Photo Credit: © Marc DesRosiers-USA TODAY Sports

Troy Stecher has arbitration hearing scheduled for July 29th

Vancouver Canucks defender Troy Stecher has his arbitration hearing date:

Scheduled for July 29th, the Canucks and Stecher’s representation will meet in front of a third party arbitrator to work out what the young defenceman’s next contract will look like. Obviously, the two sides could come to a deal prior to then but at the very least we have an idea of when the deadline is set.

The 24-year-old defenceman is coming off an 11 point season in 2017-18 which followed an impressive 24 point rookie season in 2016-17. He did not have a fantastic season this past year but filing for arbitration was well within his rights and he exercised that option to leverage it in negotiations. Since Stecher elected to file for an arbitration hearing, the organization has the right to choose between a one year or two-year deal, as outlined in Article 12.9c in the NHL/NHLPA CBA

Given his hot start to his NHL career and then drop off in year two, it can be hard to pinpoint exactly what Stecher is worth on this next contract. His potential suggests that he has some value to a defensive group that is starving for offence.

The arbitration process can be difficult as the player’s representation and the organization pick apart his game to find the right number and it’s why so many deals are completed prior to getting to the hearing. We will have to see if the Canucks and Stecher can work out a deal prior to July 29th.

  • apr

    Of all the contracts Benning has handed out, the Hutto, by a country mile is the most egregious. Who cares if you over pay Sutter or Sbisa – don’t think their cap hit the past few years road blocked that last missing piece to win the Cup. And who cares about Beagle and Roussell when the cap will probably be $90 mil 4 years from now. The worst one is Hutton, as it set a dangerous precedent for young kids hitting arbitration. Of course Stecher is asking for Hutton money. Hutton is a $2.8 mil 6 point out of shape d-man. Imagine rewarding your laziest and unproductive staff with the most money, what would you expect your more productive staff ask for in their performance review.

    Nucks compounded it even more by not sending him to the minors. If the Rangers can sign Brendan Smith and send him to minors for being totally unproductive with a huge salary – why can’t the Nucks with Hutton? And please stop Canucks Army by posting the Nucks had an opportunity to trade Hutton for Tyson Barrie. Colorodo wanted a first as well, which is Quin Hughes. No thank you, no thank you at all.

    • Doodly Doot

      If it’s true that CO wanted a first and Hutton for Barrie, then it seems CA was cherry-picking facts to shape their narrative. Shocking!

      I’m not sure I’d call the Hutton contract egregious, but it seems overly generous even in the context of his performance under a friendlier coaching regime. Pretty sure Hutton is one of those ‘lost boys’ who just lacks the emotional jam that players like Horvat, Boeser, Petersson, Gaudette, Leipsic, Stecher, Biega, and others coming like Dahlen, Lind, Gadjovich, MacEwan, Palmu, Huges, Woo all seem to have in spades. You can see the ‘cull’ coming. It would be pretty cool though if Hutton shows up and just destroys at camp. It’s plausible.

    • Bud Poile

      Hutton led all d-men in scoring in his rookie season,won the Babe Pratt award as the Canucks best d-man and was highly touted to be the future cornerstone on the PP.
      That’s where the contract comes from-expectations into the years following a solid rookie campaign.
      Who knew he would go back to drinking copious amounts of beer, have five takeout restaurants on speed dial and spend that following year doing anything but working out?
      Ben blew it and nobody is impressed.Goofy smile erased.

    • DJ_44

      Of course Stecher is asking for Hutton money. Hutton is a $2.8 mil 6 point out of shape d-man. Imagine rewarding your laziest and unproductive staff with the most money, what would you expect your more productive staff ask for in their performance review.

      I would think it is a mistake for Strecher’s team to mention Hutton’s contract since it is so easy for the Canucks to counter: we offered Hutton this money based on a 7 goal and (something like) 35 pts rookie season (neither of which Stecher has come closet to). He has since done nothing to live up to our expectations. Similar to your example of an unproductive employee …. simply say “yep, big mistake, we are about to let them go”.

