Meanwhile, on the silly end, I recognize that coming up with "equivalent the other way around" type offers is often folly, because at best one gets bogged down in the details of where the comparisons break down and at worst it becomes another flamewar, And fundamentally it's all
appeal to emotion nonsense anyways; it's not a decent argument. But I find I just can't help myself. It's like playing a puzzle game.
So!
Murray (#3 of three top quality guys who nonetheless gets seen as damaged goods, maybe fairly, maybe not, but there'll be plenty of flames about it regardless - and despite common conceit doesn't actually fit the destination team's needs very well)
Jenner (valuable underrated player who nonetheless won't help the destination team enough to justify the price)
Marchenko (recent later pick who might be good but is a ways away from contributing)
Carlsson (older prospect that we all swear will be fine someday but has yet to contribute meaningfully and plays a position that the destination team doesn't need)
for
Rielly (high-cost high-quality player that would be redundant on the destination team so it makes no sense for him to be in the deal)
Kerfoot (a disproportionately valued and important part of team plans that will not be traded so don't ask)
Does that annoy both fanbases as well as the OP? I imagine it ought to.