Could someone explain to me a bit more on the point that Seguin wouldn't have had his current production if he'd continued playing in Boston? Is it that he didn't get the coaching he needed here, and he's getting more-suitable coaching in Dallas? Is it that he didn't mesh with the culture here (an argument I'd accept) but somehow found a more fitting / tolerant culture in Texas? Is it who he's paired with on his current line? Is it the tactics of how he's used, and how his skills mesh with Claude's overarching approach?
For the sake of context:
In baseball, talent is probably like 90%+ transferable between teams, because pitching and catching and whatnot are very individual activities. Coaching can matter, team chemistry can matter, team batting approach and relative emphasis can matter... but the basic act of how good you are at executing your pitches, or reading and reacting to a pitch, is the vast majority of the battle.
In football, let's call it 70% transferable, and moreso on offense. Most players' abilities to run routes, remember assignments and hot reads, execute blocks etc are pretty transferable, but scheme, emphasis and complexity matter. In defense, some positions are very transferable, but different teams have wildly different priorities in terms of the skill sets that fit best into their scheme. Talent matters a lot, but coaching, chemistry and scheme play a lot more into it.
In basketball, talent might be 60% transferable (and 83% of these numbers are completely made up, I'm making a qualitative point). How you interact with the other players on the team, know their preferences and instincts, and learn to react as a group and be fluid with each other, is a huge undertaking often requiring years. If you put LeBron on any random team, he's still an MVP, but he can't win a title on his own and still needs a supporting cast with whom he meshes well. Coaching matters hugely; the balance and emphasis of different skillsets in building a roster can vary enormously from team to team.
My point, for all the above, is that I have no idea where hockey fits in that spectrum. My instinct, as a novice, is that it's somewhere between basketball and football in terms of the transferability of talent. Near-100% for goalies, probably higher-than-average for defensemen, but forwards are very team-specific. I'd like to understand if that's at all accurate, and if so, what factors drive it.