      • apr

        That’s why I think it’s the biggest mistake, as Benning boxed himself with the contract he gave Hutton. Yes Hutton had a really good first year, but its not as if had has first round pedigree. You can overpay free agents and argue with your restricted free agents that these players are not the benchmark (ie Baertschi and Erickson); however, you really can’t over reward the guys you have under control. I love Brock, great, great player – and from all accounts, a fantastic person (he’s dating a Minnesota Viking cheerleader for cripes sake). However, if Benning totally pays him in the summer, what about Petterson if he has an outstanding year; Hughes? It creates bad precedence, and the Hutton/Stecher situation is showing that. I think that’s why this will go to arbitration with lots of hurt feeling on both sides.

    • Fred-65

      I understand folks don’t like Hutton the year following the contract, but the contract was based on how he was playing at the time ….not years after. What this tell us is two thing, he does have skill, he doesn’t have dedication. I hope Hutton accepts the challenge that Green thrown down, it’s going to define his character. He’s like the Forest Gumps box of chocalates, you just don’t know what you’re going to get come September. I hope Hutton is taking the summer seriously and has sought out professional help, for his own future and for the asset value he represents to the Canucks

  • wojohowitz

    I suspect the owner has told Benning to stop throwing money around and play some hardball instead. First off is Biega who was rewarded for being a loyal warrior and signed to contracts from $650k to $700k to $800k. But then we get the recent Archibald contract; one year, two way at $650k. Suddenly Benning is reluctant to throw a little extra at a hard working loyal employee. Contrast that with the Hutton contract that surprised everybody – including Hutton – because it was not a forced move but an act of foolish generosity.

    Now here we are with Benning playing hard ball with Stecher. The weakness that the Stecher advisers are trying to exploit is the lack of competence. The Canucks only have three competent defencemen – Edler, Tanev and Stecher. Imagine the firedrill without these three. A couple of years from now is completely different with the young guys being ready but for this year and next Stecher is really needed. The risk for Benning is the so-called `poisoning the well` potential where Stecher says F U, get me out of here while Benning is in no position to lose one of his only three competent defencemen.

    On Hutton let me add this; For the first month of the season Green should play the guys in the best physical condition. If Hutton is one of those guys then give him 20 minutes a game in all situations – let him prove himself. The alternative is lots of veterans like Edler, Tanev, Sutter and Horvat. You don`t want your quality veterans starting a long grueling season playing 20 minutes every game.

    • Fred-65

      If Green wants the best out of Hutton he shouldn’t hang the Gudbranson anchor around his neck. Gudbranson needs the help of the best LH D available … and that’s Edler. Hutton should be paired with Tanev to help him out and bring out the best. Instead Green played his testosterone and attacks Hutton. This might satisfy Green but what does it do for the Canucks

      • DJ_44

        Give up the myth that Gudbranson caused Hutton’s downfall. Hutton does not have the offensive upside to justify pairing with Tanev. Simply put: he is not that good.

        • Cageyvet

          I see both sides. Hutton made many glaring mistakes all alone with the puck or an incoming forward on his side, and his partner was powerless to help without a 30 foot stick. Having said that, the Hutton-Gudbranson pairing seems like it should be avoided at all costs. You won’t get me to sign up for another run at that pairing until (and this is optimistic thinking) both are playing solid hockey with other partners.

    • Defenceman Factory

      That’s one way to look at it, or maybe the Canucks gave him a shot when no one else wanted him. I can’t imagine the Canucks can see their way clear to not signing Stecher. Troy has been reasonably good and they don’t have much else o the right side.

      For all we know Troy is ready to sign and his agent is levering for a bit more. I doubt the gap between the parties is very wide and don’t expect this to go to a hearing neither party wants.

      • “Canucks gave him a shot when …”

        Pretty sure that’s not the case. There was interest from other teams and you know that. It was a joyous day here at CA when Canucks signed him. He’s a BC boy who wants to play for his home team.

