sampy Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 If there was a Stamkos-Crosby-Tavares elite talent available, Florida would not be trading the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm gonna laugh so hard when Reinhart rips it up in his rookie year and everyone starts whining that we should have traded for him.And I'm going to laugh when Shinkaruk starts tearing it up in the actual NHL, and CDC whines and cries because we traded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 That article pretty much sums up what I just said. A solid top 5 that trails off later in the draft. That's what they mean when they say a weak draft. Just because there's no Crosby in this draft doesn't mean you can't get a great player. You realize Crosby and Stamkos are exceptional talents that come around very rarely. right? Saying that there are none of these players means nothing, because there is rarely these types of players available. They're generational talents. Doesn't mean we couldn't use a player on the level of Taylor Hall though. Reinhart also plays on a team with no other top end players. He puts up those points with little help. There's the difference. I'm gonna laugh so hard when Reinhart rips it up in his rookie year and everyone starts whining that we should have traded for him. Seriously? the article says that the draft is deep up to pick 20 like any other draft would be but there is no top end superstar talent in it. It says the complete opposite of what you keep saying. Reinhart is also born in 95 which makes him older than the majority of the league and draft class and he STILL isn't the even the undisputed first overall pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's you who isn't understanding anything. I constantly see garbage posts from you advocating trading potential for potential, failing to realize what a lateral move that is. Then there are already excuses why people here on CDC think Shinkaruk won't amount to much or that he has "attitude problems" based on nothing really credible. Yes, Shinkaruk is valuable. So why should we give that up plus more for a younger kid who also only has potential? Oh, right. It's because Reinhart is the shiny new toy. Then next year he and our first and whatever else will be thrown in trade proposals for McDavid. When will it end? Umm are you a scout? I'm not saying it's good or bad to make that speculated deal however your logic is silly. If you can get a player with game changer potential you consider it. Do you really think Shink will have the same career? I'm just asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 McDavid has too much hype and whoever gets the #1 pick won't trade down. He can't be had. And obviously you don't understand that there are different levels of potential but it's alright. I'm used to seeing ignorance around here.That's not the point. But like you said, ignorance. Perfect word to describe how little you actually know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 That's not the point. But like you said, ignorance. Perfect word to describe how little you actually know. LOL alright bud. I see it's pointless trying to talk sense into you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 And I'm going to laugh when Shinkaruk starts tearing it up in the actual NHL, and CDC whines and cries because we traded him. Just like Schroeder was going to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Because Reinhart has a way higher ceiling? If Shinkaruk is this elite level talent, why was he passed by 24 other teams? Yet Reinhart is expected to go one or two. I don't know about you, but I think NHL scouts know a little something the average Canuck fan doesn't. Reinhart is the impact center this team will desperately need with the departure of Kesler, and the retirement of Henrik in the next 4 years. If we don't get a high caliber first line center while we have a chance, this is going to be a long rebuild, I guarantee. Reinhart is expected to go 3 if there are no trades the only team who it appears interested in taking him first overall is Vancouver. Buffalo has been talking about how great Bennett is so if Florida takes Ekblad you can bet that Buffalo is taking Bennett. Edmonton may even take Draisaitl over Reinhart so he could far down to 4th. In this weak draft you are trying to tell everyone here that Reinhart is the second coming of jesus yet the only team that reportedly wants him is Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Just like Schroeder was going to? I don't know man. Don't get sucked up into this thing - you're reaching now and that makes your point weaker. I think you started out fine but now you're turning into the opposite version of them where you completely ignore Shinkaruk. The boy's going to be an NHLer and he'll be a top 6 forward. Shinkaruk has value - and you see that since you would include him in a package for the #1 pick. Don't fall into that trap of getting down to that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Seriously? the article says that the draft is deep up to pick 20 like any other draft would be but there is no top end superstar talent in it. It says the complete opposite of what you keep saying. Reinhart is also born in 95 which makes him older than the majority of the league and draft class and he STILL isn't the even the undisputed first overall pick. Reinhart will be a star but at what cost. I would think Edmonton would accept Tanev and the 6th for 3rd then we get SB. But would Vancouver like that deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 LOL alright bud. I see it's pointless trying to talk sense into you.You're not the person to be talking about sense when you have none. Nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Seriously? the article says that the draft is deep up to pick 20 like any other draft would be but there is no top end superstar