Strawman...when the same thing happens every single time from the same group of posters? Smith was amazing...until management waived him, now he's nothing. Burrows was the bestest thing since sliced bread...until management decided to buy him out, now he's nothing. Brassard was a great 1B center...until he was traded to Pittsburgh, and the trinkets were received were sooooo awesome. Turris was The Man, until he was traded and now he's barely a 2C.
Over and over and over.
Nac, Smith was 'amazing' in his contract year, and then he wasn't. No one would be complaining if he was still scoring 20ish goals. His play dropped off, and fan opinions followed.
Burrows was a good bottom six guy down the stretch and into the playoffs but underwhelming when compared to expectations, then he fell off a cliff the next year. I think the only issue surrounding him was his extra year, and Dahlen. No one thought Burrows 'was the best thing since sliced bread' (another example of useless hyperbole).
Brassard was never regarded as a great centre, though there was hope at first. He was regarded as a great 2C, or on our team was a 1a/b guy withe Turris. The return for him was solid, as he was viewed as a solid player. I don't think anyone has argued that the return was bad. I'm not sure what the issue here is.
Turris was never 'the man' here. He was a good player for us who had some pretty clutch moments. Not many were willing to have him signed for the contract he got at the time, and even less so right now given his last season. He could look good as a complimentary piece at a cheaper shorter term deal though, which was a popular sentiment at the time of the trade.
In the end, why spread vitriol about the potential board view of Stone and Duchene if they aren't signed. It serves no purpose beyond heaping more hypothetical crap on top of some of the real crap that already exists in here.