        • Defenceman Factory

          They point being loyalty goes both ways. Regardless of what options Troy may have had when he signed here that really has no bearing on the value and term of his next contract.

  • Rodeobill

    I feel much more confident in Stetcher to keep his compete level than I was with Hutton, and hope he is signed soon. I wonder how much last year’s FA signed Dmen and Pouliot affected the ice time and opportunities both him and Hutton got. How would things have looked different for their boxcars if thee roster had not changed from 2 years ago. Moot point, but last year I thought Stecher was still one of our better D men, he shoots right and he has as much pep as Biega. Also, no one holds him more accountable for his flubs than himself. Hutton got lucky with that contract, and it was a little too high, but Stetcher deserves it, or something close to. If arbitration is about precedent setting for JB, this is not the time for that.

  • neal

    Stecher puts his heart in every game he plays. Hutton floats much like Matthews. This may be Hutton’s last year. I hope Stecher is here for the next four seasons.

  • TheRealPB

    The hate for Hutton on this site I never get. He had an excellent rookie year and really looked promising, including getting into World Championship games that year. Yes, he had a bad year but so did quite a few others on the Canucks d and it always bothered me that he and Pouliot could get benched and Stecher (who I think is better and deserves a decent raise) but MDZ and Gudbranson never have had to pay the price. This is where the falseness of this narrative of meritocracy gets me. It’s not a meritocracy in the NHL, it’s all based on draft pedigree and seniority. On actual play there’s a gaping chasm between the Canucks competent d last year (Tanev, Edler and Stecher) and their inconsistent d (all the rest). And yet Hutton takes the heat. He was not great but he was a hell of a lot better than guys who are making a lot more than him and are supposed to be performing at a much higher level.

    • Beer Can Boyd

      Totally agree. Especially Gudbrandson. I can’t believe that guy was ever drafted #3 overall. Classic example of a kid who was full sized at age 15, dominated everyone smaller than him, but never developed the skill to continue that dominance when everyone else caught up, size wise. I honestly can’t believe that our GM could watch his play on the ice and trade McCann and a 2nd round pick for him. Heres TSN at the time, and in retrospect, their analysis is spot on. https://www.tsn.ca/panthers-take-advantage-of-canucks-in-lopsided-trade-1.496247

      • Beer Can Boyd

        And its going to look way worse when McCann has 50 points this year. He had 29 points last year as a 21 year old, 6’1″ 200lb center. And the kid whom they eventually picked after trading down with the Canucks pick to get even more draft choices (Jim? You reading this?) had 40 goals in junior last year. Arrghh. Benning is a great junior scout, but we seriously need a real GM.

        • Lemmy Kilmister

          Agreed that was a horrible trade at the time and its going to even look worse considering they could have had Debrincat with yet another 2nd rounder they just keep throwing

      • TheRealPB

        I have no liking for Gudbranson’s and don’t think that the trade was worth it. I do think you’re overstating the price we paid — I would rather have McCann (whose ‘bad behavior’ I think is overblown because that’s what everyone does when someone gets shipped out) but I don’t think he’ll reach much more than the points he got last year, mainly because the top six in FLA is already full and there are prospects who’ve passed him. But I’d rather have had three years of cost-controlled decent production from a 22 year old than whatever we have from Gudbranson. You should acknowledge, however, that FLA ended up wasting that 2nd; they flipped it to Buffalo (who drafted Rasmus Asplund who has been a great disappointment) and took Adam Mascherin who they couldn’t sign and he went back into the draft and got redrafted this year by Dallas. I think the value of draft picks is far too treasured in the abstract.

      • This is the same reason Virtanen was drafted 6th overall. If you’re 6’2 and 200lbs and playing against a bunch of 5’10, 160lbs teenagers it’s pretty easy to just make a straight line to the net and bullldoze anyone in your way. Doesn’t work so well when everyone else on the ice is the same size. GMs continue to make this mistake.

