I don't need evidence to conclude that a position is absurd lol. What you are referring to as "anecdotal evidence" is merely conjecture and guesswork. It isn't evidence at all - and does not prove anything whatsoever. It is pointless to argue your individual point projections as there is simply no way either side of this argument could ever be proven correct. It would devolve into arguing over finer and finer minutiae and semantics, as it always does with you.
You are welcome to pull the chute on this discussion so it doesn't get to that point.
Of course my evidence is conjecture, that's why it's referred to as anecdotal, instead of factual. This counter-point isn't a point worth mentioning, IMO. We are all speculating here, even you. What I find preposterous is the unquestionable acceptance that drafting Nylander+Tkachuk meant an inability to draft Pettersson. Apparently, this can be concluded without anything to back it up. To the point of calling the opposing opinion absurd, even though that in itself first requires the original premise (that Pettersson would not have been available) to have been proven. Where was it proven? It hasn't been. That is "facts to fit an argument". You need for it to be true in order to call any counter absurd. Instead, you have adopted a premise that has not been reasoned to acceptance at all.
You are coming up with increasingly convoluted mental gymnastics to justify your hypothesis that adding two top-six forwards would mean the Canucks would finish around the same spot, possibly win the draft lottery and also trade up simply if they wished to do so. Apart from useless and meaningless point projections, it's been speculated frequently that the Canucks had Makar first overall. So if they win the trade lottery they take Makar and lose Petterson. As for trading up if the Canucks did finish in Buffalo / Detroit territory - how many picks in the top 10 changed hands that year? NYR acquired Arizona's pick and had Petterson ranked high if the rumours are accurate. I highly doubt the Canucks would've been able to move up into the 1st to 6th range simply because they potentially could have or because they wanted to.
It appears your argument is driven by an ideological agenda (perhaps wanting to give Benning less credit for Petterson?) and is leading to your flawed conclusion, as is almost always the case when you try to fit your facts to the argument instead of your argument to the facts. The assertion the Canucks would not have been able to pick Petterson with those two players that has far more evidence to ground it than your conjecture and projections, which are not evidence in any way, shape or form. Apart from that, it's simply common sense. A better roster leads to better results.
My argument is driven by what I perceive to be a leap in logic that is accepted out of hand.
You said that your position has "far more evidence to ground it". What is this evidence? When you present it, please distinguish this evidence from conjecture, if you will.
A better roster leads to better results, yes, that is common sense. What is not common about this sense is the degree to which the results are bettered. Our meandering exchange thus far has resulted in a tentative comparison with FLA or BUF that year. An 8/9 pick. I don't think either one of us thinks this is outlandish, even if you vehemently disagree with the point totals involved to arrive at that conclusion. And so, that leaves the discussion at the following stalemate:
The Canucks, even if they are at 8th, have the Rangers trade ahead of them at 7 to draft Pettersson. Fair? If we keep draft odds as static, and all events at the draft as static, this probably happens. I have admitted as much myself. Now, that's one point in favour of the original premise. Next, alter that premise to have Tkachuk go back for his D + 1 season. Does this still happen? Adjust the original premise to lower the end goal differential from 30 to 20. Does this still happen? Or, lower the point totals for Nylander and Tkachuk instead of using their carry over stats. Does still happen?
If you find yourself saying no to any one of those occurrences, or the many others provided, then it is not an ironclad irrefutable fact that Pettersson would have been out of draft range for the Canucks.
If you genuinely believe that
Sedin - Sedin - Nylander
Baertschi - Horvat - Tkachuk
Eriksson - Sutter - Granlund
Burrows - Gaunce - Skille
would not be able to win 3 more games, and get a few more OT losses
Sedin - Sedin - Eriksson
Baertschi - Horvat - Burrows
Megna - Sutter - Granlund
Chaput - Gaunce - Skille
There isn't much to say. You're in the minority and going against what most would consider a reasonable and likely outcome.
I don't think most have reasoned it at all. I think most accept it without question, without thought to reason, to justify the eventual drafting of Pettersson. As if to say that Pettersson was earned only through the misfortune that befell the organization earlier. It's a great story. A feel good narrative, but I wouldn't call it reasonable nor would I say it was the most likely outcome. There would have to be a well thought out rationale to support such a claim. So far, I haven't seen one.
