It doesn't matter what the 2019 draft looked like. What matter was the 2016 draft. The 10 players picked between the two picks has no Hoglander. That year trading down made no impact.
I guess you can say Myers Edler Rousell Beagle Virtanen Eriksson costed the team Tanev Markstrom Toffoli and stecher as well
Markstrom Tanev was about term, schmidt and Holtby salary those two. Benning was too busy going after OLE, then Barrie to speak to Stecher. These players leaving have nothing to do with Sutter.
With toffoli, it was reported from TheAtheltic that they could of moved Sutter with 50% retained and trade Virtanen to resign Toffoli but they decided not too. A season ago Bothford reported that 3 or 4 teams were interested in Sutter. If they couldn't get rid of the contract. Sure you can blame the contract but they decided not too.
I appreciate your trying to support your argument but here's where I see it falling short:
1. In 2015 (when the picks were exchanged) there was very limited knowledge of the projection of 2nd and 3rd round picks. This is true a year in advance of the any draft including 2019. Sure there are early favorites and a lot of prognosticating. But there is no material different in one year vs the next in the likelihood of success of a particular draft class, especially once you get out of the top 10 picks. When they gave up the pick in 2015, the only value they could calculate would be based on general projections of draft success across years. In 2019 Hoglander was available at 40. And, to further challenge the conclusions that moving down 10 spots didn't mater, there are at least 3 NHLers that went in the next 10 after the 2nd rounder in 2016.
2. Absolutely agree with the bolded. Sutter was just one of the bad contracts that has resulted in the loss of significant assets. That doesn't strengthen the argument for Sutter. It reinforces the fact that management made a bad trade and doubled down when they gave Sutter an high $$ long term extension.
3. If the point is that they could have moved the contract at 50% retention then your argument already fails. I never said Sutter at $1.5M or even $2M was a bad contract. I said his contract was untradeable until now, with weeks left, maybe. They still might have to retain salary. Again, that confirms the poor decision to extend him on those terms.
As a general comment, it isn't strong to say "they could have ("have" not "of"...sorry, a pet peeve of mine) if they wanted to". That assumes you were in the room and knew all the terms of the proposal. If we've learned anything, reports in the press only know part of the story. Sure, they "could have" traded Sutter for a 1st round pick if they added Pettersson to the deal...