    • Bud Poile

      Guddy played through injuries.
      Hutton doesn’t or did not take his job seriously.
      It has nothing to do with seniority or pedigree when it’s basic common sense regarding a floater raking in millions of dollars.
      MDZ and Guddy get their share of hate but coming to play each night is far different than being unprepared and disinterested to the point you are a liability and worse,an embarrassment to your mates and profession.
      As for Pouliot,Green knows him well enough to make that call.
      It’s a job. Come to work or park your rear end on the bench.
      Shouldn’t be very difficult to figure out.

      • argoleas

        If there’s a determination that MDZ and Guddy are better for this season than Hutton, then so be it. But that still leaves MDZ and Guddy as being sub-par, regardless whether they give it their all or were injured. With the incoming talent, there cannot be any tolerance for Green picking a vet over a deserving prospect just because muh vet or muh contract.

        As for Pouliot, I believe it was CA that showed he was a good partner for Guddy (as was Sautner). Fine, let that be the Canucks’ third pair. Then fashion two top pairs out of Edler, Tanev, Stecher, Hughes, Hutton, and MDZ. I know which 4 I would pick.

        • Bud Poile

          Travis Green played over 1,000 NHL games.
          I’m sure he has a better idea about who should be playing than any of us here.
          There’s a pro franchise to run with players played for the best long-term outcome of the franchise as paramount importance.
          There’s an overabundance of LHD and that is where D has to be reallocated.
          Lumping LHD’s with RHD’s isn’t offering up comparables.

    • DJ_44

      People who endlessly defend Hutton astonish me. He did not just have one bad year, he has been brutal for the past two seasons. He was terrible Willy’s last season, and worse under Green. The difference was that Green was completely honest and benched him.

      It comes back to basic hockey skill and intelligence. Hutton has very poor mobility, he is not physical, he thinks the game a half second behind everyone else on the ice and he can make a decent first pass. An offensive defenceman that puts up 0 goals and 6 pts.

      And yet Hutton takes the heat.

      He takes the heat because he was by a good margin, the worst of the bunch.

      Case and point was when they call up Saunter. He outperformed Hutton by every metric. Trade him for a late round pick (and we would be incredibly thankful) for waive him to Utica. No one will touch the contract. If anyone does, be thankful for the cap space and wish him well. Maybe Gilman wants him back.

      • TheRealPB

        People who endlessly defend Gudbranson and MDZ because of imaginary ‘grit’ and ‘toughness’ astonish me, when we have a defense that has been consistently one of the worst in the league and when neither of them have done anything to make it any better while drawing higher salaries than Hutton. The only grinder that has been on the team that I even entertain the whole ‘learn to be a pro’ stuff about was Dorsett. Who do you hear the young skill players actually talk about when they speak of learning their craft? The Sedins mostly. A bunch of the young guys talked about Vanek, despite him being a ‘floater’ and all…

        All I ask for is some consistency in the evaluation. I never said Hutton was particularly good. I just said that it’s unfair to single him out when I have seen no evidence that MDZ or Gudbranson are any better. All this talk of hard work and grit and determination is just that, talk. Did it make our team any better? MDZ played 82 games and was supposed to bring more offense even if it was at the cost of poor defense. He had the same number of points as Pouliot in more games. And it doesn’t give me much hope that a 27-year-old will learn as much from mistakes than a 23-year-old. You say that Hutton has had two bad years. How would you evaluate Gudbranson? Or are we going to keep excusing his poor play because of injury?

        • Bud Poile

          Imaginary grit and toughness award.
          Hutton is a LHD.
          Gudbranson is a RHD.
          Might want to start with that on a team loaded with LHD.
          Hutton had no injuries to excuse his poor play.
          Guddy played with and through his injuries.
          Since you’re not an NHL veteran nor general manager,scout nor coach suggests you don’t know what those that are covet and demand in a leader.
          MDZ has been touted as a leader by both coach and mgmt..
          When you want to see a picture of hard work,determination and grit the photo of Ben Hutton isn’t up on the wall for all to see.

          • Sedin33

            “Since you’re not an NHL veteran nor general manager,scout nor coach suggests you don’t know what those that are covet and demand in a leader.”

