Why cant we just assess each deal independently? They are 2 very different deals with different circumstances, that should be measured differently, regardless of the same teams being involved, and a draft asset being handed back and forth.
The going rate for trade deadline acquisitions, when acquiring a top line player, and regardless of what you thought of Hayes, he was a top liner, was a first and a prospect. That was the going rate and that dictated cost. Most TDL deals are over payments teams are willing to pay, if they feel its a piece that can get them over the hump. Its simple, you are either status quo and live with your team down the stretch, or assess weaknesses and make an over payment to fill them.
The Trouba trade was a trade the involved an expiring asset that wanted to play in a different market. You are dealing with a possible one year rental player. Now, knowing what we do, Trouba's agent controlled the cost teams were willing to pay by limiting the markets his player would resign in, which was one market according to reports. If that is the case, then the value of the asset is reduced because a bidding war is likely not to happen.
I think the TDL deal was a deal we most likely want back, knowing the end result, and the Trouba deal would have been more fruitful had it been done a year prior. 20/20 rear end vision assists us greatly here.
There is a bit of handcuffing that happens to a team in a situation like ours. Its easy to say, we shouldnt of, or we should of sooner, but at those times the answer was not easily seen. Its after the results come in that some stand up and say we should have done it differently.
Lets put it this way, we were a loss away 2 years ago from probably viewing the Stastny deal as a failure of Chevy's. Hell, we went to a conference finals and some still consider the deal to be bad.