Satyar Shah

No team success under the Keenan era.

But the thing that Keenan gets credit for is he did pull the plug on the previous core and forced the organization to move forward.

And what he did at the very least was create a group of...

Assets that this organization could capitalize on to move forward in the rebuild.

So it makes the Trevor Linden trade, makes other trades, creates a bunch of assets for the team that Brian Burke takes advantage of to put it forward into the West Coast Express era and a far better era of Canucks hockey that ensued afterwards.

So I think in terms of us viewing...

the Jim Rutherford era as being successful, it would have to be down the road when we look at it and say, was that at least the impetus to start off the new era?

Because the actual execution of the tenure has been a failure.

Yeah, but we don't call the Mike Keenan era successful because of what transpired thereafter.

That's what I'm saying.

It wasn't successful, but the one thing you would look at and say, at the very least, it kickstarted a rebuild.

At the very least, you pulled the plug and you moved forward and you did have a clean slate moving forward towards a new era of hockey.

You weren't stuck in no man's land.

It was a very decisive, okay, we're now rebuilding.

We're now moving in a completely different direction.

And that's what this organization has needed.

Now, I'm not giving them credit for falling into that position because they failed.

Yeah, to failing into it.

But that's the way I view it.

We might look at it, I'd say, maybe more positively because of the byproduct of what happened in the end, not because of the era itself was successful.