Member Since
Feb. 2, 2024
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum: Armchair-GM1 hour ago
Forum: NHL Signings1 hour ago
Forum: Armchair-GM2 hours ago
Thread: rebuild
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Viqsi</b></div><div>"For your hypothetical value scenario to have even a ghost of a chance 2026 would have to be far and away the best draft in NHL history - enough to make 2003 seem like an afterthought - and you have literally zero evidence to support such a claim."

By the insane troll logic you're using here, Cole Sillinger is an equivalent or possibly better asset than the likes of Quinton Byfield or Quinn Hughes or Elias Petterson.

EDIT: Heck, here's another example that <strong>does</strong> involve 2003. By your logic of "immediate debut later is better than late debut now", Nikolai Zherdev - being a guy who debuted immediately in a strong draft - was as good as or better of a player than years-later-debut-in-weak-draft Jason Spezza.</div></div>

actually it doesn't have to be "far and away the best draft..blah blah."
It only needs to be deep enough at the top where guys can make the jump to nullify your time argument. Which is what 5-6 for a 100% coverage.
Like I said, that draft has an exceptional level player in it. So there is 1. I don't claim to be an expert on how the rest pans out.
But what I do know, is even if you land the 1OA this year you're not getting that level of a player. A draft with an exceptional level player is a better draft to have a legit chance at the lottery at than one that doesn't.
If CBJ were to land 1OA and draft MC they would get an OK player, but never that franchise level of guy they have never had.
on the other hand if PIT were to draft 1OA in 26 you would complain how it's rigged and the penguins always get handed a star franchise player.

You just don't care to recognize these differences. For you it's more important to have now because some hamburger argument.
But if you believe, and for good reason, the picks land in the same range in 24 and 26.... then what you are debating is the value of those players. Not some crap about time and hamburgers.
This is a weak draft. Period. You can't change that.
The 26 draft as far as I know, has at least 1 exceptional level player. It's not hard to say that's a better draft year on the surface of things. I'd rather have a shot at 1OA in 26 than in 24.
Needless to say, if you think the 26 draft is deeper at the top, which is the premise I ran long ago.... then it's better to draft all the way down in 26.
There are some drafts it just doesn't matter if you get to pick high in. like '12. Where the best picks in the top 6 ended up being Lindholm and Reilly.
Finishing to bottom 6 that year didn't really help anyone and it didn't really set any foundation for a team. But that's what you get in a weak draft. CBJ should know they picked 2OA. Murry didn't do anything to actually help CBJ at all now did he.
So of all people I'm sure CBJ fans can get the point that drafting high now, isn't always the best option. That it's better to draft high in a better year. But you seem to not have learned that lesson.
I would have gladly given that '12 OA up to draft 2 years later in '14..... because F your hamburger it was a better draft those teams picking in the top 6 had a much better chance of landing a really good player to help them win. If you can't understand that, well bury your head in the sand.
Forum: Armchair-GM18 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GM18 hours ago
Thread: rebuild
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Viqsi</b></div><div><a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank"></a>

Hon, you're trying to argue a point that is literally fundamentally impossible based on a combination of inaccurate prognostication, hindsight, and magical thinking. For your hypothetical value scenario to have even a ghost of a chance 2026 would have to be far and away the best draft in NHL history - enough to make 2003 seem like an afterthought - and you have literally zero evidence to support such a claim. It's a basic and transparent version of the old "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" con. You'd be able to make a stronger case arguing that we need to get started right away on building a perpetual motion machine.</div></div>

we aren't talking hamburgers we are talking prospects. Your arguments of time all fall apart when it takes your guy 2 years to develop at a minimum because of a weak draft as opposed to stronger drafts where multiple guys play draft or draft +1.
You just aren't capable of understanding that.
There might be 3 guys in the draft this year capable of starting draft year, if you aren't picking top 2 you probably aren't picking them. As the 3rd probably goes later than when CBJ picks.
Again, the 26 draft has an exceptional level player, which already makes it a better draft year, the question of how deep it goes remains open. But given how weak this one is, it's not some huge hurdle.
But hey it's ok. Keep thinking a draft that looks more and more like 2019 without hughes has value on some imaginary concept based on "time/development".

The paying tuesday for a hamburger today "con" is a pretty bad example. As long as you admit you are getting paid. It's not like the value of the hamburger changed in such time. A hamburger at McD will cost the same today as it does tuesday.... makes no difference as long as the payment is made. As the time difference is no big deal on the cost of something so trivial.

The same isn't true about our argument here. Where the value of the picks, can massively change and you aren't getting take. You perpetuate the idea that picks in a weak draft are just as valuable..... we'll there not. While we aren't going to get into the depth of that draft, as I said before, we know at the very top of the draft 26 is a better year to have a chance at 1OA.

Anyway no new arguments from you here so I take it as dead.
Forum: Armchair-GM20 hours ago