Er,no, softproofing is not a relic.
The key point about softproofing is that one is attempting to predict with a transmissive light medium (a monitor) what an image will look like when viewed on a relective light medium (paper, canvas etc).
I agree that a profiled monitor and a good paper profile are important (crucial, really), but there is still a large subjective component to getting an acceptable print.
What softproofing does is simulate on the monitor (that transmissive light medium) what the image should look like once printed on paper or canvas, or whatever (that reflective light medium). Since the Dmax and the colour gamut achievable with both these media are different even the softproofed image on the monitor (with the best profiling of monitor and printer/paper combination) cannot exactly simulate what the print will look like.
Most people will edit the softproofed image side-by-side with the original master image that they liked to get the two as close as possible before printing.
Once printed most people will notice a difference, still, between the softproofed image and the printed image.
The reason why most people print with only a very few papers and canvas is because they can then learn, by experience, how to finesse their images to get the most out of the image as a print.
BTW, a key point here is that if one gives several master printers the same image file to print using the same printer/paper combination using the same profiled monitor and printer/paper profiles all will probably achieve a really good result but likely different according to their own interpretation of how to get the best from the master image.
So, even when the science of a colour-managed workflow is identical, the artistic aspects can produce different results according to individual interpretation.
Nonetheless, the master printers will be able to get consistent results (especially if they have long experience with the particular printer/paper combination and its associated profile) and that consistency should be a goal of all people who print.
Another point: While it is true that the printer/paper profiles of some manufacturers leave something to be desired it is equally true that many (most) of the paper manufacturers provide excellent profiles.
I print a lot with Canson Baryta Photographique using Canson's own profiles with magnificent results. Softproofing with these profiles is a breeze and I am now confident, before I print to predict how the print will look. The print closely matches, as much as is possible given the differences already explained, the softproofed image on the monitor.
It is also true that Michael Reichman himself recommends this particular paper and the manufacturers profile but until I had done the experiments myself it was all still theory. Experimentation and practice, now, allows me to agree with Michael.
In summary, softproofing provides an essential halfway house between the optimally edited digital image and the optimally finessed print.
There is definately an artistic component to softproofing where further editing of the softproofed image is required to get it to match as closely as possible the digital masterfile.
As an aside, the whole process is much easier in Lr4 than in Ps but comparable results are achievable either way.