This theory of mine is actually based on the original ending for the show where Sisko was going to be trapped in the wormhole, but they changed it to the current version where Sisko said he would return because of Avery Brooks' concerns. My opinion is that Sisko said he would return because he was determined to do so but didn't realise that he couldn't. A lot of people disagree with me about that, but I think that Sisko being trapped in the wormhole makes more thematic sense than an ending where he can return at any time, so that's what I go with. And since I don't read the novels, I'm free to do so.
Oh that bugs me so much when Sisko says that he'll return. It's sillyness. The Prophets don't experience time in the same way that we do, so why couldn't he be there with everyone else at the end of What You Leave Behind? He could be with the Prophets as long as was needed, and then be back in the blink of an eye. Sisko should have been stuck with the Prophets permanantly, as it's the only conclusion that makes sense emotionally during the final scenes.
I understand Brooks had concerns with the potentially bad taste that Star Trek's only black captain leaving his black wife and baby behind could leave. I just think that in a show like Star Trek, those kinds of things wouldn't (or shouldn't) be an issue with the audience anyway.
Sacrifice of Angels is a brilliant conclusion to the Occupation Arc, that only really faultered with Sons and Daughters. I agreeit wasn't perfect, but it's still a very powerful episode. It has never been the Prophets saving the day that bothered me in the episode, as that made sense in regards to Sisko's Emissary arc.
bother me was the Defiant being the only ship that made it through the blockade. That was a bit of a boner moment for the writers, and could have been written better. In the heat of everything gping to shit though, it only registers as a small gripe.