Pretty interesting idea for a topic, no idea why you choose this horrible example though.
For one, a draft pick is just that, a draft pick. It's not a player, it's not even the rights to a player yet. That Montreal ended up picking Hutson with that pick is thus entirely irrelevant. There is no reason to assume that Edmonton would have drafted Hutson with that pick. Not to mention that for every Hutson drafted in the second round, there are dozens of players who never amount to anything. Not that it really matters, because trading a future piece for something that might help you win now is the whole point of contenders trading at the deadline. You take the risk (not that a 2nd rounder is a risk to begin with) of losing out on something that could help you in the future to have a better chance at winning now. And if you end up winning a Cup, it doesn't matter one bit what you gave up, because you won the very thing you wanted to win. Now, Edmonton didn't succeed in that, but so did plenty of others who tried as well. If they are an example for anything, it's that having franchise players doesn't equal an automatic Cup-win.
Brett Kulak has delivered exactly as expected, and has regularly upped his game in the playoffs by quite a bit. He was easily worth the 2nd rounder (a pick, not Hutson, no matter how much you pretend otherwise) that was being traded for him. Being somewhat responsible for goals against one one game doesn't change anything about that. Players have bad games, it happens, regardless of point in time. Patrick Roy is famed for his playoff performances, yet that didn't stop him from sinking his team in the conference finals with his "statue of liberty" mistake and following 0-7 drubbing in the next game.
Kulak was very much worth his contract extension. On top of that, Broberg was neither better than Kulak (much less vastly superior) at any point of their time on the team together, nor did Kulak block Broberg from playing, otherwise you hardly would have seen Broberg in the last playoffs, no?
In no way, shape or from did Kulak prevent the Oilers from playing Broberg, or from re-signing him. As evidenced by the fact that the team cleared enough cap-space to spend millions on UFA-wingers last summer.
Management clearly botched things with Broberg, and Holloway as well for that matter But that has nothing whatsoever to do with Kulak. There was nothing bad about getting him, nor about keeping him. It was not remotely close to being "value bleeding" and it sure as heck couldn't be further from "franchise crippling". So no, your post is very much not "without exaggeration", it is indeed the exact opposite of that. It is about as exaggerated as it gets and completely detached from reality.
And looking at your over the top ranting, if the Oilers hadn't traded that pick for a defenseman they clearly needed, you probably would have whined about how management failed to do its utmost to improve the roster and thus wasted years of McDavid's and Draisaitl's prime.