DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 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? 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. 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? Please go look at the number 1 and two ranked forwards taken in the last 10 years and then get back to me. Then maybe you'll realize that these players reach their potential more often than not. Simple odds my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It won't -- there will always be shiny new toys, with that ultimate of all attributes... POTENTIAL! Those Sedins were cool "shiny new toys" eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly 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? So Shinkaruk does not have "game-changer potential"? And again, it is not "just Shink" -- it is Shinkaruk PLUS the #6 overall pick, plus perhaps even more, for this ONE player with potential. Please stop equivocating to make your point. Put up Reinhart versus Shinkaruk and Nylander, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So Shinkaruk does not have "game-changer potential"? And again, it is not "just Shink" -- it is Shinkaruk PLUS the #6 overall pick, plus perhaps even more, for this ONE player with potential. Please stop equivocating to make your point. Put up Reinhart versus Shinkaruk and Nylander, for example. If we're building our future core around Shinkaruk and Nylander, forget about competing in the West. These guys will get bulldozed against teams like San Jose, LA, and Anaheim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Those Sedins were cool "shiny new toys" eh?Except that the Sedins are still here, we didn't flip them the next year for the top pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Please go look at the number 1 and two ranked forwards taken in the last 10 years and then get back to me. You're again using the same logical fallacy -- declaring that what happens in the past necessarily happens in the future. Not to mention that likely the only way Reinhart goes #1 or even 2 is if Vancouver trades up to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 So Shinkaruk does not have "game-changer potential"? And again, it is not "just Shink" -- it is Shinkaruk PLUS the #6 overall pick, plus perhaps even more, for this ONE player with potential. Please stop equivocating to make your point. Put up Reinhart versus Shinkaruk and Nylander, for example. Easy fella. I never said I was for it. To be fair though these silly cdc proposals on cdc were never close, you had to be a fool not to see that. I'm simply saying if we believe he will be a game changer then you consider it. Would I do it? No. But I can understand and respect the arguments some are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light Bearer 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.Yeah I've heard several times that the top of this draft doesn't have a single bonified 1st line forward. There's several good second liners but that's about it. I can't see Reinhart being worth Shink + #6 + roster player, especially when he doesn't project as a #1 NHL centre. Classic case of a too much focus on one player that people start to become fixated to the point they can't see what else is around them.Its a social phenomenon sort like a self fulfilling prophecy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Except that the Sedins are still here, we didn't flip them the next year for the top pick. I think you missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Those Sedins were cool "shiny new toys" eh? Did Burke trade his previous first-rounders or his best young prospects to get them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Did Burke trade his previous first-rounders or his best young prospects to get them? You could say he won that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 You're again using the same logical fallacy -- declaring that what happens in the past necessarily happens in the future. Not to mention that likely the only way Reinhart goes #1 or even 2 is if Vancouver trades up to get him. Umm, it's called odds. Players are ranked by professionals, and more often than not, they do get the top 2 picks right. No, Reinhart will go no later than 2, don't kid yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I think you missed the point.I understood the point fine. It seems you didn't understand mine. Before the season ended, many people had no clue who Reinhart was. Then a few people hyped him up, now everyone wants him. This isn't new for CDC either. People seemed happy with Horvat and Shinkaruk when we drafted them last year. Now people have no problems throwing them in proposals because someone is "potentially" better. Reinhart is the shiny new toy. If we do get him, the novelty will soon wear off and people on here will soon throw him in trade proposals next year for someone "potentially" better. Because, you know, "value for value" and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Easy fella. I never said I was for it. To be fair though these silly cdc proposals on cdc were never close, you had to be a fool not to see that. I'm simply saying if