I think its fair to care and critique the teams development process. I think you're just being too extreme in this case.
I think when you have a team that has a long history of being terrible at development, and the new GM, who acknowledges that long history of bad development, says that the team will ONLY (emphasis his) bring young prospects into NHL games when they are certain they will be permanent players from that time onward and then does the exact opposite with all three of his top prospects, then I think that should be the only response.
The evidence is pretty strong that this management group is not putting the interests of those prospects first, but instead are only interested in the short term interests of the team - which means having them available to cover for injuries, while missing better development opportunities. That doesn't seem to be change at all from the long history of being terrible at development.
Its not as if there a ton of guys from either Liljegren and Sandins draft classes who have leapfrogged them. Yes, their still early in that cycle for each guy.
Most players don't make it. Most players drafted in the first two rounds don't make it, so there is no benefit in comparing them to their draft class. If you were to look at, say the 5 D drafted in a row where Liljegren was drafted - Foote, Brannstrom, Valimaki, Liljegren, Vaakanainen - you would only expect one to become a successful top-4 with a lengthy NHL career, another to become a journeyman #4-6 player with a decent career, and the other 3 to become no more than injury replacement players, with one of those three spending a year or two where they are a #6.
That is why developing in ways that increase your odds is so important.
It seems strange that you seem to think development is 100% due to external influences (ie the team). Injuries derailing a career happen with every sport (always has been the case and always will be). And let's face it, most 2nd round picks taken at the NHL draftbend up falling well short of reaching their potential ceilings and its hardly beacuse in every single case they've been let down by their teams
I don't think that development is 100% due to the team. I do think that is the part they have complete control over. If a team with the resources that Toronto has, with a GM who has talked about how to develop properly, and the responsibility teams have to do what is right for their prospects because they have control over that development process, I don't think that there is any excuses.