I can't speak to what post, specifically, you've seen with regards to re-tooling around the twins and re-tooling around Pettersson and Hughes, but it's only a false equivalency if the two players are used as the basis for the rebuild/re-tool decision. Nobody is comparing the two sets as equivalent. They are used as examples of the poor rationale GMs use to decide a course of action.
It's actually the lack of understanding about how difficult it will be to re-tool around those key players that's the crux of the issue, not those two players themselves.
I've seen you post a few more points that I wish to address as well:
Timing: The right time to re-tool is determined by, first and foremost, the likelihood of its success. If the re-tool has a 10% chance of being successful, it's horrendous management to try and force it and bank on the exception to the rule. What you're advocating works against probability, not for it.
The 2 year window: What's the template for this 2 year turn around? I remember you mentioning Seattle, which was not a re-tool. Maybe if we ground the discussion in an example, we can better gauge the likelihood from there.
On Picks: You've stated that collecting picks for their own sake is video game based GMing. Or that it's draft pick FOMO. You can't pick players unless you have the picks. And good players on ELCs are the most valuable commodity in the league so... Cost controlled assets are necessary to create a valuable roster.
We disagree on rebuild/re-tool, fine, but to categorize the need to rebuild as "pick FOMO" is beneath you. We can't on the one hand say that to master the cap, we need valuable contracts, and then say people want picks for their own sake, instead of the potential value the good young player adds to the roster.
