Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
- Feb 20, 2012
- 7,965
- 58
I didn't bring up that the Stars scouts said he got a mid 1st round grade from them, you did. Anybody who thinks he is a top 15 player in his class today is welcome to say so, and anybody who thinks that statement is an indictment of the Stars scouting in general is also free to express that opinion. I'm not talking about the latter but the former is demonstrably not so today.
By comparing Hintz to Laine you are saying they are comparable. Actions, comparing in this case, speak louder than words, here the denial of comparison. This is basic stuff. And you aren't using Laine as a benchmark because the comparison you deny you are making is between goals in a draft +2 year and in a draft year. Laine put up those numbers as a 17 year old while Hintz did so when he was 20, these things should not be given equal weight. Even if this made any sense, Laine had more points and a higher ppg which he followed with a monster playoffs and then a bunch of senior caps. When Hintz was 18 he went 5g 12a in 42 and Laine went 17g 16a in 46. No numbers are in Hintz's favor.
I'll say again, which player do you see when McDonnell and Takko are praising Hintz? You put so much faith in those words and had lots to say about people who think they made a mistake so let's not do that and just stick with the guys who know what they are talking about. It doesn't say IQ or two-way or playmaking at all so which forward line doesn't need these things to be a success at the NHL level?
Finally as to versatility, I can't name 5 lines that would be worse with Laine. No team I can think of is too deep for him to play on nor is there a team he would not improve. You put your sights on Shore and Eakin earlier. Even if Hintz is as good as either of those players there are dozens of lines he would not improve and several teams that would not have a spot for him. I doubt he'll make the Stars, how can he be "much more versatile" than Laine if he isn't even in the NHL?
And if you've seen a bunch of his games, that's great. It makes zero sense to cherry pick the most feeble boxcar argument to make your point if you have literally any other frame of reference.
By comparing Hintz to Laine you are saying they are comparable. Actions, comparing in this case, speak louder than words, here the denial of comparison. This is basic stuff. And you aren't using Laine as a benchmark because the comparison you deny you are making is between goals in a draft +2 year and in a draft year. Laine put up those numbers as a 17 year old while Hintz did so when he was 20, these things should not be given equal weight. Even if this made any sense, Laine had more points and a higher ppg which he followed with a monster playoffs and then a bunch of senior caps. When Hintz was 18 he went 5g 12a in 42 and Laine went 17g 16a in 46. No numbers are in Hintz's favor.
I'll say again, which player do you see when McDonnell and Takko are praising Hintz? You put so much faith in those words and had lots to say about people who think they made a mistake so let's not do that and just stick with the guys who know what they are talking about. It doesn't say IQ or two-way or playmaking at all so which forward line doesn't need these things to be a success at the NHL level?
Finally as to versatility, I can't name 5 lines that would be worse with Laine. No team I can think of is too deep for him to play on nor is there a team he would not improve. You put your sights on Shore and Eakin earlier. Even if Hintz is as good as either of those players there are dozens of lines he would not improve and several teams that would not have a spot for him. I doubt he'll make the Stars, how can he be "much more versatile" than Laine if he isn't even in the NHL?
And if you've seen a bunch of his games, that's great. It makes zero sense to cherry pick the most feeble boxcar argument to make your point if you have literally any other frame of reference.
Last edited:
