Great news for you then: RNH is 23, and thus three years from this line in the sand you've drawn. Meanwhile, he is absolutely a better NHL player today than either of Dumba or Haula and there is no debate.
Here's the flaw with your thinking: a player who goes from 5 to 10 to 20 points is not a bet to double his production every single year, thereby making them a 200-point scorer by their tenth season. As you noted, players have a brief window of time in which they improve year-over-year and then settle into a holding pattern from there on out.
Lets take, for example, Haula. You just stated that "some scorers get better as they get closer to 30, but they're the exception to the rule". Haula is 25- older than RNH- so it's a good bet that whatever point total he amasses this year is about it for the window from 26-30. You can deny that, but then you're either claiming he's one of these exceptions to the rule- in which case you'd have to prove it- or your own guideline is wrong.
Well it's a great thing you offer your own rebuttal to this line of thinking right below:
So again, you've noticed a pattern, but Wild fans are exempt from it. Why you ask?
Ah, because in THIS case- and not any other, just this one, involving Minnesota Wild fans assessing Minnesota Wild players- it would be (re: might) be detrimental. How convenient.
Once again, you ascribe the maximum potential possible to the Wild assets (i.e. "2nd line center" "1st pairing defenseman") but refuse to acknowledge a) the likelihood of that occurring b) RNH's ceiling above what he's already shown. In other words, you again fall victim to the very Hockey's Future bias you claimed didn't apply.
Right, because he plays for Edmonton and not in the Twin Cities. That's entirely what you base your assessments off of and not a thing else, and all of your posts have made that abundantly clear.
I never made an argument that Haula is better than RNH, nor that he would keep doubling his production, nor that he would ever be as good as RNH. He was a late bloomer that has shown that he is still improving, and therefore I said it would be wise to hold onto him until we know what he actually is. I think it is likely that by the end of this season, we'll know what that is, yes. Dumba is also improving, and does have the youth and trajectory to be a potentially better player than RNH.
My point was actually that Wild fans
are valuing the potential over the proven product, but then I went on to state that we're not
just valuing it because of the HF bias toward potential. I stated that in this case there is a burned hand reaction going on, thanks to the relative recency of the Leddy trade, and I can also understand why people would be hesitant to trade Dumba, given that he could become better than RNH. Not only do we not want to give up a player that could be the best player in a trade and then add yet another player to it, but especially not when both players are potentially top6/top pairing players in exchange for a non-elite center.
As for RNH reaching his potential, I am allowing his potential into the equation, it's just clear that I don't think it's as high as you do. IMO he's in the same boat as Zucker. This last season I saw such wild inconsistency with Zucker that he's in a put-up or shut-up situation with me. RNH is in that same situation for me. He has been a 55 point center for so long that it's become a trend. I don't see "elite" in his future, until he proves it. Which means that the Wild, who need an "elite" center, should not trade for him if it costs that much. That said, I would probably be grudgingly ok with Dumba and Zucker. Just not Dumba and Haula.
And just to be clear, my logic isn't about the Wild, it's the same logic every team in the league follows (except when a GM is on the hot-seat) when evaluating trade potential, and the logic that all their fans follow. Nearly everyone in the world is risk-averse, and tends to stick with what they've got, because they value what they have over what they could have. So yes, RNH is objectively the best player in a Dumba+Haula deal right now, but I am so not certain that he will be in 3 years that I wouldn't do it. If you lower the value to a player that isn't a possible long-term center for us (in other words, not Haula, Granlund, or Coyle) then maybe I reconsider.
And in response to that last little question of yours, what other posts have I made that make that clear? I hadn't posted in this thread before. Are you even aware of other people, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? If you're going to try trashing me, at least make sure there's trash to throw me in, first.
And so I'll revisit something I proposed a little while ago...
To MIN: Nuge, 2017 1st
To EDM: Spurgeon, Haula
I agree with your evaluation that Spurgeon requires a bit more than Nuge based on value of position and the better season last year. We need a replacement C for Nuge, and Haula certainly fits the bill. The 1st - with the roster improvements - is probably 15-20 range.
Tempting. Last off-season I would have done that, but now we have Spurg locked up long term on a decent contract and we just signed Staal. For me, that'd be a soft pass but if the Wild did it, I wouldn't be upset. Not excited either, but not upset.