The whole Granlund dialogue at this point is just annoying at this point because he's a player that would have never been viewed as nearly as bad as he was before analytics came into the mainstream. Seeing people's reaction to Granlund make me wonder what other players from the pre-analytics era that were considered fine/good at the time but would be viewed as terrible today.
He's been a fairly consistent 40-60 point guy over his career and isn't making obscene money. He had a 50 point pace in his 5 year career with the Predators (162 points in 268 games), which was equal to his pace with Nashville before he was traded last year (36 points in 58 games). I know there is more to hockey than points, but trading a 2nd rounder for a 50 point C/W who makes $5 million a year doesn't seem ridiculous at all. It's not Granlund's fault that the Penguins acquired him for a stupid reason and tried to force him into a role that he flat out didn't fit in.
This all goes back to another conceptual discussion for how fans decide who is a "cap dump" versus who is still good but has just had some bad years. It seems almost arbitrary to me, with mostly a bias for players with sexy analytics and a bias for younger players. Ivan Provorov has allegedly been terrible for the past few years (according to what I've read from some analytics pieces), but he's still viewed as an ultra valuable defenseman on this site.