we believe he will be a game changer then you consider it. Would I do it? No. But I can understand and respect the arguments some are making. Would certainly hope the alleged "rumours" are false, yet so many here fall for them and then actually start thinking they are legit and worth doing, let alone that the Canucks would even consider them. Benning would have to believe Reinhart is the Second Coming for him to deal Horvat, Shinkaruk, or even more plus his pick to get him. Some hack could post "Vancouver offers Sedins and Kesler for 1st overall pick" and people here would be all over it. I realize it comes down to what one believes about their potential, but in the bigger picture for a team seeking to become younger to then cast off its prospects is really nonsensical. Don't know why it's so difficult for some to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamHomer Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Except that the Sedins are still here, we didn't flip them the next year for the top pick.Derp, he's saying the Sedins were top picks. And how did we get them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 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. Obviously you didn't read the article or you've got some sort of reading disability that prevents you from comprehending it. The draft is considered weak because there is not franchise players in it the draft is deep in depth just like any other draft its just missing the franchise player(s). You are comparing Reinhart to Mackinnon I've already done that but I will reiterate. Nathan MacKinnon BORN: September 1, 1995 (AGE 18) Sam Reinhart BORN: November 6, 1995 (AGE 18) Practically the same age now lets compare there stats in 2011-12 + 2012-13 Mackinnon: SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPG SHG GWG S S% 2011-2012 HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-QMJHL 58 31 47 78 11 45 7 0 4 209 14.8 2012-2013 HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-QMJHL 44 32 43 75 40 45 10 2 7 201 15.9 Playoffs: SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPG SHG GWG S S% 2011-2012 HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-QMJHL 17 13 15 28 12 12 4 0 1 75 17.3 2012-2013 HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-QMJHL 17 11 22 33 17 12 5 0 4 81 13.6 2012-2013 HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-M-CUP 4 7 6 13 8 0 1 1 1 Reinhart: SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPG SHG GWG S S% 2011-2012 Kootenay Ice WHL 67 28 34 62 16 2 2012-2013 KOOTENAY ICE WHL 72 35 50 85 8 22 Playoffs: SEASON TEAM GP G A P +/- PIM PPG SHG GWG S S% 2011-2012 KOOTENAY ICE WHL 4 1 1 2 -2 0 2012-2013 KOOTENAY ICE WHL 5 0 1 1 -8 4 Mackinnon played in 44 games in 12-13 and 75 points while being +40 Reinhart played in 72 games and had 85 points while being +8 Mackinnon in the playoffs had 33 points in 17 games +17 Reinhart in the playoffs had 1 point and -8 Reinhart is no where near as good as Mackinnon not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Derp, he's saying the Sedins were top picks. And how did we get them?Umm, I know what he was saying. Did we flip our previous high draft picks for them? We already had a high draft pick to take one of the Sedins. We traded for another pick to get the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Umm, it's called odds. Players are ranked by professionals, and more often than not, they do get the top 2 picks right. No, Reinhart will go no later than 2, don't kid yourself. Buffalo is not taking Reinhart. They are taking Ekblad or Bennett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I realize it comes down to what one believes about their potential, but in the bigger picture for a team seeking to become younger to then cast off its prospects is really nonsensical. Don't know why it's so difficult for some to grasp. It's about turning two good prospects into a great prospect. GMs do it all the time. It's up to Benning if he believes Reinhart is worth that gamble or not, not us. Based on the history of forwards taken number 1, he'd be the best player involved in the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I understood the point fine. It seems you didn't understand mine. Before the season ended, many people had no clue who Reinhart was. Then a few people hyped him up, now everyone wants him. This isn't new for CDC either. People seemed happy with Horvat and Shinkaruk when we drafted them last year. Now people have no problems throwing them in proposals because someone is "potentially" better. Reinhart is the shiny new toy. If we do get him, the novelty will soon wear off and people on here will soon throw him in trade proposals next year for someone "potentially" better. Because, you know, "value for value" and all that. Ok fair enough I see what you're getting At. I to get annoyed by the logic on cdc but I was also very familiar with SR. Like I said though, I never campaigned for this trade I'm just saying if management and scouts in Vancouver believe he is the guy you consider it. I'm on record numerous times on cdc saying keep our assets and draft Ehlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.