Again, Stocker was touted as an instant return type of player. He's played 5 games (not best 22 in the first 5) and hasn't done anything note worthy thus far.

Limited sample size, sure. But what else can we go off of? Walsh is in his first season as well, and his performances have been stellar. Are assessments on his performances wrong because he hasn't played X amount of games?

If he isn't the instant return type of player they thought, then they obviously got it wrong. If he's the 4-5 year typical development player, then why jump the gun and make such an audacious trade that would ultimately see them lose out?

You're obviously missing my point. I'm not saying Stocker will be a crap player in the long run. I'm saying they got this trade wrong in giving up so much for a typical multi-year development player, when there were other options at the helm.