I stumbled across a conversation on the radio recently that included a statement similar to, “the Canucks can’t replace Jim Rutherford and Patrik Allvin after they traded Quinn Hughes.” And something along the lines of “they have to have a chance to take the next steps after this franchise altering move.”
Ummm, actually they don’t, and those two concepts, the trade as a transaction in and of itself, and whether management stays or not, are mutually exclusive. I believe I heard the comment repeated three times in short order.
Canucks management’s collective track record and ownership’s trust in whether or not the club is headed in the right direction have everything to do with whether or not they stay.
First of all, it doesn’t matter to me which direction the team goes, I don’t have a dog in the hunt and it’s a decision outside of my pay grade. But I do know that trading Hughes has nothing to do with whether or not management sticks around in the near or distant future. The fact they had to trade him because the team fell apart and he wanted to leave, definitely would be reason for termination, but the fact they made the trade, as an act itself, and the fact there’s a lot of work to be done, doesn’t earn them anything.
It makes no sense and that’s not a logical argument.
Let’s find a comp’.
The first huge trade of this millennium is somewhat similar. On November 30th, 2005, Boston Bruins general manager Mike O’Connell shocked the hockey world and traded captain Joe Thornton to the San Jose Sharks for Wayne Primeau, Marco Sturm, and defenceman Brad Stuart.
O’Connell was fired less than four months later on March 25th, 2006. He had been on the job since November of 2000, a similar time frame, slightly longer, than that of the Canucks Rutherford and Allvin.
It turns out the deal changed the Bruins franchise for the better. I’ve always argued in favour of it because it was addition by subtraction. Obviously Thornton was a Hall of Fame worthy performer, but he wasn’t a captain, or at least a captain the Bruins franchise needed at the time.
The deal freed up money for fellow 2025 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Zdeno Chara. The culture around the club went from laissez faire to hard core responsible the very next season.
O’Connell was out despite winning two division titles and making three trips to the playoffs in four seasons. What would have been his fifth full season was wiped out in 2004-’05 by the lock-out. Ironically, it was Bruins ownership who’s strategy backfired coming out of the work stoppage, not O’Connell’s.
The Thornton deal actually became an excuse — the mood afterwards was horrible and the Beantown natives were restless — and O’Connell was the scapegoat.
The Canucks current situation is different in that management has played a big part in the implosion. What exactly has worked for them thus far and what hasn’t can be argued in detail at a later time, but the Hughes deal wasn’t addition by subtraction. Check back on his replacements in five years.
They moved him because he was yet another player who wanted out of Vancouver under their watch.
76-year-old Rutherford said upon arrival and more than once along the way that he wasn’t here for a rebuild. Well, guess what. He’s more than likely gonna be here for a Canucks rebuild, but it’s not because he deserves a chance to see what happens next because he traded Quinn Hughes.
NOTES:
— The big difference between the two trades: Thornton was blindsided and wept after hearing the news. Hughes wanted out as soon as possible and obviously knew it was coming.
— Marco Sturm is the current head coach of the Bruins.
— A behind the scenes look at the Thornton trade is included here. It’s a short excerpt from the book “No Heavy Lifting – Globe Trotting Adventures of a Sports Media Guy”.
Earlier Canucks:
— Canucks Sherwood Deal Was Premature
