I definitely agree that this team will have a top 10 pick. But please explain why Ottawa who is all but guaranteed to be at the bottom of the barrel this year would give up a 2nd for Sutter when they’ve been talking of rebuilding.

This is a sentiment many Canuck fans have shared and its a flawed thought. The Canucks aren't close to being a contender, they have way too many holes to fill before they will even be a playoff contender. Most noted, they currently lack a franchise elite centre. Can Petterson be that guy? Maybe but he still has to prove he can play in the small ice of North America. Secondly they only really have enough talent to fill out 2 scoring lines and have an utter void of skill in the bottom 6. Also the defence is a joke until Hughes plays.

So with all that in mind, the Canucks should keep building up. Tanev has value that will be declining each year. The closer he gets to be a 30 year old UFA stay at home defenceman the lower his trade value will be and it will be a bad signing for a developing team to put 6 million into a 30 year old defensive defenceman. So trade him while you can get good futures for him.

why do you always insist every team needs a "franchise elite center" to contend? Look at Vegas, look at MTL in 2015, theirs plenty of examples of teams that contend every year that don't have "franchise elite" centers. I also don't see anywhere is this post where he says Vancouver is going to contend lol...

Name a team that won a cup without very good to great centre depth. That should answer your question. Centre ice is the most important position in hockey. The closest stanley cup winning team in this era without great centres was Boston who still had Bergeron and Krejci. As for your examples William Karlsson is coming off a 40+ goal season, that is pretty well elite centre production. And as for Montreal, when did they win the cup last? They haven't been a contender since and won't be again until they have centres.

so we went from being a contender to winning the cup? you said "The Canucks aren't close to being a contender, they have way too many holes to fill before they will even be a playoff contender. Most noted, they currently lack a franchise elite centre" so lets talk about being a contender. What's your definition of being a contender? because being a contender and winning the cup are two completely different things.

If you are okay with contending for a playoff spot being some sort of accomplishment then this convo will go no where. In my opinion you aren't a contender unless you are contending for the cup. Otherwise you can be Montreal, a team that has been marginally successful at being good enough to make the playoffs rather consistently but not good enough to do anything once there.

So what do you want for the Canucks? Being good enough to challenge for the playoffs but not good enough to do much once there? Or do you want them to be an elite team that can reasonably expect to go deep in the playoffs? I'm of the mind that if you aren't good enough to compete for the cup, you just aren't good enough.

Unfortunately with the ownership that the Canucks have i highly doubt that Tanev will get traded. If the Canucks would trade Tanev, they might have a better chance of getting the 1st overall pick, which would get them an franchise elite centre in Jack Hughes

They still have a great chance of landing that. Even with Tanev, the Canucks defence is terrible and their bottom 6 is a joke. If Petterson is just okay in his rookie year, the canucks will have trouble scoring in a huge way. Only Boeser and Horvat are proven offensive players on this team.