A Fair Criticism of Jim Benning

[SealTheDeal]

41 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Unless if I am mistaken, you were talking about worst GM tenures and comparing the past few years with the entire league, ignoring Buffalo, Edmonton, Arizona.... that's even just the current teams.

 

Hey, if that's not what you were saying then I apologize, but if it was, then I think you need to do your research.

No, my comparison was regarding Canucks GMs only, and in response to a challenge to my assertion that Benning’s tenure has had the worst team performance of any GM in Canucks history. I then made a comment about the favourable strategic position of Tampa which my critic then attempted to misuse in order to discredit my position. 

 

Having read your your most recent posts, I agree with you about many things. Had Nonis and Gillis been able to pick out gems in the late first round, rather than the Patrick Whites and the Jordan Schroeders (or even, shudder, the Cody Hodgsons) the competitive window of the Naslund-core and the Sedin/Luongo core could have been improved. And really, to some degree, one could argue that the Naslund era and the Sedin era overlapped, and but for the lockout and the Bertuzzi fiasco there was only a short time where we weren’t competitive (frankly, it was the introduction of the cap and the re-signing of Naslund to a monster contract when he was not the same player post-concussion, rather than signing Niedermeyer when we had the chance). 

 

I agree that strong drafting is such an important and valuable skill for the franchise that I would support retaining Benning for as long as he can demonstrate skill in this area in the top 20% or so of GMs. As I argued in an early “wall of text” post, one gets more value out of elite play from young players on ELCs, and even upside from RFAs than you can win on a good UFA signing or lose on a bad one. Assume for the sake of argument that Gudbranson was one of the worst of Bennings moves. Was it franchise destroying? Of course not. At worst it made the team worse during a time when they weren’t competitive anyway, McCann is hardly setting the league on fire, and Pearson looks like he may be a useful player for a time. 

 

But its also also possible that Benning has just been lucky with drafting. Hughes and Joulevi could potentially not develop into strong players. Virtanen is looking like a career third and fourth liner - I just don’t see the kind of potential that Kessler had. A lot more of Bennings pics have to work out in the next few years for a competitive window to open, and I think Benning has shown with some of his pro signings that he has the potential for handing out bad contracts. If any of the following happens: his drafting ability dries up, he overpays his RFA core, or he anchors the team with useless RFAs or bad trades, then the future is bleak and we won’t escape the futility of his regime to date. However, there is also a big opportunity here. If he can convince Boeser and others to come in at reasonable prices, Miller and Myers work out, and even some rebound from Eriksson or Beagle to even make them movable, then I think we can get into a strong strategic position relative to other clubs. Would I rather be an Anaheim fan now? No. They need to tank or draft like Benning to get to where we are now in a few years. Do I think Benning is doing a worse job than Dubas? Heck No! Toronto is being taken to the cleaners by over-entitles RFAs, and are going to be a one line team, at least until the cap goes way up. Even then, Matthews will be up for another contract. 

 

The Canucks have an opportunity here to build their core into a perennial contender, and so far Benning has demonstrated the ability to draft well enough to perpetuate that. But Benning has also shown the ability to misread pro talent and anchor the team with bad contracts. It will be fascinating to see how this year goes. 

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, SealTheDeal said:

No, my comparison was regarding Canucks GMs only, and in response to a challenge to my assertion that Benning’s tenure has had the worst team performance of any GM in Canucks history. I then made a comment about the favourable strategic position of Tampa which my critic then attempted to misuse in order to discredit my position. 

 

Having read your your most recent posts, I agree with you about many things. Had Nonis and Gillis been able to pick out gems in the late first round, rather than the Patrick Whites and the Jordan Schroeders (or even, shudder, the Cody Hodgsons) the competitive window of the Naslund-core and the Sedin/Luongo core could have been improved. And really, to some degree, one could argue that the Naslund era and the Sedin era overlapped, and but for the lockout and the Bertuzzi fiasco there was only a short time where we weren’t competitive (frankly, it was the introduction of the cap and the re-signing of Naslund to a monster contract when he was not the same player post-concussion, rather than signing Niedermeyer when we had the chance). 

