winning and losing). Another part is contextually driven (the coach utilizes a defenseman a certain way and the player reaps the benefits). Throw in how much extra credit top-pair defensemen receive for the excessive minutes they log, even if their efficiency diminishes, and the standards we use to judge a defenseman’s influence seem more insufficient.

After watching the Penguins win a Cup with no Kris Letang last year, and how Pittsburgh thrived for two playoffs with castoffs and a purportedly patchwork group, I began to think of defensemen in a much more binary way. As every defenseman with staying power in the NHL is now depended on to be relatively mobile, and the tentacles of Sloan and analytics have reached every front office, the barrier of what separates a No. 2 and No. 5 defensemen has become blurrier.

Is Anton Stralman, the Lightning’s No. 2, markedly better than John Moore, the Devils’ No. 5? Is the Penguins’ No. 2, Brian Dumoulin, several notches higher than Josh Morrissey or Tobias Enstrom? Nate Schmidt went from a No. 5 for Washington to the No. 1 defenseman for Las Vegas. And his 5 goals and 25 assists are not worse than Ryan McDonagh’s 2 goals and 24 assists, who has been the putative No. 1 defenseman for the Rangers for the last several years.

What separates the great defensemen from the overcrowded middle class is offensive output. This sounds self-evident, but there are only 10-20 defensemen in the NHL who can engineer scoring in a way that makes them worth splurging over, who qualify as moving the needle. Victor Hedman is obviously one of them. So is Erik Karlsson. The Lightning were mulling over acquiring Ryan McDonagh or Karlsson as their big trade deadline move to shore up the defense, although, from what Eklund reports, it sounds like the Karlsson channel has permanently closed. But if the piece that would be moved is Sergachev in exchange for McDonagh, Tampa Bay would be wise to stay put. McDonagh’s presence is not an upgrade in terms of the scoring or playmaking he would provide. And even if his only scoring two goals this season is partially related to bad puck luck, he is not making up ground in Corsi. He has the worst metrics of any defenseman on the Rangers this season in controlling shot attempts. This also punctures the myth that Dan Girardi was the albatross around his neck hampering his ability to influence shot attempts in previous seasons where he has fared poorly.

When Coburn and Sustr pensively stroll back to fetch the puck on dump-ins, or scramble to stanch the cycle, the smoke alarms are wailing. This type of fire is unsustainable against a team like Pittsburgh or Toronto that forechecks like vipers and strafes the offensive zone with a forceful rush attack. But because the Nos. 4 through 6 for Tampa Bay are so woefully overmatched, acquiring an upgrade would not bankrupt the Lightning assets or require a parting from the Hedman-Stralman-Sergachev troika. Ian Cole, Luca Sbisa, or Trevor Daley come to mind. A patina of offense coupled with mobility would do the trick, and they should try to get more than one of these non-glitzy puck-movers because it would not be uncomfortably pricey.

But if the Lightning were to move Sergachev, who has moments of offensive brilliance, it would need to be for a Karlsson-type, someone who is a transcendent presence and compresses space in a way that only applies to 5 percent or less of NHL defensemen. Karlsson is a better creator than Sergachev, and he is more reliable. McDonagh would not be an improvement. Tampa Bay already traded for one former New York Ranger with durability problems whose best days were behind him. It would be wise to avoid the same mistake twice.

Join the Discussion: » 28 Comments » Post New Comment

» Verhaeghe's Role if Stamkos is Sidelined

» Stamkos's Linemates Should Feed Him in the Crease

» Three Personal Goals for the Grinders

» How COVID Could Test the Bolts' Depth

» What Happens to Cooper If TB Loses