I'm wondering if this is a situation where we have an aggregation of multiple factors. Maybe Walman presented smaller but noted issues, and was not valued on-ice quite as highly as we think. Maybe the 'future considerations' aren't some crazy 4-d coup, but still worth more than a bag of pucks. Maybe there is some reason to want that flexibility
right now, and there is also
some value to clearing the roster space.
In terms of return, I have a
very hard time understanding this trade on it's own. It's a whole lot of maybes, but maybe the calculus in the end shakes out as >= neutral.
Curious to see how it goes, but I do think us internet commentators tend to want to reduce things down to single causes