 

I agree that strong drafting is such an important and valuable skill for the franchise that I would support retaining Benning for as long as he can demonstrate skill in this area in the top 20% or so of GMs. As I argued in an early “wall of text” post, one gets more value out of elite play from young players on ELCs, and even upside from RFAs than you can win on a good UFA signing or lose on a bad one. Assume for the sake of argument that Gudbranson was one of the worst of Bennings moves. Was it franchise destroying? Of course not. At worst it made the team worse during a time when they weren’t competitive anyway, McCann is hardly setting the league on fire, and Pearson looks like he may be a useful player for a time. 

 

But its also also possible that Benning has just been lucky with drafting. Hughes and Joulevi could potentially not develop into strong players. Virtanen is looking like a career third and fourth liner - I just don’t see the kind of potential that Kessler had. A lot more of Bennings pics have to work out in the next few years for a competitive window to open, and I think Benning has shown with some of his pro signings that he has the potential for handing out bad contracts. If any of the following happens: his drafting ability dries up, he overpays his RFA core, or he anchors the team with useless RFAs or bad trades, then the future is bleak and we won’t escape the futility of his regime to date. However, there is also a big opportunity here. If he can convince Boeser and others to come in at reasonable prices, Miller and Myers work out, and even some rebound from Eriksson or Beagle to even make them movable, then I think we can get into a strong strategic position relative to other clubs. Would I rather be an Anaheim fan now? No. They need to tank or draft like Benning to get to where we are now in a few years. Do I think Benning is doing a worse job than Dubas? Heck No! Toronto is being taken to the cleaners by over-entitles RFAs, and are going to be a one line team, at least until the cap goes way up. Even then, Matthews will be up for another contract. 

 

The Canucks have an opportunity here to build their core into a perennial contender, and so far Benning has demonstrated the ability to draft well enough to perpetuate that. But Benning has also shown the ability to misread pro talent and anchor the team with bad contracts. It will be fascinating to see how this year goes. 

Then I probably misread and I apologize. Anyway...

 

Referring to your 4th paragraph, the one thing I can say about this is we could argue any GM has been lucky and, really, to say luck's not involved at all would be kind of silly. This goes even beyond drafting. Maybe Benning's been unlucky with free agents. Maybe he's looking in the same places that successful GMs are looking at but just falling short. There are so many factors involved that it would be impossible to truly know all of the moving parts, and this is with any GM. We just don't know what goes on behind the scenes; therefore, do we actually even know what makes a successful GM in the end? Oh how I'd love to be a fly on the wall at times; alas, I have arms and legs and have to settle for typing on a laptop in a forum about it.

 

So, since figuring out what is lucky and what isn't is almost like trying to figure out what celebrity will go crazy next, the next best thing is to simply base on what's been done and what isn't. Is it fair? Probably not, but how else are we able to discuss things? But, I think, no matter what view one has, the very fact that we only have the facts of what's happened most of time really makes it difficult to put luck into the equation.

[RowdyCanuck]

I'm a Benning supporter......but looking at his drafting( which is his best feature) drafting Jake meant a change coming....

Boeser is a great pick can't complain but fell to Jim at the draft

OJ is a pick I cant really say anything about because he hasn't played in the nhl....

Petey....got to give Swedish scout gradin credit (I think that's how you spell his name) total gamble and paid off.....

Hughes....fell to him but still a ? But great skill though

VP....he fell to Jim also....

now if you look at his high picks Jake OJ and Petey...I would say he hit one home run for sure( other two could change that) now if you compare his ufa signing....you could say Jim doesn't do well with lots of options/ money to spend...

His lucky in a lot of ways...

 

[SealTheDeal]

15 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Then I probably misread and I apologize. Anyway...

 

Referring to your 4th paragraph, the one thing I can say about this is we could argue any GM has been lucky and, really, to say luck's not involved at all would be kind of silly. This goes even beyond drafting. Maybe Benning's been unlucky with free agents. Maybe he's looking in the same places that successful GMs are looking at but just falling short. There are so many factors involved that it would be impossible to truly know all of the moving parts, and this is with any GM. We just don't know what goes on behind the scenes; therefore, do we actually even know what makes a successful GM in the end? Oh how I'd love to be a fly on the wall at times; alas, I have arms and legs and have to settle for typing on a laptop in a forum about it.

 

So, since figuring out what is lucky and what isn't is almost like trying to figure out what celebrity will go crazy next, the next best thing is to simply base on what's been done and what isn't. Is it fair? Probably not, but how else are we able to discuss things? But, I think, no matter what view one has, the very fact that we only have the facts of what's happened most of time really makes it difficult to put luck into the equation.

