Actually, the Wild under Fletcher made the playoffs in his last 6 seasons. Like the Canucks prior to 2011, they couldn't beat Chicago. They lost to the Blackhawks in the playoffs 3 straight years and then they weren't as good.
I think those Wild teams are distinguishable from the Canucks. Those Wild teams drafted some good players but after their window of contention closed, they were relying on players that were over 30 and the young core they drafted up front ultimately didn't take the next step or keep progressing. Granlund, Neiderreiter, Coyle, Haula, and Zucker are all similar in age but the ways their careers developed with the Wild must have been frustrating for Wild fans.
The Canuck are on a different path. If our young core isn't good we aren't going anywhere regardless of how well we surround them. But if our young core is good I think we can build around them and make at least a couple of runs with them.
Yep. That's the distinction. When you're re-building a team, there are a number of truisms: build from the net out, build from the center position and your younger players have to assume the mantle. This is especially true in the cap era where teams can no longer buy their way into contender status.
The Wild bought their way into the exact gray zone that pro-tankers fear will inevitably happen to the Canucks. They signed homestate free agents to long term contracts (Parise and Suter) as they were beginning to decline and added another declining player in Staal. That's the backbone of their team and it's not at all good comparison to the situation the Canucks face.
Our bad contracts are for aging, declining contracts, yes. But no one is depending on Eriksson or Beagle or Schaller to drive the offense. And their contracts will expire in a reasonable time frame - albeit with a cap crunch looming next season that will last 1 season. Meyers, for all of the hate he gets, fills a real need on the roster. In the meantime, our young core has absolutely taken the reins and that's all you can ask from a re-building team.
Will they take it to the next level? Can they fill in the gaps on D? Will Demko become a cost-controlled NHL starter? Those are legitimate concerns.
But whether we're headed down the same path as the Wild who bought their way into relevance for a few seasons while failing to re-build their core from within. That's IMHO a disingenuous take.