That's Mike Gillis explaining the trade that sent Shane O'Brien to Nashville. Is this a case of him bullshitting to the media, or was this really "a playing decision"? To recap, O'Brien was recently put on waivers, but since he's an absolute pile of suck, no one bit on his $1.6M salary. The Canucks, obviously, didn't want to pay that much for an AHL defender, so they found a trade for him, sending O'Brien along with Dan Gendur, to Nashville for Ryan Parent and Jonas Andersson, two one-way contracts that David Poile simply didn't want. For Poile, "Ryan Parent and Jonas Andersson" was a fairer price to pay - $1.6M in guaranteed money, the exact same amount owed to O'Brien - than "nothing". Now, here's the thing. This trade isn't saving the Canucks any money (or cap space) at all. In fact, Parent has a second year on his contract, which means the Canucks take on a bit of money for 2011-12. Further, both Parent and Andersson have already been waived by the Canucks and are likely headed to Manitoba. The Canucks could have easily done the exact same thing with O'Brien. So why the trade? My feeling is that Gillis preferred "nothing" to the package he got, but agrees with my assessment that Ryan Parent is a better and cheaper player than O'Brien today and provides some nice depth for the Canucks in case of injury. Andersson also provides the Canucks better depth at forward than Gendur. In the end, I think this trade is a bad one for Poile who has added a player of negative value, and an upgrade for Gillis. Nonetheless, I'm sure Gillis regrets ever qualifying O'Brien over the summer.