I agree. It’s my only explanation for how Benning has been able to read draft pics so well, but trades and FAs not so well. He’s had some good luck at the draft and some bad luck at the lottery and in trades. Or maybe bad timing? Bonino is nothing special for us but a major contributor on a Penguins cup run, and an asset for years. Sutter languishes. 

 

Its really hard to tell if Benning is an above average or below average GM, or if on the whole he has been luckier than unlucky. I think the law of averages suggests we should know soon, because it’s about time his second round and later pics should start to make a contribution, and we can see if Joulevi, Virtanen, and Hughes are the real thing, or if Boeser and Pettersson are all Benning delivers. That should allow fair judgement of his drafting. The Bowser contract will be critical in terms of demonstrating that he can get core players signed to reasonable contracts, and the Myers signing and Miller trade will be a fair test of his pro scouting. 

 

But what if if he gets some right and others he completely fumbles?

 

A fascinating year is ahead. 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, SealTheDeal said:

I agree. It’s my only explanation for how Benning has been able to read draft pics so well, but trades and FAs not so well. He’s had some good luck at the draft and some bad luck at the lottery and in trades. Or maybe bad timing? Bonino is nothing special for us but a major contributor on a Penguins cup run, and an asset for years. Sutter languishes. 

 

Its really hard to tell if Benning is an above average or below average GM, or if on the whole he has been luckier than unlucky. I think the law of averages suggests we should know soon, because it’s about time his second round and later pics should start to make a contribution, and we can see if Joulevi, Virtanen, and Hughes are the real thing, or if Boeser and Pettersson are all Benning delivers. That should allow fair judgement of his drafting. The Bowser contract will be critical in terms of demonstrating that he can get core players signed to reasonable contracts, and the Myers signing and Miller trade will be a fair test of his pro scouting. 

 

But what if if he gets some right and others he completely fumbles?

 

A fascinating year is ahead. 

Indeed. To put another twist on things. Maybe we'd be talking about Sutter being instrumental in the Penguins cup runs had that trade not taken place while Bonino gets thrown under the bus here. It might sound far fetched at first but consider that to say the Penguins have been a better team than us the last few seasons would be a huge understatement. I like to think players tend to play better on better teams. There's obviously other factors on top of that like where each player fits on a team, as well as star players will be start players and produce anyway, but playing on a worse team, generally means you take on a bigger role; perhaps a role bigger than what you can handle.

 

But then it once again comes down to what we see: a Bonino that's won cups and a Sutter who's (probably unfairly) thrown under the bus.

 

My hope this coming year is that we compete for that playoff spot. Even if we just come up shy, I think it shows we are ready. On a random note, I think we have a better shot at 3rd overall in the Pacific than we do the wild card spots (the central is that brutal right now), but that's a debate for another time!

[RowdyCanuck]

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Indeed. To put another twist on things. Maybe we'd be talking about Sutter being instrumental in the Penguins cup runs had that trade not taken place while Bonino gets thrown under the bus here. It might sound far fetched at first but consider that to say the Penguins have been a better team than us the last few seasons would be a huge understatement. I like to think players tend to play better on better teams. There's obviously other factors on top of that like where each player fits on a team, as well as star players will be start players and produce anyway, but playing on a worse team, generally means you take on a bigger role; perhaps a role bigger than what you can handle.

 

But then it once again comes down to what we see: a Bonino that's won cups and a Sutter who's (probably unfairly) thrown under the bus.

 

My hope this coming year is that we compete for that playoff spot. Even if we just come up shy, I think it shows we are ready. On a random note, I think we have a better shot at 3rd overall in the Pacific than we do the wild card spots (the central is that brutal right now), but that's a debate for another time!

Bonino is a better center ....pens also won a cup with Staal...they play similar games and one could say Sutter was the weak link....the puck dies on his stick...I've never understood that trade and never will.

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Bonino is a better center ....pens also won a cup with Staal...they play similar games and one could say Sutter was the weak link....the puck dies on his stick...I've never understood that trade and never will.

Even with Sutter though, the Penguins were still in the playoffs and winning their division. It was just them not going as deep in the playoffs that was different. Does one player on a 3rd line really make that big of a difference, or is it just because we made that trade that makes it seem like Sutter made the team worse?

 

Or, and here's a twist for you, maybe it was Kessel's production instead that put them over the top and Sutter might have been able to help in those cup runs in his own way.