            One of the dumbest arguments I’ve read on this site.

            And what an odd argument coming from someone who constantly criticizes Mike Gillis. Wasn’t he a NHL veteran a some point?

        • DJ_44

          People who endlessly defend Gudbranson and MDZ because of imaginary ‘grit’ and ‘toughness’ astonish me, when we have a defense that has been consistently one of the worst in the league and when neither of them have done anything to make it any better while drawing higher salaries than Hutton.

          I have not read comments about grit or toughness or too many in defence of Gudbranson or MDZ. They are both better players, and compete harder than Hutton, and it is not even close.

          Lose the millennial syndrome of eye-rolling when facts are presented. Blaming others or the “yeah but what” are a tell-ale symbol of lack of responsibility. Grit is another word for compete level. Do not give up, work hard. Vegas got the the SCF basically on the back of grit and toughness. Having some Canucks adopt that sense of responsiblity would be a significant improvement.

          • TheRealPB

            Why is this the hill the two of you are willing to die upon? I don’t engage in mindless anti-Canucks bashing or trolling. I think Tanev, Edler and to a lesser degree Stecher have all been solid-to-good despite the poor outcomes. There is no way I think the same of Gudbranson or MDZ (or Hutton or Biega for that matter).

            Get off your high horse. I’m not a millennial. And I’ve been a Canucks fan for long enough that it is entirely insulting that you speak of these players in the same breath as compete level — for a team that has finished in consecutive years as one of the worst defensive squads in the league. I’ve seen plenty of tough, skilled and ‘gritty’ defensemen ply their trade for the Canucks — guys like Snepsts, Ohlund, Bieksa, Diduck, Mitchell, Lidster, Babych, and I’d add Edler to the mix. Not all of them fought but they were tough in the corners, tough on the puck and exhibited all of the traits that you prize. I prize them too. But there is no evidence — NO EVIDENCE — that either Gudbranson or MDZ are any of this. Ben Hutton might not be a picture of hard work, determination and grit. But neither are they. This has nothing to do with whether or not I have played in the NHL or have been in management. That is an asinine straw man argument to make. It’s that neither of these players are anything of the ideal you are imagining.

          • Bud Poile

            MDZ is a placeholder.Cost was nothing.
            Guddy is another placeholder.Cost was a kid everybody disliked.
            MDZ and Guddy will be turned over for picks as fast as possible.
            If Hutton resurrects his career the same will apply.
            The .org has to play them to garner returns.
            It’s not a hill to die upon,it’s business.
            Welcome to a franchise that has to develop it’s depth chart from scratch.

      • Cageyvet

        I think he has better mobility than you give him credit for, but that mobility isn’t evident when he makes poor reads and decisions. I hope he bounces back, but he made more than enough mistakes to be parked behind any veteran who has brought it, at whatever level, for more than one season. His fate is in his own hands, assuming he survives until camp.

    • Rodeobill

      lol. Hutton sucks! No Guddy sucks! Not a really good side to jump in on this one, although this debate has been brewing for it seems a long time, honestly I don’t know how it ever came to an either/or one. Both are overpaid for what they haven’t brought to the team, Hutton is soft and has less grit than the CA comments section, Guddy doesn’t see the game and is slow, neither have really shown anything to make me believe they are going to grow into part of the core, but who knows? Maybe the right chemistry with someone will happen, or they will just out of nowhere figure out something and mature in a way that brings their game up, I mean Sbisa didn’t look bad on the knights last year, but he sure didn’t have a good following here. Seems like we are fighting over which topping on pizza is more gross, olives or pineapple when it is actually both. They may be good under different circumstances, but not on pizza, and never together.

      Also, we should never blame each other for being armchair GM and coaches, that’s the whole reason we are here! I think it should be assumed that we are not in the know and our opinions are just that. We should be grateful to be able to blab and connect with like minded people over the state of our team without getting personally attacked or taking the dialogue to that level, trolls are trolls and you see them easily and just pass them by, but I am glad to engage in discussions here with informed and articulate commentors regarding the state of my team and its players.

