You don't like that Nylander's trade worth is perceived as equal to pieces, like Pesce, found across the League.
No I don't like it, but I can't control inaccurate perceptions anymore than I can control people to actually represent my opinions accurately. All I or anyone else can do is repeat it until it's plainly understood. Pesce or Nutivaara or Braun don't represent players of focus, of even remote consideration when placed in proposals for William Nylander.
"Simlar" is an adverb which modifies the verb "found". This doesn't make literal sense, nor really in the abstract sense, but correcting semantics on the internet is lame and only done when someone doesn't want to admit they're wrong/don't know what they're talking about.
Or when being taken completely out of context as other posts would confirm. You forgot to quote those sentences where I describe Nylander, plainly understood, as being better than a "good piece" i.e. Brett Pesce.
On "found similarly" being inapplicable in a literal or abstract sense...Seriously. Do your due diligence. I also use the adverb "very" to modify Nylander in the superlative. Plainly understood, I'm not concerned with submitting an actual working trade model that reflects advanced stats for Pesce, Nutivaara and Braun, et al. whomever they may or may not be. I'm simply not interested in the idea of trading Nylander under duress and for players that BUT FOR duress wouldn't be a target of the Toronto Maple Leafs i.e. Brett Pesce.
Anyway you claimed there are pieces "like Pesce" around the League that may be had for less than the cost of Nylander. I asked for examples. You cited two guys that are neither comparable to Pesce, nor have ever been traded, hence making it difficult to discern their trade worth.
Nylander and Pesce haven't been traded, but there's nothing difficult to discern their worth one to the other anymore than there's difficulty discerning Nylander's worth to Nutivaaa or Braun.
Saying "like" Pesce clearly doesn't mean equivocal to Pesce, especially when I've qualified as much...The plain implication in not trading Nylander for Pesce is that Pesce is of lesser value than Nylander. If I regard Pesce as lesser in value to Nylander and caveat any possibility on acquiring a "good piece like" Brett Pesce, I don't mean a piece precisely and exactly like Pesce. Moreover that the desired outcome is Nylander plus an acquisition rather than an acquisition for Nylander.
If the need was a back-up goalie and Keith Kinkaid was available, I also wouldn't want to trade William Nylander for him. If it was a good, defensively responsible, possible power forward like Nick Ritchie, I still wouldn't want to trade William Nylander for him. Along the way, I'd probably relay Kinkaid's comparables and Ritchie's comparables in a very clumsy fashion. Why? Because the notion of trading William Nylander for Brett Pesce or Keith Kinkaid or Nick Ritchie is so far out of my consideration set as starting point given the obvious disparity in talent, that representing their value according to their fanbase's equivalency tables is completely useless.
That's fine. I didn't reply to your preference to keep Nylander, and if you had simply said that and shut up, not a single 'Canes fan would care.
That's not my problem. If you prefer to exclude the thrust of my objection in the first place I'm not sure where you find the confidence to advise me on how to post.
And to the bold...I did. Repeatedly. And I'll repeat it in context of not finding Pesce palatable as a constant offer for the obviously implied and stated reasons that sees Nylander as an inherently bigger get than Pesce is. Canes fans can care about Pesce in the way some Maple Leafs continue to remember Bob Rouse. I don't care, it's not going to change the fundamental position I've repeated that trading Nylander and Pesce as two principal pieces makes zero sense for Toronto and is only making some sense because of the apparent situation.
I replied to your claim that the Leafs could get pieces "like Pesce", by asking for an example. You gave a mediocre example in Braun (given quality of play and age and contract) and a poorly thought out one in Nutivaara. Then you did nothing to support the assertion that they're "like Pesce" or that they hold similar trade value.
Do you still defend the assertion that they're "like Pesce" or hold similar trade value?
I never did hold that they have similar trade value and noted (somewhere) that Nuitvaara and Braun would be the lesser of Pesce...but in a group of assets that together still wouldn't and shouldn't yield William Nylander. Admittedly, my fine tooth comb remained firmly in pocket when waxing whimsical about...whew...Markus Nutivaara as a decent option B to Brett Pesce where William Nylander ALSO wouldn't be involved in acquiring.
It's an indirect way of acknowledging that the model has legs and that I disagree with the notion of including Nylander in a trade and more importantly for an asset I think can be found IN PART, for substantially less than one of the players affectionately included in our fanbase's collective descriptor of "Big Three".
If I didn't satisfy a loyal Canes' Brett Pesce fan's criteria of defining "like" in reasonable comparison to players around the league, then mea culpa. But I never claimed equivalencies could be had, I thought I was plainly conveying that lesser but similar pieces could be found, as implied in the proposed cost, which would be whatever it cost minus William Nylander, the apparent price of...Brett Pesce.
A mediocre example is Braun and Nutivaara you say? Ok...Well...You apparently did catch the gist that I also regard them as mediocre and especially so against the proposition of Pesce for Nylander and that mediocre prices should yield mediocre pieces and not William Nylander.
