Yeah, there have been a lot of posts these past few days that have been pretty unfair in my opinion. It is a drag losing players for nothing, but I don't think that it is at the sole discretion of the GM. I don't think that Darryl Sutter was a Treliving hire, and I suspect that it was a mandate that came higher up the chain. I would suspect that they also would not have permitted him to trade the captain for futures when they believed that they were in the playoff race - despite what fans may think. They were never going to go out quietly, and they played right up until the end of the season. They missed, and it cost them. They'll probably lose Giordano, and their draft position is not optimal. We've seen this movie before, but the ownership group has the same mandate every year. They didn't hire Darryl Sutter to rebuild, and they're probably going to pay the price for that.
The other thing that I have a hard time with when it comes to the asset management debate is that sometimes a player retires. I suspect that Mark Giordano would have happily played out his entire career in Calgary, and while I'm sure that he isn't totally stoked to (probably) be going to Seattle, he might have been even less excited about having been moved at the deadline for a second and third round pick. The guy doesn't owe us picks from Florida or Carolina, he gave us his entire career. I don't have any problem with these guys riding off into the sunset with some grace. Losing Gaudreau for nothing during his prime would be terrible asset management, but allowing a guy to play out his career in the colours that he loves is good for business, good for fans, and good for the organization.