I don’t think we got fleeced in the Duchene deal.
We gave a 1st, Turris and a B prospect in Bowers for a 1st line centre. That’s not bad for a non rental 1st line centre. The fact we bottomed out and the pick was 4OA is unlucky by your definition based on the EK trade being lucky.
This is one of those trades where percieved value of the pieces changed pretty drastically in short order.
When we presumably thought we were giving up a playoff teams first (mid to late) that pick was a lot less valuable than just before the lottery when had among the best odds of 1st OA,
When we were trading for Duchene, he was seen as a lower end 1st line center, having not really put up big numbers in a while. His percieved value likely sunk lower after the trade with his ice cold start, but the skyrocketed when he eventually find his groove. Now that he's in NSH he doesn't look like the player he was in OTT, did we pump and dump him? Were we just lucky that he produced in the same way we were unlucky that the 1st became 4th OA?
You can view each piece through multiple lenses and come to different conclusions. In the end though, one thing seems as though it can't be argued; the trade did not achieve the desired effect of solidifying ourselves as a playoff team, nor did it fill our #1 center spot long term or even medium term really.
Imo, we are worse off for having made that trade, but at the same time, i believe had we made the same trade a year and a half prior instead of the Zibanejad deal it would have been fantastic and that's not even taking into consideration how zibanejad evolved since leaving here.
I didn't like the trade at the time because it felt like we were kicking the can down the road when signs of our fall were already apparent.