I disagree with this sentiment that trades are evaluated in this black and white way where whichever player ends up better 100% determines the winner of the trade.
As an extreme analogy, if you trade a mid-level 1st round pick away for Derek Dorsett, Derek Dorsett is more likely to play games in the NHL, and the first round pick has a pretty good chance of busting. The fact that both those things happened doesn't make it a good trade. There are other important factors at play. (please don't misconstrue this into me saying that the difference between Shinkaruk/Granlund is comparable to this)
Despite the outcome of how they compare to each other right now, Shinkaruk vs. Granlund as a trade is very debateable depending on the circumstances when the trade occurred, how much upside/potential the two had at the time (I think Shinkaruk was more boom or bust), and whether or not the outcome is anything that ultimately ends up significant either way (I don't think it has/will be).
For my money, Granlund was already a borderline NHLer, but was unlikely to get much better than that, or become good enough to be useful on a contender, whereas Shinkaruk was far more likely to bust, but in the event that he does take the next step, is a far more interesting player to try and develop.
If the exactly same conditions came up again with identical player types/situations, I would go with the Shinkaruk-like gamble every time. I just have a hard time believing that Granlund will become good enough that we'll end up caring about the outcome either way. If he does, though, and becomes legitimately effective, I'll probably change my mind and call it a good trade. As of now, they're both inconsequential.
I think Hansen and Burrows are right there too. And that makes six.