The deal was horrible. We picked the wrong prospects on Dallas. We wanted to bring in a young NHL asset and just like with Conacher picked the wrong one in Chiasson (Pro scouting...). Would've been better off just trading him for a single 1st round pick from a team. Problem at the time (if I remember the conversation at the time) was that we were wanting a young NHLer and prospects + picks whereas (if I recall) some of the interest was 'prospects or picks-only'. Either way - it would have been better to target one good asset.
In terms of the Spezza contract - he was overpaid for the last two years there but his first two years there he was fantastic and led the Stars to late in the 2nd round when Seguin got hurt at the start of the playoffs. Nill has said he had no regrets about the Spezza deal etc... The issue Spezza ran into in the last two years was he stopped getting offensive opportunities in the way he was beforehand and his 5 v 5 play started slipping (though not as much as people said). Switching him around all over the ice in terms of position and in and out of the lineup etc.. really made it hard for him to produce at a better level (say 35-40 points) where he probably would have been. I would have taken the last 4 years of Spezza in Dallas above Bobby Ryan any day of the week. Made even more apparent when you consider his leadership etc...
"The deal was horrible", that is your emotional response, not necessarily the reality. I can't explain it in one sentence so you'll have to read the whole post sorry.
"
We picked the wrong prospects on Dallas", this is not an argument holding ground in the reality because we have no idea which prospects Dallas were making available for that trade. It's not "pick the prospects you want". Even for a guy like Erik Karlsson, there was apparently prospects that were just not available (Glass, Heiskanen, etc). There's max a team is ready to pay for a player.
"Would've been better off just trading him for a single 1st round pick", but what if that pick turns into Jim O'Brien? That would be an even worse result. And the offer has to be on a table. It looks like Nashville was the only team willing to give up a 1st. Ottawa OBVIOUSLY took the 2nd best offer.
Murray wanted a first-round pick, a roster player and a prospect for Spezza, but obviously couldn't get one (copied/paste that so can provide links if you want)
The return from Nashville would have been apparently : 11th OA pick, Patric Hornqvist and Nic Spaling (which is pretty similar to what we gave up for Bobby Ryan (who was 5-6 years younger) and had 2 years on contract vs 1 for Spezza)
It's like you have an used car but you need to sell it. You have really great memories with that car so you set a price that you want for it but nobody offers you even close to that. So it's either you lower your price according to the reality of the market, or you keep the car until it doesn't work out anymore.
In that case, it was either taking Dallas offer or keep Spezza until he walks as an UFA in the summer. Keep in mind, it's not about fans perceived value, but the REAL market value (HF has a really huge tendency of overvaluing players returns, and we are all guilty of that at some point)
And Dallas doesn't have to regret it for us to be ok (in retrospect) with what happened. Obviously, we'd want our players to play their whole careers with our team and that everything stays shiny but things play out differently, in the real world. What I often observe is that criticism isn't always consistent both ways. Example : the Ryan deal sucked because he became overpaid as his production dropped, etc but Spezza being massively overpaid for 2 years on a 4 years contract is not the same argument?
I see you're trying hard to find reasons why Spezza's production dropped but the reality is that he was 34 y/o, he simply fell off a cliff like all players do at some point. With his injury history (and back issues), I'm actually quite surprised he is still in the league going on 38 y/o
Of course you would take the shorter term overpaid contract, I would too. If it would have been possible to sign Ryan only 4 years that would have been really great but again that is NOT how reality works. He was 27 y/o at the time and it's a market, players have leverage as UFAs. He would have gotten those 7 years in many other markets. It's a risk teams are ready to deal with. No one can predict if a player will start running into injury problems, could literally happen to everyone.
It sucks we couldn't get a more sexy return for our beloved player but it is what it is. The arguments I presented in the post you quoted are pretty much irrefutable (age is a simple fact, back problems are pretty well documented, contract situation is also a fact, etc). I actually would really like to see someone TRY to refute them.
I think what we should do now is appreciate having a guy like Nick Paul and breathe a bit thinking oh well, maybe that deal wasn't that "terrible" in the end. Spezza had an expiry date (2-3 years after the trade), Nick Paul can be a solid contributor for years.