- tried to trade our 2015 #1 pick and other futures (Markstrom rumoured) for Milan Lucic.
The Markstrom thing is only a “rumor” because Markstrom ended up becoming a good goaltender and so The Athletic, as usual, are trying to fabricate stuff. The Canucks were in on Lucic at the 2016 trade deadline because they were a borderline playoff team at the deadline and so they had EARNED management’s respect. Would that have been a wise move in retrospect? Of course not. However - when a team is playing well enough and is within playoff contention, why wouldn’t a GM reward his players with help and give them a vote of confidence?
tried again to give Lucic a monster contract the following year.
What young players in our system were ready to assume 2nd line roles? Burrows was washed up, and Virtanen was too green. Now granted - signing Lucic (and what was ultimately Eriksson) was a big mistake, since both players are/were clearly passed their primes, but that was arguably lesser of the two evils.........the other evil being, we would have played Jake Virtanen in that spot where he would have struggled and lost confidence to the point of no return.
- traded for Sutter and Prust to 'make the team better in the playoffs'.
Prust was brought in because the Canucks needed toughness and also didn’t believe that Gaunce was NHL ready (which proved to be true). Again, it was about insulating a prospect and making sure that he was developing in a role that was compatible with his abilities.
I will agree with you that the Sutter deal was a bad one, but it wasn’t because the Canucks mistakingly thought that they were “cup contenders” or sure thing playoff competitors. Sutter was brought in, because the Canucks didn’t feel that Horvat was quite ready to assume the duties of a 2nd line center..........in retrospect however, this wasn’t quite true because Horvat really wasn’t that far off and Bonino would have been a decent enough short term filler in that 2nd line role (although at the time, the Canucks felt that Bonino, while a great 3rd line center, wasn’t good enough to be a 2nd line C).
- signed a 30 y/o Eriksson to a $36 million contract.
I already covered this. If not Eriksson, then you’re either putting in a washed up Burrows (which sends a bad message to the team that management isn’t serious about fielding a competitive team), or, you’re putting in a green Virtanen and risk ruining him forever.
- tried to trade our 2016 #1 pick + Bo Horvat for PK Subban
The Canucks did try and trade for Subbann (our Right side D had absolutely NOTHING other than Tanev, and also had NOTHING in the pipeline. #ButGillis). However, Horvat being a part of the package is once again a complete fabrication by the Athletic. And again - the Canucks weren’t trying to bring in Subbann because they saw themselves as cup contenders. They tried to bring in Subbann because the Canucks were trying to solidify their right side D for both the short term and the long term.
- tried chasing Steven Stamkos.
At the time, the Canucks didn’t have a 1st line center in their pipeline that was capable of taking over once Henrik faded into the sunset.
- traded a huge futures package for Erik Gudbranson.
Gudbranson himself was a young asset that was supposed to help the Canucks both short term and long term. You’re acting as if Gudbranson was a 33 year old and the Canucks were in “all now” mode but this wasn’t the case. Guds was supposed to be both a short term AND long term asset for us. Unfortunately however, just as was the case with Sutter, Gudbranson sucked. It was a bad trade, but the trade wasn’t made because the Canucks were “going for it.” Just as was the case with Sutter, the Canucks were making a move that they felt addressed BOTH the short term and long term.
You are actually going to claim he was rebuilding during that time? Seriously?
Yes.
Canucks gave up assets for guys like Sutter and Gudbranson, but those guys were supposed to be pieces that.....
1) helped us both short term and long term.
2) help insulate younger core pieces on the team by allowing said younger pieces to play in roles that were more suitable to their games (as opposed to being bum rushed into spots that they were too green for).
I will concede however that the players that management targeted were terrible.
The two-year period between March 2015 and March 2017 is probably the most incompetent period for any NHL GM in the last 50 years of the sport.
Maybe, but I don’t think you truly realize as to just how difficult of a spot Benning was in. The Canucks has very little in the pipeline when Benning took over, and Benning had to make a tough choice (ie rush whatever kids that were in the system into roles that they were too green for, or make some trades that could help us both short term and long term, while creating a culture here). People can laugh all they want that the Canucks “culture” here was a losers culture, but the fact of the matter is that our vets did set the tone in the lockerroom and our kids competed extremely hard almost each and every night during those basement dwelling days.
People scoff at what Benning has done here, but guys like Markstrom, Virtanen, Gaudette, etc., all greatly benefited from insulation.[/quote]