  • wojohowitz

    The real puzzle with the defence is that five or six years ago it was the strength of the team with names like Hamhuis, Bieksa and Garrison. Benning decided to replace these solid veterans with players like Sbisa, Gudbranson, Clendenning and Del Zotto. The guys Benning let go went on to play elsewhere like their careers were not over while the players he brought in have mainly been questionable.

    The conclusion is Benning may be an excellent amateur scout but as a scout of professional players he really seems to lack something. It just seems to be a very odd lack of judgement for someone who has played defence for many years.

    • To be fair to Benning, I don’t think he was wrong in letting Bieksa, Garrison, and Hamhuis leave – Bieksa and Hamhuis had been a fantastic #1 pairing but both were over 30 and on the decline, and Garrison was in the same boat but peaked as a 2nd pairing D/power play specialist. Where Benning erred was in not getting decent return for these players. Ultimately he lost three solid defencemen and all he had to show for it was two seasons of Linden Vey.

      • Bud Poile

        Gudbranson was retained with the 2nd round pick for Bieksa-26 years old.
        Hamhuis-36 years old.Career over.
        Bieksa 37 years old.Career all but over.
        Garrison 33. AHL’er.
        The only quibble was the loss of Hamhuis and that is well documented.
        All three of these players are out of the NHL or all but gone.
        Gudbranson is young and an asset for trade purposes.
        Vey is young,still playing pro hockey and was a bet that didn’t work out.
        To be really fair(and honest)Benning cut loose three vets at the end of their careers and got back reasonable returns on two of the three.

        • Sometimes I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally dishonest or you just can’t think clearly.

          Yes, three to five years after these players were moved, they are now old and have little value. At the time they were moved (or left) this was not the case. Garrison had two strong years in Tampa after leaving Vancouver. Had the Canucks waited for Garrison to rebound from injury, they could have acquired much more than a second round pick for him. The Hamhuis non-trade was a disaster, Hamhuis will be 35 at the start of next season, he was playing top-four minutes this past season and is likely to return next season. His career is far from over. Only the Bieksa trade is passable.

          The point is, Benning moved out valuable, decent players for peanuts on the dollar and brought in at best mediocre players to replace them. He’s consistently put the team in a worse position, both in on ice performance and in terms of asset management, when it comes to the Canucks’ defence.

          • Bud Poile

            The Hamhuis non-trade was a disaster for Botchford and you,apparently.
            For anybody else that was paying attention it was Dallas playing us to get Hamhuis for nothing.
            Hamhuis is a UFA and nobody wants him.His career is likely over.
            Benning moved out two has-beens and Garrison (which was no loss and freed up cap space).
            Bieksa 0 goals. Hamhuis 3 goals.Garrison-AHL.
            Get over your hate,dude.

          • Bud Poile

            Juice:2016 2nd
            The Panthers sent defenseman Erik Gudbranson and a 2016 fifth-round pick to the Vancouver Canucks for center Jared McCann, a 2016 second-round pick and a 2016 fourth-round pick.

        • TheRealPB

          Can I ask you if you genuinely believe that Gudbranson and MDZ are good players? Do you think they have delivered grit or leadership or on their potential? I really don’t understand your defense of Gudbranson in particular. It cannot be on the basis of the possibility that he can be flipped in a trade. If that’s the measure then we’ve already lost given the assets we already gave up.

          I think Benning had a tough set of choices when he came in. The D-corps were Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Tanev, Edler, and Stanton, with Weber, Corrado and Alberts as the backups. Alberts retired, Corrado got lost on waivers (and had his career ruined by the Leafs antics), Bieksa and Hamhuis were on the wrong side of 30, Tanev was young, Weber was so-so, Stanton was destined for the AHL, and Edler and Garrison were ostensibly in their prime. A bunch of those guys had big contracts and no-movement clauses. It wasn’t easy to move them out, but Benning did. The problem is that he hasn’t really had good replacements for them. Part of that is on the previous regime leaving a disastrously empty cupboard (even more than should be the case with a good contending team). But part of it has to be on him and poor pro scouting. He moved out guys who were old and slowing down but who did he replace them with? MDZ, Sbisa, Clendenning, Bartkowski, Pedan, Larsen, Biega, and Gudbranson. The only decent D he has added have been Hutton (not his pick and I know someone you don’t care for), Stecher and Tryamkin.

