Silly diversion. It has nothing to do with the argument. You cite Slafkovsky's age to excuse his production and then don't mention it at all in follow-ups where he looks behind others in his age cohort (and younger). Stick with the topic -> you're convinced he's been developed in an optimal manner, yet he's behind his age cohort. Other than "big boys take longer to develop" do you have any other theory why he's been so relatively underproductive?
Listen pal, I enjoy talking hockey and figuring out how players develop. I like exchanging ideas and think this is genuinely fun to follow. If you feel so strongly about this to the point of insulting me, I'd prefer if you used the ignore list and didn't refer to me at all.
He looked completely lost last year and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even the Habs organization alluded to his struggles last year. We have eyes, we saw a struggling prospect. If you think it's condescending of me to bring it up, I don't know what to tell you -- if we can't agree that Slafkovsky struggled last year then we shouldn't discuss Slafkovsky with each other because we can't agree on something I believe to be a basic, plain fact.