Well, sure. I mean, a valid reason to not use boring technologies is because you're bored with them. Devs need to grow and be challenged, or you're going to lose them. That's where management makes its error; they'll pick technologies based on what is popular ('easy to hire for'), or currently in use, or they used in a former life, and miss that none of those equate to good problem domain fit, dev engagement/challenge/growth, ability to attract talent (i.e., jobs offering Java vs Kotlin vs Scala vs Clojure, will attract different types of people, despite all being JVM languages), etc
Where devs make their error is, if they're junior, likely missing the technical tradeoffs (yes, other tech may be better for X, but it's also worse for Y), and if they're senior, likely missing the organizational ones (i.e., do other teams want to learn it, does devops/QA/etc have to do anything, what's the ramp up time, will the proposed productivity gains offset that, etc)
Where devs make their error is, if they're junior, likely missing the technical tradeoffs (yes, other tech may be better for X, but it's also worse for Y), and if they're senior, likely missing the organizational ones (i.e., do other teams want to learn it, does devops/QA/etc have to do anything, what's the ramp up time, will the proposed productivity gains offset that, etc)