You could trade a good player and get value back instead of just letting their drag their shit across your face. They couldnt keep leddy duh, but they could have actually traded him for something better like a 1st instead of a nothing player that was a bust before he even left the isles.
If the Hawks hypothetically traded Timmonen for 3 first rounders and still win the cup in 15 only to pick bottom 5 the next 3 years would you still pretend its a win even if he did nothing and didnt help at all?
When you're in a cap crunch, it's a game of chicken that you obviously will lose. The teams interested in the player you're moving can basically say "take it or leave it" and you have no choice. What are you going to do as a GM, forfeit games for being over the cap? At some point, you have to take what you can get.
With regard to Panarin, it's hard to see a scenario where he would have remained a Blackhawk past the 18-19 season, and his value has skyrocketed since the trade. Remember, before Panarin left the Hawks there were a lot of questions about how much of his production was his own talent and how much was due to playing with Kane. There were people who thought that he'd be a second liner without Kane. Therefore, the Hawks were never going to get fair value for him. Again, the Hawks were over a barrel and they weren't going to get fair value for him. Same with Teravainen. That's the huge issue with the Hawks cap issues over the years. When they decide to trade players, they can't get fair value and only are allowed to get spare parts due to being up against the cap. It's happened to other teams as well.
This may sound like making excuses for Bowman's bad trades, but he was never negotiating from a position of strength. When he has been, he's been able to get good returns. (see: Ryan Hartman and Strome deals)