          The money given to MDZ, Sbisa and Gudbranson is basically the same amount (a little less) than for Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison. So yes, Benning got out from under those boat anchor contracts and got some bodies back, but those bodies have simply been not good. It’s not like we have a better defense without them. There weren’t good replacements in the pipeline and he didn’t add any.

          You could argue that the Canucks would have been better off simply playing Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison for 3 more years, had Edler, Tanev and Corrado as the younger partners and had all the grit and leadership that you might want. It wouldn’t have cost you any more and while we might not have been any better than we are now it is hard to think we would have been much worse.

          • Cageyvet

            You’re not wrong, but I think on the overall balance JB gets too much criticism, for one major reason. The important thing fir this franchise was to rebuild a wave of young talent. You can say it’s been too slow, not enough picks, some questionable picks, etc. but you can’t say he’s traded away any top-shelf prospects or picks. Pro scouting and contract payments and term are sore spots, to be sure, but those are errors I can live with, and hope for continued improvement. Freaking out over the fan’s expectations and fear of getting fired and dumping the future for aging veterans is what we could have seen, but he’s stayed the course. Other than McCann, who has he sacrificed that makes you cringe? McCann would be a 2nd tier prospect in our pool right now, and I’d trade Guddy back for him tomorrow, but we kept our top picks and made some hay from the crappy finishes. You can always criticize, and I’d agree with many points I’m sure, but I am excited for the future so he can’t be all bad.

          • TheRealPB

            Cageyvet, I agree with you, I think that it’s no mean feat to not simply restock the Canucks prospect pool, but to actually create one. I am trying to think of the last time we had anything like that. It’s not just the Gillis era, I am trying to think of the last time I remember the Canucks had as many exciting young prospects as now. In 2002 and 2003, we netted ONE player; admittedly Kesler, but that’s from 21 picks. When you think about how the current teams win, with mostly draft picks cultivated in-house, you realize what a different world we live in from even our SCF run, where it’s basically the Sedins, Edler, Raymond, Bieksa, Kesler, Hansen, and Schneider. Each of the last few rebuilds has been fortuitous to have the same kinds of bets that Benning made — swapping picks and prospects for young pros who hadn’t made their mark — pay off (Naslund, Bertuzzi, McCabe, Morrison, Salo, Lapierre). We haven’t had that luck.

            I don’t even so much mind the trades for the Gudbransons, Sbisas and Sutters (as you say, the real cost of them has NOT been that high; a 2nd rounder always looks better in theory than most Asplunds and Mascherins do in reality). I even think that Benning has shown a decent eye for UFA offensive players (Vanek and Vrbata in particular). It’s the D that I don’t get, as well as the bottom six forwards. For a defenseman himself, I don’t really understand it.

            It’s not my money and I don’t necessarily care right now in terms of cap implications. But I do find it odd when you are trying to build a competitive team and a developmental pipeline to potentially block movement upwards for so many younger players with those who do not have much in the way of offensive potential. I completely agree that had we been sacrificing prospects for aging vets in trades would be a disaster, but we are at this point trading development time (for say a Dahlen, Goldobin Pouliot, Juolevi or Virtanen) for the dubious mediocrity of a lot of these vets.

          • TheRealRusty

            We could have gone with the Bieksa, Garrison & Hamhius route, finished bottom 5 AND kept all the assets that we gave up to acquire Gundy + Clendening…

        • Braindead Benning

          I may have the controversial name on the Canucks board. However, at least I can say that Old Jimbo has done some good moves along with the terrible… all
          You do is wave the Pom poms and contradict yourself on a daily basis