To me, it's not fully about trade valuation here but how reactionary everything seems by the timing and methodology of Drury's recent actions. There's no time to waste jettisoning players with long-term relationships with the team instead of finding any way to mend things internally?
Threatening waivers to "circumvent" the NTC of your captain, or immediately trading a player the team drafted and developed only days after the player said they wished they knew why they were the one benched just is a bad, bad look.
Even without us knowing the extent of the conversations behind the scenes, it's really just reeking of organizational fragility and knee-jerk decision making.
Another Mulletman classic.
Is it knee-jerk though? I mean, we know they tried to trade Trouba in the off-season and he exercised his rights in his NTC. Drury was then about the exercise his/team's right to put him on waivers. That is not circumventing, at all. Re: Kakko, I highly doubt the first time Drury picked up the phone on him was after the comments. We the fans base everything off what we hear in the news/rumor-sphere. But that's not always a 1:1 timeline. I would be willing to bet Drury has had several conversations on Kakko over the last month or two.
Drury is in a tough spot at the moment with the team struggling, so everything gets amplified. Is there honestly a trade at any time he could have made that wouldn't get the "this is a knee-jerk reaction!" response? Team is struggling, he makes two moves to help correct it. I don't think either trade are a "bad look". Players have plenty of ways to control their contract and situation and so does the team. Some have more control than others.
A bad look would be Buffalo trading Thompson or Cozens after the owners meets with them and says "no trades".