My point is that he is not the person who should be corroborating those details. His job is to answer on-field questions, not organizational ones. When players in any sport are asked about organizational philosophy, or what they think a team needs to be a winner, they always defer to the general manager. Just because this is a more serious story doesn't mean they should answer any differently. It's just not for the player to answer - and especially 20 minutes after a postseason defeat. Even if Keaton would want to give an answer, he's just not in the frame of mind to give you anything substantial because of how upset he is in that moment over the season ending.
And as for your response about how tight they are with access -- I completely get that, and I completely understand how frustrating it is. Which is why I think asking during pregame media sessions is completely acceptable. Especially of the coach, though he will likely defer to his higher-ups, too, because again -- he's not the one setting whatever new policy they have, so it's just not his place to say. Even if he knew what they were doing, he still wouldn't give you anything because it's the people above him who need to answer for it.
In listening to that exchange that was posted, it also came really close to John badgering Keaton, which is part of what rubbed me the wrong way. I understand the frustration in not getting answers, but to take that frustration out on a player when it's the sporting director or CEO you're actually mad at is a bad look. Just because the CEO, sporting director, and coach won't answer those questions doesn't mean a player should be responsible for. And also -- if there is any player you should ask it to, it's the captain. Not a second-year young player. Even if the captain isn't the one who's made available, that still doesn't mean you should expect a young second-year player to have to answer for something he wasn't involved in.