If this really is a rebuild then yes. But because it's not a rebuild, and because Benning is so bad at his job, the Canucks management felt they needed to bring back a 33 year old injury prone defenseman. It's quite pathetic.
Even in a rebuild, you have to take care of the current young players in the system.
What purpose does it serve to throw Hutton to the wolves by trading Edler? Hutton, god bless him, has worked his way up to become a decent 2nd pairing dman, but do you really want to see him getting trounced as a regular 1st pairing dman? What happens if he gets injured? Do you put a green Hughes or a Pouliot there?
Same thing with Markstrom. You don’t just trade away Markstrom because his value his high and he’s at a certain age. You protect the players within your system.
For instance - where is Demko in his development? Would he be ready to take on the responsibilities of a number one goalie? If he’s a semi-passable number one in two years but our defense is still weak, are you doing Demko justice by making him the #1?.......and playing him behind a weak defense? What impact would throw have on Demko? What impact would this have on the defensemen on the team?
A rebuild entails far more than trading anyone and everyone who is aged 26 and over for draft picks. It’s about cultivating your current prospects, and placing them in roles that will push them........but not over exert them. Once a young player is atleast 90% ready to fill a role, THEN you move a vet to create space (as the Canucks did with Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows, and Gagner).
If a team doesn’t adhere to the above, then all they are doing is pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it.