[RowdyCanuck]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Even with Sutter though, the Penguins were still in the playoffs and winning their division. It was just them not going as deep in the playoffs that was different. Does one player on a 3rd line really make that big of a difference, or is it just because we made that trade that makes it seem like Sutter made the team worse?

 

Or, and here's a twist for you, maybe it was Kessel's production instead that put them over the top and Sutter might have been able to help in those cup runs in his own way.

Having bonino that is a way better play maker does help.also yes one player can change a line when their a play making center ..now you have three lines that score and also hbk line had balance.Sutter always made that line a shut down line....

I'm not saying Sutter made the Canucks worse but his also not going to help develop a player like Jake or Guad...so let me ask you this do you think Kessel would have been as good as he was with Sutter as his center?

Sutter style of play belongs on a forth line playing with vets to shut the other team down.....

might add sutter never played the pens style and didn't  their GM traded him twice? I think cause he knew he was over rated and couldn't win a cup with him..

[The Lock]

9 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Having bonino that is a way better play maker does help.also yes one player can change a line when their a play making center ..now you have three lines that score and also hbk line had balance.Sutter always made that line a shut down line....

I'm not saying Sutter made the Canucks worse but his also not going to help develop a player like Jake or Guad...so let me ask you this do you think Kessel would have been as good as he was with Sutter as his center?

Sutter style of play belongs on a forth line playing with vets to shut the other team down.....

might add sutter never played the pens style and didn't  their GM traded him twice? I think cause he knew he was over rated and couldn't win a cup with him..

It's hard to say really. Perhaps the entire line combinations would have been different had Sutter been in instead. Perhaps a different trade would have been made which would have allowed Kessel to score all the same. There's a lot of factors there.

 

Being honest, I think perhaps you're jumping to conclusions here with Sutter's trades. Many good players are traded more than once and I don't see it being fair to base a player's skill on how many times he was traded. I mean look at Hamilton. He was traded twice too, but actually looked pretty good in Carolina (minus a few defensive deficiencies here and there). 

 

EDIT: Had a brain fart and took the last sentence out.

Edited July 8, 2019 by The Lock

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

Benning is building a team that is balanced through the line up.  We have depth down the middle, strength in goal and the start of a solid defence with Hughes and Juolevi.  Their drafting in the mid rounds has been impressive as well.  

His mistake with Eriksson definitely has hindsight.  Eriksson has been a very consistent scorer throughout his career.  Sometimes it just doesn’t work in one place.  Kind of like the Flames found out with James Neal last year.

I think JBs biggest fault has been overvaluing his teams need for veterans to guide his team.  And his willingness to overpay these guys.  Dorsett was a good fit but Eriksson, Sutter and Beagle have been overpaid and under delivered.  His young stars in Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes are all leaders and good human beings.  Let’s give them the reins already.  And not handcuff our future with bad contracts with long term. 

 

I hope JB is around to see his build through because they are still 1-2 years away.  

[RowdyCanuck]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

It's hard to say really. Perhaps the entire line combinations would have been different had Sutter been in instead. Perhaps a different trade would have been made which would have allowed Kessel to score all the same. There's a lot of factors there.

 

Being honest, I think perhaps you're jumping to conclusions here with Sutter's trades. Many good players are traded more than once and I don't see it being fair to base a player's skill on how many times he was traded. I mean look at Hamilton. He was traded twice too, but actually looked pretty good in Carolina (minus a few defensive deficiencies here and there). Also, if the same GM traded him twice, doesn't that also mean the Penguins wanted him back at one point?

I agree it is hard to judge what could have been....

im not saying his value is bad....also hurricanes drafted him and traded him to the pens for J staal( good haul I might add I think they got a pick too) at the time Rutherford was their GM then Rutherford went to the pens and traded him to us....I would agree but when the same GM keeps trading you kinda says something if you ask me....

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, Bubble Man said:

 

welcome back @TheGuardian_

[ilduce39]

If we stay relatively healthy with Pettersson-Horvat-Sutter-Beagle I think people will understand what JB was doing when he spent money on those bottom 6 C-men... our bottom 6 is going to be a pain to play against when you add in guys like Jake, Gaudette, Motte and Roussel.  

 

Motte and Roussel are 10+ goal guys and Jake and Sutter are more like 15+ goal guys over 82.  Gaudette’s ceiling isn’t known at the moment... I could even see him C’ing a line with Sutter on the wing for face offs.  Could be a better blend of playmaking and shutdown D.  

