And the thing I would say in response is that you have to be consistent if you're going to use that logic. If I can't say what they did with that asset then you can't say what Calgary ended up with after the trade either. In that consistent form of logic, the Sharks traded a waiver eligible 3rd string goaltender that they were going to waive if it weren't for said trade and lose him for nothing for a 2nd round draft pick. That is a good trade. Now, if you want to use the consistent logic of what happens after the trade with the assets involved then you have to compare Kiprusoff in Calgary to that 2nd round pick which was Vlasic. In that form of logic, it is an even better trade. Yeah, the Flames got to the Finals over the Sharks on Kiprusoff and had a solid netminder for many years but didn't win anything at the end of it all. The Sharks have gotten 12 solid top pairing d-man years out of Vlasic for that result as well.
Secondly, it's not like the Thornton trade because they won the Cup before us. The Thornton trade was trading established hockey players whom you can track and in both realms of treating the players as they were the day of the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. In treating the players as they became after the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. I'm not using team success logic here. If anyone is, you are because you're putting the fact that Kipper won one series in 2004 over every other thing that is involved and it overrides all reasonable logic when that is not at all how I am making my case for this trade.
People calling this a terrible trade are tunnel visioning the fact that Kipper beat us in 2004. They're not using anything else and that is shallow and short-sighted.