If it was literally the only trade offer they received, then I'm fine with it. Motte is at least a decent Comet next season.
I agree with this.
Otoh, though, if it is true that the Canucks received no offer including a pick, why is that? It seems especially strange in view of Chiarelli, in Edmonton, wanting players that might help immediately but settling mostly for picks.
“We went into this deadline to try and get returns that would assist our organization immediately. ... It was a tough market out there. ... We’ll try to use those picks in the summer to try and acquire a player in the summer.”
The Trade Deadline passes, Chiarelli speaks
Ok, this is the opposite of Benning, who is saying no picks were available and that he'd have preferred picks.
When a gm who wants players is mostly offered picks and another gm is only offered players or prospects, it bears some examination. Could it be that a scenario has arisen in which teams offer the Canucks the cheapest thing they think the Canucks will value-failing prospects?
A few days ago Benning was speaking of making a hockey trade. Ok, so from the perspective of another gm, what can they offer him that they don't want themselves?
Obviously the cheapest thing for them is a prospect or player that isn't doing well in their organization, someone they're ready to give up on.
Further, Benning has shown to value some of those failing prospects. He'd previously given up picks as full or partial compensation in the trades for Linden Vey, Andrey Pedan, Sven Baertschi, Emerson Etem, Philip Larsen and Derrick Pouliot. He's also given up recently drafted players for older prospects in the trades for Markus Granlund and Adam Clendening.
There's reason to question whether Benning values picks very highly. By my count he's made 10 trades in which the Canucks came out of the deal with fewer or lower picks vs 6 trades in which he's come out with more or higher picks. I'm not saying in this post that those were good or bad trades, merely that he was more often giving picks than getting them. When you're regularly giving picks more than getting them, it suggests that picks aren't as highly valued by you as the team you're trading with.
So if you're a GM from, say, Columbus or Las Vegas, dealing with a GM who values young struggling prospects, doesn't value draft picks as highly as others do and speaks of making a hockey trade and specifically a trade for a player who is tough to play against, what do you offer him? It seems pretty clear to me that the thing to do is scour your roster and reserve list for struggling prospects or players that he might value but who you're close to giving up on and keep your picks which he won't value anyway.
More or higher picks:
Hansen for Goldobin and a 4th
Bieksa for a 2nd
McNally for a 7th
Lack for a 3rd and a 7th
the Kesler deal
Garrison, Costello and a 7th for a 2nd
Lower or fewer picks:
Dorsett for a 3rd
Vey for a 2nd
Pedan for Mallet and a 3rd
Baertschi for a 2nd
Prust for Kassian and a 5th
Sutter and a conditional 3rd for Bonino,Clendening and a 2nd
Etem for Jensen and a 6th
Larsen for a 5th
Gudbranson and a 5th for McCann, a 2nd and a 4th
Pouliot for Pedan and a 4th
