Your comment (which is grammatically horrible), assumes that letting 2 franchise players walk is "good business" and will lead to a "Re-build" that will work.
There are more examples of teams who went full re-build and it either failed or took much longer than expected than teams who had a full re-build work in a timely fashion.
As I said, the Canucks were committed to the Sedins, letting them walk would've been a horrible hockey and business decision.
That really isn’t necessarily the case, for many reasons.
First, you assume that I’m talking about letting them walk for nothing. You’re taking the worst case scenario. When did we take trading them at last year’s deadline out of the realm of possibility? We’re talking in retrospect right now, obviously, as they were signed in November, so extending them, or letting them walk, are not the only two possibilities.
Second, saying that there are more rebuilds that have failed than rebuilds that have succeeded, isn’t really all that relevant. Looking at the number of declining teams heavily laden with overpriced contracts, trying to re-tool and being successful, and comparing them to full rebuilds is the more apt comparison.
I actually prefer to look at it differently though. Regardless of full rebuild or re-tool, we can look at the players individually. I don’t feel we can be contenders in the next three years, and I don’t think they can be key contributors after that (as they’ll be 37/38, and ready to retire), so I see it as a simple asset management decision. At this point in their career, they’ll never be key contributors to a contending team here, so the smart asset management decision would be to get what you can for them, before that amounts to zero (like has happened to so many teams before).
It’s also rather telling that you refer to one grammatical error as “grammatically horrible”. You’re instead of Your, while quickly typing a post while at work, hardly makes an entire post “grammatically horrible”.
