Sutter was an asset for the Penguins. Bonino was an asset for the Canucks. The Canucks could have negotiated a better deal but they had little leverage.
What are you talking about?
Canucks never had to trade Bonino. If we don't have leverage then why trade?
Also, we had leverage penguins had to shed cap. Bonino is a cheap option. He has one of the best contracts in the NHL. Plus he had 2 more years on that deal!! That is a incredibly valuable asset.
Then in typical Benning fashion he added in some goodies a higher pick and a good prospect.
Now we are stuck with the more expensive, worse overall player and we are in a worse position then we were before the trade. This trade is a lose short term and a lose long term. There is no arguing that this deal is somehow beneficial to the canucks because it isn't. There is no way you can spin this into a win.
Reality is that when Benning is a bad asset manager. Terrible asset manager.
This is the guy who gave a 1.75m contract to a player with 0 goals scored in 100+ games when he had Stanton a perfectly serviceable 6-7th defenseman that is younger and cheaper/had more potential and just dumped him.