 

In any case, I don’t agree when people rattle off Sutter and Beagle’s salaries like it’s 7 mil of wasted cap.  Those guys are useful players... and to find veteran bottom 6 C’s you might be able to cut some corners but they ain’t going to be free.

[Honky Cat]

1 hour ago, SealTheDeal said:

No, my comparison was regarding Canucks GMs only, and in response to a challenge to my assertion that Benning’s tenure has had the worst team performance of any GM in Canucks history. I then made a comment about the favourable strategic position of Tampa which my critic then attempted to misuse in order to discredit my position. 

 

Having read your your most recent posts, I agree with you about many things. Had Nonis and Gillis been able to pick out gems in the late first round, rather than the Patrick Whites and the Jordan Schroeders (or even, shudder, the Cody Hodgsons) the competitive window of the Naslund-core and the Sedin/Luongo core could have been improved. And really, to some degree, one could argue that the Naslund era and the Sedin era overlapped, and but for the lockout and the Bertuzzi fiasco there was only a short time where we weren’t competitive (frankly, it was the introduction of the cap and the re-signing of Naslund to a monster contract when he was not the same player post-concussion, rather than signing Niedermeyer when we had the chance). 

 

I agree that strong drafting is such an important and valuable skill for the franchise that I would support retaining Benning for as long as he can demonstrate skill in this area in the top 20% or so of GMs. As I argued in an early “wall of text” post, one gets more value out of elite play from young players on ELCs, and even upside from RFAs than you can win on a good UFA signing or lose on a bad one. Assume for the sake of argument that Gudbranson was one of the worst of Bennings moves. Was it franchise destroying? Of course not. At worst it made the team worse during a time when they weren’t competitive anyway, McCann is hardly setting the league on fire, and Pearson looks like he may be a useful player for a time. 

 

But its also also possible that Benning has just been lucky with drafting. Hughes and Joulevi could potentially not develop into strong players. Virtanen is looking like a career third and fourth liner - I just don’t see the kind of potential that Kessler had. A lot more of Bennings pics have to work out in the next few years for a competitive window to open, and I think Benning has shown with some of his pro signings that he has the potential for handing out bad contracts. If any of the following happens: his drafting ability dries up, he overpays his RFA core, or he anchors the team with useless RFAs or bad trades, then the future is bleak and we won’t escape the futility of his regime to date. However, there is also a big opportunity here. If he can convince Boeser and others to come in at reasonable prices, Miller and Myers work out, and even some rebound from Eriksson or Beagle to even make them movable, then I think we can get into a strong strategic position relative to other clubs. Would I rather be an Anaheim fan now? No. They need to tank or draft like Benning to get to where we are now in a few years. Do I think Benning is doing a worse job than Dubas? Heck No! Toronto is being taken to the cleaners by over-entitles RFAs, and are going to be a one line team, at least until the cap goes way up. Even then, Matthews will be up for another contract. 

 

The Canucks have an opportunity here to build their core into a perennial contender, and so far Benning has demonstrated the ability to draft well enough to perpetuate that. But Benning has also shown the ability to misread pro talent and anchor the team with bad contracts. It will be fascinating to see how this year goes. 

I've never gotten the vibe that Benning has gotten 'lucky' with drafting..He seems to be in his element in that regard...The Petterson pick demonstrated to me that they have an absolute order in mind (and its not what the Canuck fanbase is thinking either),and that ,as fans, we don't really have anywhere near the intel the scouts do.

 

 

[SealTheDeal]

41 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

I've never gotten the vibe that Benning has gotten 'lucky' with drafting..He seems to be in his element in that regard...The Petterson pick demonstrated to me that they have an absolute order in mind (and its not what the Canuck fanbase is thinking either),and that ,as fans, we don't really have anywhere near the intel the scouts do.

 

 

I’d like to agree, because if a franchise drafts well consistently that alone can make up for a lot of mistakes. Still, while Boeser and Pettersson alone make Bennings drafting look good, it’s a bit too early to put Hughes in the same category just yet (just as it’s still a little too early to call Virtanen and Joulevi busts). Much should be revealed this year, at least as far as Hughes, Guadette and Demko go. I think with Boeser and Pettersson alone Benning has earned a bit more time at the helm, and certainly goodwill from the fan base which seems to be giving him if not fanatic support then at least the benefit of the doubt.

