Strawman argument. My reply to you was to point out that your initial argument of using Eichel to establish value was flawed because you didn’t address his injured status and his desire to be traded. The fact that you can’t own up to this basic fact is just sad.
I didn’t “conveniently ignore” the second part of your post because.. I actually agreed with it. What did you want me to say?
My whoe premise was that you should have included a balanced discussion of Eichel. It’s sad you are too proud to admit you didn’t provide one.
If you'd like this to be an honest discussion, let's make it one, and ideally without this nonsense about my pride and owning up to facts. That's not only an actual strawman, it's an ad hominem argument fallacy, especially since it's pretty damn clear my argument doesn't hinge on Eichel.
Your whole premise is that JT Miller is worth top prospects+. It's not that the Eichel discussion is unbalanced. It's that your valuation of JT Miller (or perhaps more accurately that of the Canucks fanbase) is high. My counterpoint is that based on past precedence, your valuation is unrealistic.
Historically speaking during the cap era, regardless of reason or purpose, top players of any kind in any situation get the same package with very few exceptions. It's almost always mid-six forward, high-ish, but not top prospect, and a 1st. The wiggle room usually comes in whether or not there's a fourth piece and if there is it's usually not a super high-quality piece. The only team that's gone beyond a high(ish)-quality fourth piece forward in the past few years is San Jose in the Karlsson deal - and even those pieces were, at the time, pretty minor adds (Balcers, a conditional top 60 pick for keeping Karlsson out west).
Expecting Braden Schneider in this deal is unreasonable based on past precedent. Expecting Zac Jones or Nils Lundkvist might be reasonable. Expecting Filip Chytil is probably bang on.