Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:57 pm
Gudbranson trade, Sutter trade, Eriksson are not rebuild moves.
I had a pm with another poster at the time. We were both laughing at the guzzlers attempts to pawn those moves off as part of a rebuild. For awhile we dismissed it as trolling. Now it’s pretty clear these posters arent quite that crafty,
That’s what you get from hockey helmet wearing fans who lack the basic skill of communication. A wild imagination and a failure to grasp reality.
Here to help.
I think it depends upon the type of rebuild you are wanting.
Gudbranson was coming off of a couple of solid years in Florida, and by solid I mean for a defensive, stay home, blueliner. He also was a big body who had been showing a tendency for punishing opposing forwards down low and in front of the net, and he was tough and was not one to be pushed around. His physical attributes and style looked to fill a gaping hole in the Canucks lineup.....and at the time he was only 24 years old and already eating top-6 minutes. He showed up here and proceeded to play 30 and 52 games in his first couple of seasons, and we didn't like what we saw because we thought we overpaid to get him. Based upon the draft position of McCann, sure it looked like we gave up a 1st and a 2nd for him, but if you want to view it through that lens, then you have to look at what came back through the same glasses, which is to say that we gave up a late 1st, early 2nd, and early 4th, for a 3rd overall and a mid 5th. That's a win if it's just picks going both ways. Go back to the fact that he was only 24 years old and it's not a bad trade at all. His contract extension is $1M too much for the current on ice product.
The Sutter trade wasn't terrible either, it wasn't a great move, but it fit the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again. But his contract is also probably $1M too much for what we are getting.
Eriksson was also a move that fit the mold of a stay competitive rebuild and he came at an appropriate price tag for a career 60 point UFA winger with a 200 foot game. He didn't pan out though.
None of these moves fit an all out tank rebuild where the goal is to bottom out to get a top 3 pick for several years running.....the only team that has managed to grab that many top 3 picks in the lottery era is Edmonton, and they are still atrocious over 10 years later with "the best player in the world" as their captain and #1 center.
A rookie GM that started to hit his stride in year 3, which coincided with the beginning a change in the overall philosophy of ownership and the eventual exit of Linden. He's also been the best GM we've had when it comes to drafting.....at least in the last 15-20 years.