So you would have given multiple years to an injury prone defenceman on a 35+ contract (and more salary than he's ever earned), kept a player that would have likely been lost on waivers after another poor training camp, and continued to groom a player in a 3rd line role after he'd verbally requested more icetime despite being behind a Hart/Art Ross winner and a Selke winner in the depth chart?
We don't hear Detroit losing their prospects to waivers for nothing, or their prospects complaining about ice time. Detroit does love keeping their aging players around on multi year 35+ contracts though, I'll give you that's an area where the Canucks differ from them.
In terms of Salo: If there was not a suitable replacement? Absolutely yes. If Garrison is supposed to be his replacement then the coaching staff needs to start using him as it. Because 35+ or not, this team misses Salo.......
Would Detroit have let Ehrhoff leave? Under any circumstances? Would they have let Hodgson get that disgruntled? Would they have miscast players to the extent the Canucks do?
No, and that is why they can actually make their "model" work and Vancouver can't. That and the fact that the coach wants to do things his way even at the expense of what makes sense given his personnel.
Edited by wallstreetamigo, 07 March 2013 - 04:46 PM.