Your argument is all over the place. What do Roy and Struble have to do with anything?
My arguments aren't all over the place. Roy and Struble areexamples and part of the hopefuls you're banking on to compete if you don't want to wait.
Frankly, 'pedigree' is a weak argument. Here's our current core's pedigree:
• Slafkovsky: 1st overall
• Caufield: 15th OA, now definitely top-10 in a redraft.
• Suzuki: 13th OA, now definitely top-10 in a redraft.
• Dach: 3rd OA, who looked like a beast pre-injury.
• Guhle: 16th OA, becoming a prospective 1st pairing D
• Newhook: 16th OA, a buy-low opportunity.
• Hutson: A later round steal, a prospective star
See, it's not my arguments that are all over the place, but you that don't take the time to read. I didn't say "draft pedigre", i simply said pedigre. There's a difference. You're also being disonest as i had already mentioned those players in the core, except for Dach and Newhook. Guess i'll have to take you by the hand and explain things to you.
First, pedigree. It's not just where they were drafted, but how they did after getting drafted. Both Newhook and Dach are reclamation projects who failed after getting plenty of opportunity and are still failing despite plenty of opportunity. Talk about illusion, you're banking on two players whose pedigree/value are at an all-time low and yes, we have quite a few prospect who project better because they are dominating after their draft, and that includes Demidov, Fowler, Dobes and Hage (I'd add Reinbacher as he did well in his first steps in the A). Hutson's pedigree is superb because he dominated after his draft year and is already living up to expectations.
You bunched-up a ton of players with different outcomes to show their draft position, which is really not what I meant.
I had already talked about Guhle, CC and Suzuki and I wasn't comparing to them. Slaf and Hutson are rebuild draftees, are just 20 years and banking on such young players is foolish. Need to let them develop further. So you're left with the two reclamation projects to join the three i had already named. A core of Suzuki, Caufield, Guhle, Dach and Newhook is inadequate. The rest is also inadequate. Our defense hasn't been rebuilt yet either. It takes a lot more than 5 guys to build a competing team, let alone the fact that two of them are hopefuls. Illusions, as you put it.
So you're hoping for what? That Dach and Newhook will finally live up to their very distant pedigree? Or that some of the other hopefuls like Roy, Struble, Barron or whoever will suddenly rise high above their own pedigree? That's much more an illusion than waiting for players like Slaf, Hutson, Hage, Demidov, Fowler to reach their potential.
Aside from Demidov, which incoming prospects project higher than the above guys? Sure, we can criticize Dach and Newhook now, but before their ups and downs in the NHL, they were highly-touted prospects with at least as much pedigree as the prospects you believe are coming to save the day.
I've already covered this, but I'll add that Demidov, Hage, Dobes and Fowler right now project higher than your two hopefuls. Hage is having as good a freshman season as Caufield did and Fowler is also dominant as a freshman in the NCAA. And Dobes is way better than Primeau was in the A.
Slaf and Hutson are good examples of what the future has in store for us if we're patient enough to wait for them.
Oh, and don't forget that Primeau once had a great pedigree. He was a highly touted All-Star goalie in NCAA and AHL. That's the problem with pedigrees – they don't directly translate into NHL success.
Which leaves you with only Guhle, Caufield and Suzuki from our prerebuild drafts. It's not enough. The Primeau example doesn't tell the story you're hoping. It's an example of why we need patience and more high drafts. Despite his supposed pedigree, I was never high on him and he never dominated the AHL. He wasn't a star goalie in the AHL. I don't know where you got that from. His pedigree was lowered by his time in the A. Dobes is doing better than he ever did. I had named Dobes, but you decided to pretend I only named Fowler.
So much for your strawman interpretation of pedigree. Naming Lane Hutson, a 62nd pick, should've been a clear indication i didn't specify it as "draft" pedigree. Blame yourself for your lame interpretation, devoid of logical follow-up.
To be clear, I'm sure we'll be a better team with Demidov, Hage, Reinbacher, etc. I'm excited about our prospects, but they won't turn us into a winning team unless the current core can win on their own.
Complete non-sequitur. You become a winning team BY ADDING TALENT every year, not by hoping that half your future core can do it by themselves.
You can respond, but I won't read. I'm not interested in arguing over fantasies where a team with a very small core will magically start winning.
