the problem is, Orr doesn't change anything. He's on the ice for 3-5 minutes per night, and realistically, you don't want him out there much longer than that. So there isn't much dirty work to do. You need a team that has many players that can play 15+ minutes per night who can muck it up. I agree about the finesse nature, and personally, I'm not a fan of the mix of this team. I don't mind having Orr on the team or in the lineup, but I also don't think he's as impactful as some may think.
I also think it's ridiculous we Ranger fans are targeting Orr, a part-time, 12th forward, making minimum salary, as the root of our woes. Our top lines & our lead defensemen can't score & our solution is to dump on the lowest man on the totem pole. Orr has displayed a great work ethic & been a good value. If only Drury, Gomez, Redden, Roszival, etc. could live up to their contracts equally as well.
It has nothing to do with targeting Orr as the "root of our woes."
The team obviously has multiple problems, should we just ignore the ones that earn less money?
The only way you can even consider Orr a "good value" thus far is if you only look at it based off the fact he's making 500k, and he plays 6 minutes a night. But hell, for 400k I'll do the same, and I guess that would be a good value too since I'd be making less than other guys, damn the results.
As shown, Orr has had a negative impact not only offensively but defensively as well. Just because he's shown slight improvement over the past two years doesn't mean you can overlook the fact he still isn't a NHL quality player.
To go with your totem pole analogy, it's nothing but a log laying on the ground if the bottom is fault, regardless what's on the top.