Quoting: biglite351
It's not similar at all. Maatta is considerably better than Cole. Brassard has more value than Gustavsson. Montreal could flip Brassard for a decent package at the TDL if they wanted to. This trade heavily favors Montral and hurts the Pens both short term and long term.
Flipping in Danault for Brassard today is more a wash than an improvement (it can be argued either way, but close enough). Then you have the negative affect of Maatta also being gone. This is a big negative short term.
Danault still in for two years, but missing Maatta and the 1st... Pens are out a top-4 D and a 25ish pick for a 3C. At the very best for Pittsburgh this is a wash and only if Danault works out perfectly, otherwise they are a lesser team overall. Much like with what happened with Brassard, Danault would be coming in and becoming the 3C so all of his numbers would drop across the board. Negative long term.
Maatta: -5.6 rel. Corsi, 47.3 FF%, 13 TK, 30 GV, 11 PTS
Cole: 1.9 rel. Corsi, 50.7% FF%, 16 TK, 27 GV, 9 PTS
That's not what I would call considerably better. Maybe I should have been more specific, but Montreal only gets the pick if Brassard leaves in free agency. If they decided to flip him, the Penguins get to keep the pick. As stated in the description, the current third line has dismal chemistry. Throughout his career, Kessel has shown the most chemistry with two-way centers. Acquiring Danault capitalizes on this trend. In that regard, this is absolutely an upgrade. The entire point of this post (which you've completely missed) was that Kessel and Brassard do not mesh. The only area of debate is with Maatta, and with Schultz returning they would be just fine pairing him with either Riikola or Oleksiak. So no, it is not a big negative in the short-term. You also have to keep in mind that this trade gives them financial flexibility at the deadline to acquire an expiring contract or two (another point made in the description that feels entirely lost).