[Ashasx]

Only going to response to the sections you didn't make personal.

Absolute not necessary to make comments such as "Again, I figured you wouldn't understand." Childish is the only adjective one can use to describe it.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because there are only two goalies on a team, and one of them usually plays a significant majority of games. A #1 goalie gets more ice time than any other player on the team, and plays a more important role. Every other skater's job is fungible to some degree. If the goalie does his job poorly, that alone will make the team lose any given game.

If anything, this goes against your argument. Yeah, you can only have one goalie in net at a time. Ideally, you only play one goaltender a game.

Hence the importance of skaters. You need more of them. You can play five skaters on the ice at once. This means that if you draft five skaters in one draft, you can ice an entire line up. If you draft goaltenders, regardless of how good they are, you can only play one at a time.

Goaltenders also have minimal value relative to skaters in trades. Additionally, you can always find good to decent goaltenders in free agency every year (see Hiller and Miller). Quality skaters rarely hit UFA. When they do, they become vastly overpaid.

Now you're just blowing smoke. Present the examples, and the metrics by which they are adjudged to have ‘stronger MVP seasons’. Otherwise, you are simply assuming facts not in evidence.

That is purely subjective. That is my point. You cannot say that Price is objectively more valuable than any past Hart winner.

Actually, you cannot assume ANYTHING about the relative values of X and Y. They are unknown values until you go looking for evidence of what their values actually are.

Yet you can assume this?:

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The value of a regular NHL goalie is so much greater than the value of an average NHL skater that the opportunity cost of passing up a good goalie is huge.

The average NHL goaltender is not a starting goaltender.

Which is not an insult.

Then most certainly calling somebody's actions "childish" is not.

This is not about a single incident. This is about a pattern of rude and abusive behaviour that you have been showing on this forum for years.

Okay, you may think this, but why bring it up?

How does it add anything to the discussion?

It doesn't. You're only intent with such a comment in to entice a negative response from me.