The premise of one trade is sound and logical, the premise of the other trade is absolutely shambolic.
Whether he ended up signing or not, the premise of trading a high first round pick for a proven commodity - a guy with multiple 40G seasons - makes sense. They probably believed, like has happened to many players before him, that when he got here, got to know the team, players and city, that he'd be open to discussing an extension. We literally just saw the same thing happen with Ullmark and it's happened with many other players in the past. You're upset about the result of the trade, which is totally fair game, but there's no need to diminish a guy's scoring accomplishments so you can rewrite history to suit your narrative.
But then you take your criticism of the trade up 20 notches with this insane premise of trading a high first round pick for an unproven commodity simply because of his draft pedigree. It's genuinely beyond absurdity to argue that a guy who has proven so little in his career would have made "infinitely more sense" as a trade return than a guy who scored 40 multiple times. It's not a reasonable position to take no matter how hard you try to spin Dach's upside while making Debrincat sound like scoring 40 goals happened to him.