I will add to myself that most of their very bad moves came after this point. Sure, you can question moving Horvat (but should still admit the Horvat related deals actually improved the team, just not as much as if EP40 were moved), you can question the wisdom of trading for Lindholm as a rental, and you can question why you'd force yourself to move Podkolzin, you can lament opportunities missed (like not trading Hoglander after a hot season when another hot season would make him expensive and a cold one would mean rather have Podkolzin....).UWSaint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 10:59 am Once it became clear that the Canucks had to move on from EP40, Miller, or both, there is no longer the Benning core in place (and the prior vision of the GM was to build complements around that core better than Benning). And that's the time to say, okay PA, what's the new vision. And if it wasn't one that you were comfortable being on board with such that you sank or swam together, than you can PA at that point. Because that was the transition moment.
But the really putrid moves? All once the the transitional point was unavoidable.
Miller -- fine (and I've always seen Chytil not as an answer, but a NYR requirement (salary cap) in order to give up the first and a decent D prospect).
Turning that first into MPettersson instead of keeping it? Questionable straight up, but very dumb in the context of where the team was.
Signing Lankinnen to a multi year NMC deal, and at way too much money, and before the facts are in on this prospect you've been developing for years? Retarded. Under every circumstance.
Signing Demko before he shows he can play? Pretty stoopid.
Moving Silovs before Demko shows he can play for a sustained period? Questionable, and super dumb that you gave yourself limited options by signing Lankinen.
Reupping Boeser? That's not terrible, because as I've said before, every rebuilding team needs a player sort of like Brock Boeser. But to fulfill a "we are going for the playoffs this year? vision? Not great.
Signing Garland a year out? Not good, but not terrible because you didn't sign him to an unmovable deal and then you moved him. Would Garland have returned more as a rental? Maybe, but let's be honest, the real downside of that deal is that he'd play the way he did after Hughes was traded (which didn't really improve in Columbus and might have been worse if you got rid of a couple games where he looked great) for the next 5 years.


