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
The Kings DID go from potentially getting nothing for Vey, to a 2nd round pick. I'm not just 'saying' that. That's exactly what would have potentially occurred had they not traded him. Had they re-signed him, they would have been taking up a development spot on the Monarchs and had to pay a player that they weren't going to use, because of their depth at the center spot. The fact that they moved him saved them money, got them an asset in a pick in a return. The Canucks needed more depth at the center spot, and were looking for someone NHL ready and young and the added benefit was that it wasn't costly, and the player could also play as a winger, should one of their other wingers become competitive for the center spot. And yes, great GM'ing by Lombardi and solid work by Benning as well.
How is that not a 'win-win'???
And I said I wasn't too interested in the trade from the King's perspective, because I'm more interested in the player the Nucks received as a Nucks fan, and how this player may impact the team in the short term and long term. That not a hypocritical position. That's a position that i'm selective in 'caring' about. I care more about spending time analzying and discussing how the trade affects the Nucks organization. I don't really care how it affects the King's organization. I can't make that any more clearer. I'm not sure what's left to argue or discuss about this either.
Here's what you said:
Can you see the logical inconsistency here, or are you still having trouble? I didn't make this statement, you did.
There is no logical inconsistency. The inconsistency is yours. Perhaps you're misunderstanding how logic works, I don't know.
Comparing a specific player (Vey) and his excelling in the AHL, a pro-league, to a specific player(McKeown) in the junior league, does not allow you to make the conclusion, nor assign a conclusion to me that I believe that all AHL players can be compared to all Junior players.
one =/= all
all =/= one
Not all 'successful' players that excel in the juniors translate that success and excel in the men's leagues(AHL, NHL). Vey has excelled at both level for several years. McKeown has not. I would rather have Vey for the needs at center for the Nucks organization now, because he seems more of a sure thing, based on his 3 AHL seasons than McKeown does after 2(iirc) OHL seasons, where he didn't necessarily put up any remarkably strong numbers, in comparison to what Vey put up in the juniors and then the AHL, for the lines he played on over the course of those 3 pro years. Vey has shown he can put up the numbers against men. Mckeown is a projected player, Vey is a player who has proven himself at all levels below the NHL. That's why Vey is the better prospect right now, for the Nucks, and in comparison to McKeown.
Does that mean Vey is a better prospect than McDavid? No. McDavid is so good that he can jump straight into the NHL, in the top 6, and be a contributor. Vey, after 3 AHL seasons of development, cannot have the same thing said about him.
You're in error in your logic. Plain and simple. I can't literally explain it to you any more simply than I have in these last two replies.
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.
That's fine. If you're comfortable projecting Vey as a 2C, by all means go right ahead. I can't do that. I'm not comfortable over-rating Vey, even though I like him as a newly acquired player, and am looking enthusiastically forward to him on the team next year. I find it more realistic to be conservative in my projections with someone who hasn't played a full NHL season just yet, but who from all indications, to me, looks like a player that needs bottom 6 development to tell me whether or not he has the ability to take the top 6 step after a couple of years. I can't and won't just say he's top 6 material before that.
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.
I think based on his AHL performance, and his performance on the Kings over 18 games, the ideal place for him to develop in the NHL is on the third line. The Sedins did, Kesler did, Burrows did and many other now top 6 players across the league have at one time. I think it's also an ideal starting place for Vey. I also believe he'll be adequate in that spot next season. He'll only be adequate, because the NHL is a different beast than even the AHL. He'll need time to adjust. He may play only sheltered minutes. He may need to learn the NHL game this season, and focus on his defensive game at the expense of his offense. I am preparing myself to see Vey focus on his defensive responsibilities and maturation which may lead him to low point totals next season. And that's perfectly fine. If he can play responsibly then WD may give him more opportunities on the 2nd PP, PK, and perhaps more minutes. That will come with time though, as it does with most rookies.
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.
I can't say McKeown is a 'key piece to the pipeline'. It's not obvious he is or ever will be. He's a bet, made by the Kings, in a weak draft, with not a lot of sure bet defensive prospects. His OHL numbers don't suggest he will be a 'key' piece. If you want to opine that he will be, then by all means, have at it. I don't share it.
Santorelli is not a 2C. I don't care what mental gymnastics you need to make in your mind to come to that opinion, but he's not. He may be able to fill-in for a time due to injuries on a team, but he's not capable nor talented enough to be a full-time 2nd liner or top 6 player now.
Santorelli may have provided redundancy, I have no issue with that, but he decided to take more money with Toronto. End of story. I'm not going to worry about a player that's signed somewhere else now. Move on.
The Nucks may be looking for another center. It's possible. You may be right. Right now, I think they may also look to see if camp allows anyone to seize the spot for themselves through competition. I have a feeling that's the direction they may go. I could be wrong though. Time will tell.