[Honky Cat]

1 hour ago, SealTheDeal said:

I’d like to agree, because if a franchise drafts well consistently that alone can make up for a lot of mistakes. Still, while Boeser and Pettersson alone make Bennings drafting look good, it’s a bit too early to put Hughes in the same category just yet (just as it’s still a little too early to call Virtanen and Joulevi busts). Much should be revealed this year, at least as far as Hughes, Guadette and Demko go. I think with Boeser and Pettersson alone Benning has earned a bit more time at the helm, and certainly goodwill from the fan base which seems to be giving him if not fanatic support then at least the benefit of the doubt.

Everything will be revealed this year..and there's a good portion of the fanbase (and media) that detests Benning...I hope it works out for Benning,but at the end of the day..It will all come down to the results .

 

..and Jim Benning has been at the helm for 5 years, and you really cannot expect a fanbase to have more patience for longer than that.

[Bubble Man]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

welcome back @TheGuardian_

Nope, actually didn’t even know he was banned. 

[Jester13]

7 hours ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

Benning is building a team that is balanced through the line up.  We have depth down the middle, strength in goal and the start of a solid defence with Hughes and Juolevi.  Their drafting in the mid rounds has been impressive as well.  

His mistake with Eriksson definitely has hindsight.  Eriksson has been a very consistent scorer throughout his career.  Sometimes it just doesn’t work in one place.  Kind of like the Flames found out with James Neal last year.

I think JBs biggest fault has been overvaluing his teams need for veterans to guide his team.  And his willingness to overpay these guys.  Dorsett was a good fit but Eriksson, Sutter and Beagle have been overpaid and under delivered.  His young stars in Horvat, Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes are all leaders and good human beings.  Let’s give them the reins already.  And not handcuff our future with bad contracts with long term. 

 

I hope JB is around to see his build through because they are still 1-2 years away.  

I think this is also only something we can say in hindsight.

 

Benning had a plan in place with a timeline in mind. The veteran players he signed were expected to mentor and shelter for the duration of their terms. Then Brock came in and had a Calder year; then Petey came in and had a Calder and #1 centreman year; essentially... Poof! Rebuild timeline has sped up at least two years. The instant success of those two guys was unexpected by everyone around, so I don't fault Benning for some of his veteran signings.

 

Having said this, I would love to see JB unload Sutter, LE, maybe Tanev, etc. for picks to restock and create cap relief. He has historically been strapped by players' contracts that were not of his doing, but now it's his time to unload some guys that he's signed to their contracts, so it will be interesting to see what he can, and will, do. 

[vannuck59]

32 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I think this is also only something we can say in hindsight.

 

Benning had a plan in place with a timeline in mind. The veteran players he signed were expected to mentor and shelter for the duration of their terms. Then Brock came in and had a Calder year; then Petey came in and had a Calder and #1 centreman year; essentially... Poof! Rebuild timeline has sped up at least two years. The instant success of those two guys was unexpected by everyone around, so I don't fault Benning for some of his veteran signings.

 

Having said this, I would love to see JB unload Sutter, LE, maybe Tanev, etc. for picks to restock and create cap relief. He has historically been strapped by players' contracts that were not of his doing, but now it's his time to unload some guys that he's signed to their contracts, so it will be interesting to see what he can, and will, do. 

I think that the plan is to unload LE and Tanev at least . Having said that the roster will change as the prospects move vets out not one of us knows or can predict the roster outcome. JB job is to make this team a cup winner ,baby steps. 

[Bubble Man]

39 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I think this is also only something we can say in hindsight.

 

Benning had a plan in place with a timeline in mind. The veteran players he signed were expected to mentor and shelter for the duration of their terms. Then Brock came in and had a Calder year; then Petey came in and had a Calder and #1 centreman year; essentially... Poof! Rebuild timeline has sped up at least two years. The instant success of those two guys was unexpected by everyone around, so I don't fault Benning for some of his veteran signings.

 

Having said this, I would love to see JB unload Sutter, LE, maybe Tanev, etc. for picks to restock and create cap relief. He has historically been strapped by players' contracts that were not of his doing, but now it's his time to unload some guys that he's signed to their contracts, so it will be interesting to see what he can, and will, do. 

Benning won’t trade anyone for just picks. If history repeats itself he will receive a waver eligible forward and probably send a pick the other way. I’m not trying to be a troll, that’s just what he does.