It would indeed have been better to trade Pulock instead if we had no choice but to trade one or the other, especially with an increasingly fast-paced league. In addition, we had a good young right-hander with Dobson to take over eventually.
On the left, there were two who played a similar role (with Leddy), but if you had in mind to trade Leddy too (which happened a year after Toews), then you had to keep Toews at all costs. We miss this type of defender terribly right now.
But it's of course easier to see after the fact, but a good, visionary GM should have been able to properly target the core of essential players to keep.
The underlying problem was always that the Isles were going to get screwed because of the expansion draft.
Being able to only really protect three defensemen, unless they went with the other protection scheme and lost a top forward instead, meant protecting Pelech, Pulock and one of Toews at $4.1 million AAV or Mayfield and his very team-friendly $1.45 million AAV.
In terms of just talent, Toews would be the call. In terms of salary cap and how Trotz viewed Mayfield (based on his usage to close out games), he was ultimately the call made.
This discussion keeps getting brought up, and this is not leveled at you xIsle, but I always ask some of the hindsight lads how they would have protected Pelech, Pulock and both Toews and Mayfield, without giving up a premium asset like a first rounder+?
Or, if the Isles protected Toews instead of Mayfield undercutting Trotz's wishes, how would they deal with his reaction and the presumed fallout from that? These are players and coaches with invested interest, energy and personal relationships, not just numbers on a spreadsheet that can be moved around without consequence.
If a HOF coach wants to keep Mayfield over Toews, can you really go against them? Especially after a couple deep playoff runs and seeing that they managed to get back again the next year without Toews?
It is an impossible situation created by the drive for more money that diluted the overall NHL product and hurt teams that had developed deep, quality teams, with little to no impact on rebuilding teams.
Compensation, in the form of draft picks, should have gone back to teams that lost say an Eberle, Dunn, Larsson, etc. vs. say a bum like Blackwell, Bayreuther, Twarynski, AHL/NHL tweener, etc. In the NFL you get draft compensation for just losing free agents. Often times for players those teams didn't even necessarily want to retain. Losing a player to expansion for nothing is worse IMHO.