Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:14 pm
Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:50 pm
Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:05 pm
the rebuild that they were attempting, one that tries to remain competitive and has roster players who are vets that can help show kids what it takes to play in the NHL and are still of an age that they might be useful pieces when the team is winning again.
And this, this "re-tool on the fly" concept, is my principle objection to the Benning era. He might have done it as well as it could be done, but it was a foolish plan that cost them resources and time on the real rebuild.
And I remain unconvinced that this was Benning's plan.
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:51 pm
Did he have a choice? No not much of one. Or are you simply choosing to ignore the pressures that were coming from above.
You will note that I said "the Benning era". You may also recall previous posts wherein I was careful to say "the ownership-management group".
But for purposes of this board, the buck needs to stop somewhere. If you go down the ownership interference rabbit-hole, how do you know that any of the bad moves by Gillis, or the good moves by Benning, were not the result of ownership pressure?
("I heard the Aquabros really had a hard-on for Ballard, so Mike negotiated that one with a gun to his head."
"Yeah, but I heard they insisted on drafting Pettersson, so I guess it evens out.")
Truth is, whenever you hear a retired NHL GM talk about the job, they explain that managing the owner is a big part of it. Perhaps a deficiency in this regard is an Achilles heel of an otherwise brilliant hockey executive.
Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:28 pm
While I obviously don't think that Benning can do no wrong, I think that had he come in and loaded up on picks in the first 2 or 3 seasons here, he would have been handed his walking papers and the next guy in would have had to start at square one, so we'd be no better off.
They'd have those extra picks, and the players that came with them, who would be the right age to be part of the new core -- which, while promising, clearly needs more support.
Mëds wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:28 pm
However chances are that some of our draft picks that we are quite happy with would have been much different and we'd be lamenting a continued history of piss poor scouting and drafting.
There's no reason to assume that, if Benning were fired for doing what most of the hockey world could see was right (and the fact that they were saying it may have bought him some indulgence from ownership), the next GM would not have made equally good use of the high draft picks. Heck, even notoriously poor drafter Mike Gillis did OK when he got a top-ten draft pick.
dangler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:06 pm
Never mind the perceived pressure from above. How about all the NTC's he inherited annnnd the Sedins were under contract for a few more years.
Like the dude says, Did he have a choice?
The Garrison trade was sufficient to demonstrate that Benning was perfectly capable of unloading an NTC when he felt like it.
(Interesting note in passing that Garrison went on to have a pretty good season after he was traded.)
Perhaps more important to note that at least one passionate Benning advocate has shifted position from "Everything Benning does is excellent" to "that thing wasn't his fault".