A number of people seem to be justifying the trade against the Stastny trade, as though Poile could've traded the 1st for a rental like Stastny or traded it for Hartman, and since rentals are risky, he made the smart move in acquiring a kid who has term. The problem with that is those weren't the only two options.
There was a third option: keep the 1st round pick and, if Poile wanted a bottom-6 pest so badly, acquire a different one that would've cost a lot less (say, a 3rd-round pick). I maintain that that would've been the smart decision.
There's just no reason to pay a 1st-round pick for a bottom-6 player, especially when you already have an abundance of bottom-6 players. That's just foolish asset management. Imagine if Poile had made the same trade a year ago, except for last year's 1st-round pick. Tolvanen would be some other team's property right now. Poile likely wouldn't have gotten a steal like that two years in a row, but you can still get a good player with any 1st round pick.
If the concern was having to wait a year or two for the player to be ready, he could've used this year's 1st on an over-age player who originally went undrafted. LA did that in 2012, right after they won their first Cup. They wanted a player who could immediately help them win another one, so they used their #30 pick to draft an almost-20-year-old Tanner Pearson, who went on to make a big impact for them in their next two Cup runs.
Hartman is a pretty decent player who might get better. There's nothing wrong with wanting to acquire him and being glad that he's on the team. It's just that it was a bad move to trade a 1st for him. It's like if a team offered the Preds a 1st for Sissons. Most teams would probably like to have him in their bottom 6, and the Preds would certainly like to keep him, but Poile and each of us would be lining up to drive him to the airport if some team offered a 1st for him, because a 1st for a bottom-6 player is highway robbery.