[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Jason14h, who is saying that you CANNOT win the Stanley Cup in any other way.

I didn't see any posts with him saying it was a universal rule but if he did take it up with him. I have said many times there is no sure fire way to win never hinted at any universal rules.

I did, and all he has done is double down on his initial statement.

Sorry I can't speak for other posters.

You thought ‘LOL’ was a sufficient answer when I said what I was talking about. Evidently you believed that I wasn't talking about the thing that I explicitly said I was, and insisted that the conversation had to be about what you decided I must be talking about.

Nope I was responding to your statement that NOBODY was talking about the Flames when clearly people were. You are free to talk about what you like as I said.

We are clearly talking about how a team, any team, can be built to win the Stanley Cup. Whether the Flames ever can or will get there is a separate question, which we have not even begun to discuss.

We are clearly talking about how this relates to the position that the Flames are in. Flames are the Avs and this thread doesn't exist this topic is of very little interest to the Flames. The title of the thread shows it is clearly related to the Flames.

I am RECOGNIZING the fact that nobody has identified a CORRELATION between a top-2 pick (which is what Jason14h insists on, for some reason) and winning the Cup.

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge that point.

Again this seems to be an issue between you and Jason.

No, THAT IS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT, because that IS the point I made.

NOBODY HAS ESTABLISHED A CORRELATION. That is my ENTIRE point. Without a correlation, there is NO CASE. People are jumping to the conclusion based on nothing but the fallacy of survivorship bias.

Nope again moving the goal posts or an issue you have with another poster.

Really? So according to you, this is silly:

‘X was the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win because he won the Conn Smythe trophy for being the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win.’

But this is not silly:

‘Y was the most valuable player in his team's Stanley Cup win because he had the highest draft position many years ago.’

Give your head a shake.

It is beyond silly, but I was trying to be kind.

Equating a vote by media members who report on the league that they conduct in the 2nd period of the last game on who they think is the best play of the play-offs a process that many of them admit is often a toss up in which they would take two or more guys to a draft in which thousands of people paid 6 or 7 figure salaries spend years and millions on as their job to evaluate kids based on years of experience and data is silly.

There really is no comparison.

But all that really gets away from the initial point that there is no way that Marchesault was the bigger star on that team over Eichel. At worst it they were equal and even that is a stretch. Trying to minimize Eichel's impact is silly and that is where the whole point began.