You seem to struggle with critical thinking in general. You consider a long-retired Eric Lindros a relevant comparable to Vanek but feel Michael Grabner is in no way similar. Just bizarre.
You’re free to think what you want, but you demonstrate frighteningly poor reasoning skills when you try to engage in actual debate. Honestly not worth my time if this is how it’s gonna go.
Coming from the king of semantics, I'd expect you to be a poor judge of reasoning skills.
The Lindros example was reducing your argument to the absurd, something debaters do to demonstrate how flawed your argument is. You say Vanek should have the same value as last yeat because last year that wasbhis value. It's a circular argument (Google it, it's not fancy jargon but doubt you understand the concept since most of your arguments fit this description).
If Vanek should have the same value as last year "just because " then he should have the same value as the year before, and the year before, and the year before. Likewise, this should hold for every player. So basically every 40 point player should have relatively the same value. Furthermore, this value should hold year to year, presumably into infinity.
Yes, that's absurd. But it is the literal argument you are making. I get that you don't understand that this ridiculous circular argument is in fact what youbare saying. But the fact you can't actually follow your argument to it's conclusion says all I need to know about your capacity for rational thinking.
Answer this, why didn't some team make a better offer for Vanek if he was so highly sought after? Surely if Vanek has the value you keep suggesting, there must be a reason no one offered more than Motte. "Urm dur cuz Benning gonna Benning lolz."
I don't actually believe Benning when he says he couldn't get a draft pick. But I do believe he rated Motte higher than picks that were on the table. Something like Motte rated as a 4th or 5th, while only offered a 5th or 6th round pick. But then I don't take GM speak as gospel because I'm actually capable of rationally assessing facts and seeing multiple points of view, unlike the Canafan's if the world who see black (no white) and love circular semantic arguments.