One of the more interesting intermission segments I’ve ever seen on an Edmonton Oilers pay-per-view game took place last night in their 3-1 victory over the Toronto Maple Leafs. It was an interview between the Oilers’ analysts (namely Gene Principe, Louie DeBrusk, and Bob Stauffer) and Hockey Canada Associate Director Kevin Lowe. Lowe was quizzed on some of the more controversial decisions made by Hockey Canada in selecting the Canadian Olympic team, and he did a nice job of explaining the organizational philosophy behind those picks.

I don’t have a full transcript, but I do have some brief highlights:

Lowe mentioned some of the more obvious tough decisions the selection group had to make – namely Bouwmeester, Green, Smyth, Carter, Fisher and Doan – but he also mentioned a name that hasn’t been getting much attention: Dan Hamhuis. Lowe spoke very highly of the Predators’ defenceman, and I was left with the impression that he was the runner-up (behind Brent Seabrook) for the job of defensive specialist on the Canadian blue line.

Speaking of Seabrook, Lowe said he could stand on his own merits, but admitted that “familiarity and chemistry” with Duncan Keith were a large factor in his selection to the team.

Chemistry came up again when discussing another selection – that of Boston’s Patrice Bergeron. Lowe mentioned his right-handed shot, praised his versatility, and also mentioned that his established chemistry with Sidney Crosby was a factor in his selection. That was one of a few tantalizing hints Lowe gave; while mentioning Bergeron’s versatility he also suggested that he could play “in the top three.” Obviously the final decision will go to the coaching staff, but could we see a line with Crosby and Bergeron dedicated to containing Ovechkin and company? It’s an interesting thought.

Drew Doughty was another player Lowe was specifically asked about, and Lowe was effusive, comparing Doughty to Ray Bourque and calling him an “emerging superstar.” He also applauded the young defenceman’s ability to defend, citing the way he handled Ilya Kovalchuk at the 2009 World Championships. Despite the plaudits, I got the distinct impression that it was Doughty’s potential that put him over the top.

It’s an interesting way approach to team-building. In my brief post the other day discussing some of the omitted players, the implication I made was that Canada hadn’t necessarily taken the 23 best players, and that gets some support here. In fact, after hearing Lowe’s comments, Greg Wyshynski’s comment the other day rings very true:

[I]t’s not about Boyle and Green; it’s about valuing Duncan Keith more than Green, and thus valuing the inclusion his defensive partner over Green. And putting Doughty on the roster is grooming what Hockey Canada believes is the next great defenseman from their soil. Defending Green’s credentials is immaterial when it’s simply a matter of roster spots and organ-i-zational philosophy.

That is the way to look at most of these selections, and I think the argument (that the Canadian brain-trust was looking for more than the country’s best individual players) is a better one than saying that ‘X’ is a better player than Martin St. Louis. I do get that. Frankly, I think that the emphasis on chemistry, and in Doughty’s case career potential is probably overdone, but that’s a philosophical issue rather than a player selection issue, and I’m not nearly as dogmatic about it. I am curious what readers think, though: should Canada have placed less emphasis on chemistry/potential, or was that emphasis appropriate?