Alright, i'll trade you John Tavares for a kid that hasn't been born yet who may be better than Gretzky. I win the deal.
What has Gleason done at Johnson's level that Johnson hasn't? The reason Johnson is so highly touted is because he's proven pretty much everything he can in college game.
The only stance I see you taking is that Johnson won't pan out. Face the facts: Johnson has proven everything he needs to prove
at the college level. The
only reason Johnson hasn't proven himself is simply because he hasn't had the chance.
So how does it make sense that the Kings have already won a deal where the yield for them has been nothing?
The yield has NOT been nothing. The yield is a young defenseman with the potential to be one of the best American defensemen in history and to be one of the stars of the Kings for countless years.
If you don't think the Kings have gotten anything from the deal, how about trading every prospect in your organization who hasn't played an NHL game for Tom Kostopoulos? According to your standards, Kostopoulos is worth so much more, because he's proven himself at the NHL level.
I'm not trying to say he holds no value, but how can someone win the trade when the only thing they picked up (Yes, only thing. Tverdovsky has negative value if anything) has not played 1 game for the Kings. He holds value, but he hasn't benefited the Kings on ice team one bit yet.
This is going to go around in circles.
It's obviously going to go around in circles because you're only considering the side that benefits your team. You're making lots of assumptions, saying, "what if Johnson isn't everything he's cracked up to be," but you're not considering that he could be as good as he's pegged to be and better.
For every time you say, "Johnson could bust," I could say, "Johnson could be the next great American hockey player and the face of USA hockey for the next 20 years" Both of which are assumptions, but both of which are possible.