You're obfuscrating the oringinal point, ie. Roloson vs. Smyth. Why did it make sense to pay one and not the other, IF the reason Smyth wasn't signed was because of his age.
I mentioned this before in another thread, but the answer to this is easy. Roloson, along with Pronger and Pisani, carried the team on their shoulders to one win away from the Stanley cup. Has Smyth ever done anything of the sort? I didn't see Smyth proving he was worth $6 million last spring when we desperately needed a goal. He had 16 points in 24 games during the playoffs and was -2. That's only 5 more points than Torres or Peca, who were playing on the checking line. Now, I'm not here to bash Smyth or his performance. But, its clear that he's always been a good supporting player, but has never stepped up to lead the team. And that's what I expect from someone who wants more than $5 million. Yes, he was leading the team in points this year... but I'm sure it isn't coincidence that this is his season before free agency as well.
So yes, Roloson proved that he can be a huge difference maker in a game. And so he was paid accordingly. And yet Smyth believed he was worth far more. I don't think age had a whole lot to do with it, although I do think that there is a far greater ratio of goaltenders who have proven to still be effective despite nearing the age of 40 (Belfour, Hasek, Cujo). How many forwards have done the same? Sakic is the only forward I can think of who is still excelling at that age.
You can blame everyone for making excuses for Lowe, but at the same time you very clearly fail to see the realities of the situations. Like I said before, you simplify things far too much to the point that the only answer that you can come to is that Lowe is a bad GM. Edmonton isn't a hot-spot for free agents. What can Lowe do about that? He's already said that he'll try to take a more hands-on approach to make the city more inviting, but that's really all he can do. Teams weren't offering star players in exchange for Pronger. How is that his fault? As much as you want to cling to the belief that some team must have offered a Havlat-type player, it clearly wasn't so. You bring up Atlanta. Would Atlanta be a better team with Pronger instead of Hossa? That's questionable. Would Pronger have made the team more exciting than Hossa has, thus attracting more fans to a team that needed to draw fan interest? No.
Finally, about Eaton. You keep saying Lowe should have signed an experienced vet to help the young defence. He did. He signed a player that is better than Eaton. His name is Daniel Tjarnqvist. Should he have signed someone else as well? Yeah, probably. I was really hoping we'd sign Sean Hill. But this insistance on Eaton perplexes me. He would have brought nothing that Hejda, Tjarnqvist or Smid don't already provide.