1) It looked to me like they WERE far off in value over that 6-8 year period according to the stats you mentioned. But, whatever. Agree to disagree. When in Rome. 2) You agree with the decision? Really? You draft a guy #1 overall in the draft. He puts up 20 and 10 in each of his first two seasons. You're like, "yay, he didn't flop". Then you trade him for the #2 pick in the draft. That makes sense to you? As a GM, if I had scored on a #1 pick like that, I would have been focused on trying to surround him with other pieces. Not flipping him for a draft pick and prolonging the rebuild. Not to mention, rolling the dice that this pick pans out. Edit: Not to mention, we already had the horsefeathering #1 pick that year, too!