You do realize you completely change the goal post and completely change the argument. The reason why you did that because you don't know how to prove that later draft picks are more valuable. This topic started when user HS said Benning beat the odds and traded all those picks and got Baer. You Claim that draft picks were better. So we set the agenda already with all the picks Benning traded For Baer Pouliot Larsen Pedan Vey. All of Sudden out on no where you change it to just 1st round picks. Vey got a 2nd is same as 3rd for Sharp.
For the record you can't just use personal opinion as your argument. That is your definition of what nhl player reclamation is. If you actually google nhl reclamation player you will show a lot of players that were not even 1st round picks.
User RK think Clendening is reclamation player and he is not even a 1st round pick.
Who said I am defending Benning. I hope you realize we are not debating about if Benning is a good GM. I am debating if he rebuilding or not. Me debating about him rebuilding has nothing about me thinking he is a bad or good GM.
The fact is not even one player outside of the 1st round pick is on the team.
As of right now you need to show me something that drafting in later rounds is better than trading a pick for a struggling young player? If you can't you are just generalizing.
Also pretend if I did accept your argument. The way you are asking me to name 10 1st round players since 2010. How does that make any sense. We determine lower picks up 10% chance of becoming top 6 F/Top 4 D. Not all 1st round pickd are reclamation project. The proper way of doing is taking all 1st reclamation players and find out 10% became top 6 F/Top 4 D. Your way doesn't even make any sense.
Seriously...do you find that people shrug off your comments at work or in your social circles?
How do you figure I changed the goal posts? I actually copy/pasted what I initially wrote...which is where your 'research' came into play.
The reason you 'think' I changed the goal posts is because you misunderstood my statement or you don't understand what reclamation means. I even copy/pasted the definition for you...I don't know how much easier I can make it for you.
When I said 'reclamation' player or project what does that mean to you?
You know it DOES NOT mean any player that has been traded early in his career right? Because that is exactly the players you listed in your 'research' and that is why players who have simply improved or exceeded expectations should be omitted from your body of evidence.
You can't choose to ignore key words in a sentence to suit yourself. The ridiculous portion of your post is that you claim I changed the posts??!!
If ANY person ignores key words in a sentence they will misinterpret the meaning. THIS is exactly what you did...you ignored 'reclamation' which resulted in your misunderstanding of what I said. And now your trying to change the goal posts to suit your own needs. On top of that, I was discussing hs's statement about Baertschi (which I also copy/pasted for you) and him being a reclamation type player that was a waiver risk. YOUR IGNORANCE resulted in my point to reference every player traded early. Your hypocrisy is extreme...
1st bolded: you had this discussion with another poster...you're obviously confusing yourself talking to multiple posters.
2nd bolded: ok, show me the link. And yes, there will be some players like Justin Schultz, but he fits my description. JS came into the league with a lot of hype and expectations to be a top line player... and players like him would be included to support your theory. REMEMBER...PLAYERS THAT HAVE SIMPLY IMPROVED OR EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED RECLAMATION PLAYERS.
I also didn't suddenly change anything, your misunderstanding did that! I have been arguing that 2nd round and later round draft picks should be acquired because there are many top line players that have been drafted in the later rounds.
Explain how Sharp, Moulson, Versteeg, ladd (now) are reclamation projects? These are all players who were drafted in the later rounds with no expectations other than becoming complimentary players. They exceeded expectations...they weren't reclamation players.
3rd bolded is another example of you trying to change the goal posts. You choose to only say 'later rounds' instead of what everyone is discussing... bennings trades! He traded 2nd and third round picks which is a massive overpayment. Later rounds and you make it sound like 6 or 7 round picks for his age gappers...which wouldnt be a problem. Only selecting to use 'later rounds' and the goal posts have changed because trading 6 or 7 round picks for a struggling player isnt so bad.
Last bolded, we averaged your 'research' and you found roughly 10 players that could be argued as top line players in 2010. My point is that had we not traded our picks away or had we acquired more picks, we could have acquired a top line player. The probability is higher, especially with a 'drafting guru' at the helm, as there were 10 potential players we could have chosen.
Instead of using a 2nd, 3rd or later round picks on a RECLAMATION player who has little to no chance in becoming a top line player.
***your preference for these benning type trades over draft picks is a different argument. However, your position is even more ignorant and naive than the one we're having now.
I'm not gonna explain the benefits of draft picks against the pitfalls of trading for players who are waiver risks and underperforming... everyone else has done that very clearly and you still can't comprehend the facts. The biggest downfall for us has been what benning paid for these age gappers...if he picked them up for 6th round picks we probably wouldnt be discussing this
