Well that would come down to one's ability to assess and project talent... Even if you and I disagree on McKeown's projection, and we do, let's look at this from LA's perspective: Why do they target a pick with this trade? Why not a more matured asset? In other words, why do they assume the risk of time, as Mckeown is further from the NHL, to give up a seasoned AHL performer? To me, the answer is ultimate projection. They must feel McKeown projects better in the end.
I'm not really interested in looking at it from the King's perspective. They got the best player they thought they could that they thought they may need in a few years. Vey was, as another poster put it, their version of Grabner and because they didn't need him due to their depth, they converted him into a pick. Good on them.
That's why they pull the trigger for a green prospect. They sacrifice time for a better eventual asset. Otherwise, they go for a more ready prospect at a different position, IMO.
They didn't sacrifice anything though. They traded Vey before they lost him. It's really that simple. They traded him for a pick that allowed them to take a chance on someone they regarded as a possible future asset. It's also possible that the pick was a safer asset in return than any other ready prospect that were being offered. Or maybe the other prospects would have been in the same position as Vey under a glut of depth.
By that logic, every good AHL player has "shown more talent" than every recent draftee.
Vey =/= every good AHL player and every good AHL player =/= Vey. And it doesn't mean that there aren't junior level players that are better than some good AHL players. That's not logical, nor how logic works.
Comparing a prospect that excels at the professional level versus a prospect that hasn't shown anything at the professional level is ridiculous, since the latter's abilities at the pro-level is build on thoughts and projections and the former's is built on actual 'been there excelled at that' demonstration. One's abilities at the pro-level resides in the real world, the other's resides in ImaginationLand.
And?
.
The point is how does Vey now stack up to Santorelli now (as in, next season)? It's about projecting this upcoming season. People are reasonably confident in the comparison due to Santorelli's strong season last year. Based on probability alone, Vey is behind the 8 Ball. Odds are stacked against him.
It's not his fault either. It's just what we can reasonably expect from a 22 year old fringe NHLer..
And...that if you want to compare Vey and Santorelli, just like I did with McKeown and Vey, then compare them at similar times/levels. That's why I said that I can't compare someone who's only played 18 games in the NHL versus someone who's played 5 seasons, since there's nothing to base a comparison on, except perhaps both player's first foray into the NHL, whereupon Vey put up superior offensive numbers over Santorelli.
If you want to project based on that, go ahead. Vey would offesively project better than what Santorelli has accomplished in 5 seasons. But, I can't project that, because 18 games in too small a sample size for me to do so, as is McKeown's 0 AHL games versus 3 full AHL season for Vey.
Will Santorelli be better than Vey right now, yes, of course, but if Santorelli didn't sign here, then that's fine, or if Benning decided that Vey's development at the NHL level would be better for the organization, then that's the calculation he made. A young Vey that's on a cheaper 2-way contract may have been more appealing for the team and it's goals, and its cap, now and for the future. Maybe that was the calculation from the start, with the trade. Get in a young NHL ready prospect over an older journeyman, as you 'youngify' the team over the next couple of years.
Did we really "need" him more? Santorelli was still unsigned. Same size, right shot, 2/3 centre, 1 year experience with the team... He could have filled the spot for 2 years, and likely at a better efficiency. Also, the RH defensive depth for the organization is weak. Mckeown would have supplemented that area well. Again, this comes down to how you assess org. weaknesses/strengths, as well as the skillset of McKeown/Vey.
Yes, apparently Benning needed Vey more than Santorelli. Don't like it? Too bad. Santorelli is no 2nd center either. The claim is as laughable as saying that Vey is a 2C. 3rd or 4th at best for Santorelli. He could have filled a spot, but again, Benning decided to build around a younger cheaper guy. I've no problem with that.
McKeown would not have supplemented the RHD spot for at least 4-5 years and that's if he projected like Tanev, and Tanev only played his first full season last season and he was signed in 2010, and by most accounts, his rise up the depth ranks has been fast. Again, 4-5 years is a long time away, and what we needed more, imo, and perhaps in Benning's was a young AHL proven player that could be an asset on the 3rd line either as a center or as a complimentary winger to a more established centerman such as Mathias. I believe he made a good decision with Vey over Santorelli, for the long term, and over keeping Garrison which ultimately brought Vey and allowed LA to choose McKeown. I think it was a win-win for nearly everyone in that situation, save Santorelli perhaps, but who know he may find a role with the Laffs.
Lastly, Vey's frame is not ideally suited to a 3rd line role. To me, he is ideally suited as a team's soft minute 2C (2nd unit PP time), similar to Santorelli. But like Santorelli, if he doesn't firmly establish himself in that role, he runs the risk of becoming a fringe player in his "off" years.
I disagree. I think 6 ft and 190lbs is adequate for him to play on the 3rd line. He's had 3 years of pro-level fitness and in the 18 games played with the Kings on their bottom 6, he didn't seem out of place. I believe he may need a bit more muscle strengthening and perhaps even conditioning, but that's what the Nucks organization will provide, so I don't see that as much of a concern for him. If you're concerned, then I can respect that disagreement.
