I would like to challenge this assertion. If "good programmers" are replaceable, and "great programmers" are not, then keeping one "great programmer" and rotating the "good programmers" may be a wise business decision.

YMMV what "great" and "good" means, or how disposable "good programmers" are, but I don't think the assertion is categorically true.

Agreed. Or even worse, 1 great programmer drive away several other great programmers and several other good ones.