Of course my argument is unsound if one can't understand it.
It's understood, it's just not very good.
I didn't assess Reinbacher (prospect) but the Habs depth chart. Pretty clear.
A poor assessment relative to an NHL hockey team in 2024.
It's only unsound if you can't (or intentionally refuse to) understand the difference between a 5th OA picked prospect and a generic prospect.
That's a useless reference point outside of fan banter. For the team, the draft spot is irrelevant beyond ELC contract negotiation.
What matters is their performance & potential, as assessed by the team.
Hutson, drafted later than Mailloux and not as high a pick, appears to have surpassed him on the org depth chart, has he not?
Fans over emphasize draft spot all the time in assessing prospects. Some (poor) hockey ops departments certainly also allow their player evaluations to be skewed as such, falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy, but poor assessments are not the exclusive territory of fan message boards... Millbury and Bergevin did run teams after all lol
Since you need further explanation: Teams don't tank and rebuild to draft 17th OA and try to peg the prospect as "building blocks". The argument that Reinbacher should be downgraded from "building block" to "prospect" is fine, in fact it's got nothing to do with Reinbacher at all. The thread is titled: The State of the Habs Rebuild, not The State of Reinbacher.
Teams don't "tank & rebuild" anything like fans imagine. You assume these concepts have some sort of objective definition. It's this type of flawed premise that undermines your argument, making it quite unsound.
Reinbacher's behaviour during his rehab (as assessed by the team) and his performance progression in the months & years (barring a complete regression) after his return is what will affect wether or not the team views him as a "building block" (another highly subjective term... I'll assume you imply a top pairing NHL regular).
To state definitively that he has regressed at this point is foolish. The argument, which mirrors your arguments last fall about another prospect, could easily end up exposed as such within a calendar year depending on how well he returns from injury.
Reinbacher has all the potential in the world to be the next "D-2" or whatever it is Kent Hughes expects from him, in fact you could say Reinbacher is has the potential to be the best d-man of all time or whatever it is you believe... but given his injury and loss of important development time, it would be unwise for the Habs to count on him as a franchise cornerstone and not hedge its bets against his future.
It would be unwise for any NHL team to hedge anything on a player not yet to play an NHL season. Again here, you reach subjective conclusions that are irrational yet build your argument as is they are objective fact.
Better prospects than him have failed to reach their ceiling on account of injuries and lost development years.
And better prospects than him have failed to reach their ceiling without injuries and lost development time being the catalyst.
You're jumping to conclusions about the impact of his injury. The argument you offer from that conclusion is as thin as the ligament he's getting repaired
The Habs should therefore not give away high-potential RD prospects and likely look to acquire additional ones. It's a simple and honest conclusion -- I would keep Mailloux, Barron, and even Konyushov. We suddenly have a big question-mark in terms of RD depth, now and going forward.
Imo Habs should continue to manage their assets with the underlying goal of building a contender and sustaining that contention window as long as they can.
Has anyone argued that they should "give away potential RD prospects?". Perhaps I missed that post
Absent that context, your post has an "old man yelling at the clouds" vibe to it... Hence why I describe it as "unsound".
The organization RD depth chart, with or without RB, is arguably the weakest (bottom of barrel in vet and U25 NHLer, arguably top tier prospect-wise). Bird in hand is worth considerably more than prospects, imo, and I suspect most GMs operate that way.
You only really need 1 minute munching top pair RD... Hard asset to get in place, and until it is I would assume that the team views all assets at their disposal as "available" if it means landing that piece.
Our question mark at RD is no bigger today than it was two weeks ago. The road from top prospect to elite top pair player is not short for most... Including much "surer" picks. It was always going to be 3-5 years before we knew if we'd hit a top pair asset, that timeframe still holds true imo. 3 years seems far less likely (I would agree that it's unlikely, albeit not impossible that by next season he's playing 20+min for us), but 4? 5? This injury and recovery time doesn't preclude him staying on that track. No available information today supports a definitive statement otherwise.
The risk of RB or reaching his ceiling is perhaps a bit greater, but not nearly as much affected by this set back as you assume it to be. For many athletes, early career injuries actually are catalyst to achieving their future performance heights. The mental side of recovery is far less predictable, but can and often does result in training/rehab/mental resilience habits that sustain future growth.
Like I said, the hostility is inexplicable.
Like I said, have a take, don't suck.
Not sure why you take that so personally...
It's not "you" that sucks, it's your argument. I apologize if that old Jim rome saying, which I offer up tongue-in-cheek doesn't land as humorous with you. My daughter regularly assures me that I'm not as funny as I think I am, and she's probably right!