Well, I find value on the site learning about how statistical analysis operates, and, I'd argue that few of the writers on the site openly endorse a sports-view which singularly locks-in on analytics as the sole tool for evaluating talent. I think the quality of bloggers on the site has seriously degraded, though, and the fill-ins are a bunch of plugs. The whole site's deflated since Cam and Dmitri left. Still, there's material to be learned from.
You're spot on about the tools, and clearly you caught the implication as it regards moneypuck. I think "right" and "wrong" might be slightly misleading terms when talking about these kinds of decisions, though. Analytics isn't advanced enough to make any kind of judgement wholly right or wrong, and I'm not sure it ever will be.
That said, there's plenty of useful data out there: Hansen's GF% and Corsi% with the Sedins from years past was a good indicator that he'd be a good fit with them, and although the eye test didn't make them look great all the time, chemistry's formed and they're humming now.
You also mentioned that they rely too heavily on the tools to bolster what's just another opinion. Well, way I look at it, every statement of fact is an opinion (creatio ex nihilo) and the best statements are those with the most convincing reasons supporting it. I can say Rene Descartes and Chris Higgins are the same. That's a fact. I think that. Might not be true, but how can you prove it? Yadda yadda yadda, reasons, etc. Anyhow, my point is that the analytics available are great tools for making an argument more robust, and there's also nothing wrong with starting from statistics, either. If your argument is based entirely on one model or the other, you're ignoring information willfully, and are thus being ignorant.
See, that's the thing about CDC. Most of what I've read here is reactionary - it responds to an event with vague assertions and validates itself with anecdotes, weird historicism, and ad hominem. So, what would you find on Canucksarmy that you won't find on CDC? Well, when articles are actually published, they're much more thought provoking than "Virtanen's good, but he's not that good, so we should send him back to junior! He looks crappy!" because they have data points which form the evidence for their reasoning.
It's a question of whether you prefer the specious claims of CDC or those of CA. I go on both because I'm bored and horribly depressed (why else?), but I prefer the intellectual rigour of CA at the least. It's like being at University with an anarchist liberatarian - you probably don't see things they way they do, but at least their opinions make you think about your own.