One first
@12-16 is more valuable as a potential player than two at 25-32, sure. And it's true that the value at the low end of the draft is really not great (like marginally better than a 2nd if at all). But mid firsts really aren't worth much either in absolute terms. They don't reliably turn into first line talents. They don't even reliably turn into top 6 quality forwards.
But also that wasn't even the rumored price, we're comparing our real deal to what was positioned by the Coyotes camp, which was two of those late firsts and a prospect of some quality. We didn't get that in any way. You can maybe sooth yourself by repeating the "this draft so great/deep" mantra and hoping we luck into a 2003 draft with first liners floating around all over the place. But that's a lot of eggs in that basket with only one real asset of note coming back.
We didn't get an asset back that as a clear path (or even an unlikely path) to actually replacing Chychrun's value. I'm calling that a failure, that settle or option A is slightly better than settle for option B is academic.
As for the BA supposedly being the initiator of the trade not the Chychrun camp, hey it's certainly possible but it's 1: contrary to all reporting prior to yesterday. 2. could be true in the abstract but the reality is there are many many ways a player can make it known they want out, without outright calling up the GM and telling him to do it. That BA was the first (well reportedly, these after trade reports in the media are often crap) to actually have a meeting and discuss the matter is not necessarily the same as initiating this thing.