Or maybe there was no choice. Maybe there wasn't a D prospect that another team would give up for a possible bottom 6 guy. The former aren't as readily available as the latter. And the Kings don't need a veteran. Are you kidding me with that?
The Kings were risking losing Vey for nothing, that was their biggest risk. Getting a pick or a player or a prospect was the better option. What options they has besides the 2nd rounder, we cannot know. In any case, the Kings got what they could get, as best as they saw it, and the Nucks got what they got as best as they could see in getting a need filled. The fact that McKeown was the bet they bet for their defensive prospect pool only means that their pool in that area is low, and they opted to get the best prospect they could get at the time...not because it was in their plans all along and because McKeown was in their plans all along because he's going to be a top 4 dman one day. No, he was BPA for a position they thought they may need to stock up on for 4-5 years down the road. I'm looking at it from both sides, which is why I said it was a win-win. You seem to be lacking in taking my posts into account in their entirety. If you had, then you wouldn't have needed to comment about my lack of taking both sides into account, which I did earlier and have done so once again.
So what you're saying is that the Kings went from potentially getting "nothing" for Vey, to pulling a 2nd rounder from VAN? If so, great GM'ing by Lombardi. Turned a fleeting asset into a very solid pick...
Point is, the Kings saw all options available to them and _chose_ the green prospect that is 4-5 years away. They felt that taking on risk (development time) was worth the stretch.
How can you categorize it as "win-win" when you are
not really interested in looking at it from the King's perspective.
The logical fallacy was yours. I compared two specific players and you attempted to extrapolate that to all good AHL players vs every recent draftee. That's illogical. Comparing two specific players however is not.
If Tracy is taller than Mary, then are all Tracy's taller than all Mary's??
No. That would be illogical to try and argue that because someone specifically claimed Tracy to be taller than Mary, and so they also mean that all Tracy's are taller than all Mary's. To suggest someone said that about all Tracy's and Mary's from the comparison of one Tracy and Mary, is wherein the logical fallacy lies....again, with you.
Here's what you said:
Vey simply has shown more talent in the AHL over 3 seasons which better translates to the NHL game than McKeown has over 2 OHL seasons.
Can you see the logical inconsistency here, or are you still having trouble? I didn't make this statement, you did.
The call to trade Vey was simple. Trade him for something that is or can be of asset or lose him for nothing. It had nothing to do with projections and what-not at the time.
Glad there was some consensus somewhere.
Ideal is developed. Adequate is sometimes what you start with. The Nucks can get him to ideal through their development and training. Again, i'm not concerned about that. I'm not as comfortable projecting Vey as a 2nd liner, even if i'm quite optimistic about him and have been regularly commenting on my optimism and hopefulness at acquiring him and having him have a full-time role on the team.
The "comfort" in projecting Vey to be a 2C is simply based on his talent + skillset. He's not big or fast, which is something more traditionally seen in 3C roles. He's shifty, has good hands, is smaller and can play the 2nd unit PP. This skillset lends itself to a sheltered 2C role on a traditional roster.
I said he is not ideally suited to the 3C role, and he's not. "Adequate" is up for debate, but then that's a different argument than the one I made.
How? From where and with what in return?
Garrison was a cap dump which seemingly may allow Tanev a top 4 spot the following season and shore up our 3rd pairing with Sbisa, while continuing to develop Stanton, Corrado for the next season or two before they assert themselves into the lineup moreso perhaps, due to injuries, trades, etc. That allowed Benning to also address, center or wing depth with a young player in Vey. Santorelli didn't fit the cost, or perhaps the direction Benning wanted with introducing younger guys into the fold. Dalpe was given a shot. Played 55 games and didn't earn an invite back. That's about that. He's not a project that Benning wanted to continue with.
It's not about what I think Santorelli did or didn't do, it's that Benning also believes that Bonino is a better 2C option over him. And a taller, younger, more offensively producing Bonino was the easy call on the 2nd line over Santorelli. It's a no-brainer to me as well. 10 goals isn't exactly screaming 2C to me, but a 20 goal scorer like Bonino does moreso. Don't know why you think Santorelli is 2C worthy though.
The key piece for the pipeline being McKeown (would have thought that to be obvious?).
I've listed why Santorelli could be a 2C based on the situation here and his recent production rates. However, that's besides the point. The real issue is that Santorelli would have provided redundancy to Vey or Bonino. Free, cheap redundancy.
Still, I think the team is looking for another C even now. So we'll see what the depth looks like at the start of the year.