talent in it. It says the complete opposite of what you keep saying. Reinhart is also born in 95 which makes him older than the majority of the league and draft class and he STILL isn't the even the undisputed first overall pick. It doesn't say there's no superstar talent in it. Did you actually read the article? It says there's no guy that jumps out as number 1. Meaning it's hard to gauge who should go first overall because they're all close. Just because there's no Crpsby or Stamkos, doesn't mean there's no superstars. It's really only close between three players. Ekblad, Reinhart, and Bennett. Which is not that uncommon to have in a draft. Mackinnon, Drouin, and Jones were all in the discussion as the number 1 right until the draft. Therefore there was no consensus number 1. Even Tavares, Hedman, and Duchene were up in the air for who would go where. TAylor Hall also wasn't the consensus, but that doesn't mean he's not a star and wasn't a god pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It just boggles my mind the lack of knowledge of what an impact player this guy is. Right, so your mind is boggled why all the scouts and scouting agencies do not universally consider Reinhart a can't-miss franchise elite player? Or are you suggesting that he is one of 5 such players in this draft, and that #6 down is like falling off a cliff and will require paying minimally with the #6-ranked NA skater from a stronger draft year to reach that lofty perch? Because Reinhart has a way higher ceiling? And there it is -- all you have is YOUR belief of a "higher ceiling" for him. In other words, he MAY have a higher ceiling, according to your personal opinion. Nothing at all to do with the REALITY of what they players have proven themselves to be today, just simply speculation and wishful thinking. And you are willing to pay through the nose for your hopes. That borders on blind faith, my friend. TSN doesn't know everything believe it or not. lol, but you do?? McKenzie polls many scouts to make his rankings -- apparently you are smarter than the entire collective of them? Please tell us your credentials and why you are not so employed? Are you related to Reinhart? Perhaps his agent? Really starting to wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Umm are you a scout?I'm not saying it's good or bad to make that speculated deal however your logic is silly. If you can get a player with game changer potential you consider it.Do you really think Shink will have the same career?I'm just asking?What game changing potential? He isn't necessarily any better than guys like Draisaitl, Nylander, Bennet, or Dal Colle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's you who isn't understanding anything. I constantly see garbage posts from you advocating trading potential for potential, failing to realize what a lateral move that is. Then there are already excuses why people here on CDC think Shinkaruk won't amount to much or that he has "attitude problems" based on nothing really credible. Yes, Shinkaruk is valuable. So why should we give that up plus more for a younger kid who also only has potential? Oh, right. It's because Reinhart is the shiny new toy. Then next year he and our first and whatever else will be thrown in trade proposals for McDavid. When will it end? There's a reason why he fell 17 spots he was projected to go. He was older than a lot of the draft eligibles and he lost a whole season of development. It's hard for somebody his size to thrive in the west. He obviously has the potential to be great, but we have the potential to get a 1c, and we can replace Shinkaruk with whatever comes back from the Kesler deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Just like Schroeder was going to? plz. Schoreder is a pure midget. Hes like 5'8. Shinkaruk is 5'11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yes, Shinkaruk is valuable. So why should we give that up plus more for a younger kid who also only has potential? Oh, right. It's because Reinhart is the shiny new toy. Then next year he and our first and whatever else will be thrown in trade proposals for McDavid. When will it end? It won't -- there will always be shiny new toys, with that ultimate of all attributes... POTENTIAL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 You're not the person to be talking about sense when you have none. Nice try.[/quote Actually he does. Your argument is that we can't move assets to get assets. If management and scouts feel it's the right move u do it. Depending how Horvat develops in 4 years we may not have a top 6 centre. Again not saying I'm for it but essentially your argument is status quo imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't know man. Don't get sucked up into this thing - you're reaching now and that makes your point weaker. I think you started out fine but now you're turning into the opposite version of them where you completely ignore Shinkaruk. The boy's going to be an NHLer and he'll be a top 6 forward. Shinkaruk has value - and you see that since you would include him in a package for the #1 pick. Don't fall into that trap of getting down to that level. Exactly. I know Shinkaruk's potential, which is why he has value in getting the first overall. My point is, potential doesn't always pan out. And it wasn't that long ago that people had Schroeder penciled in our top 6. You can't let the hype of Shinkaruk blind you from getting a great player though. Yes, Reinhart is potential too right now, but if you're playing the odds, a player like Reinhart pans out 75% of the time. A player like Shinakruk pans out maybe 25% of the time, based on the 1st and the 24th overall picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 plz. Schoreder is a pure midget. Hes like 5'8. Shinkaruk is 5'11 He's making the point on how so many on cdc said he was a steal. See it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.