This is a blue print for how to become the Edmonton Oilers.
Well, nobody has done that and how do you know that it's a blueprint? It has never been done with this type of management in the history. Most of them tear down by shipping out their veterans who is performing for returns that do not pan out can become Edmonton Oilers at any time. Nobody has tried rebuilt on the fly strategy. If this succeed, I'd bet you that other teams will try that strategy. There are too many teams to attempt a rebuild route and longer route than ever before. If you bottom out in 20 team league, you can rebuild faster but not in this era where it will be 31 teams and rebuild could take 20 years rather than 5-8 years as done in the past.
Toronto failed because they didn't have older Sundin to do that and the Canucks has signed him and in the meantime, the Leafs' attempt didn't work out. Right now, the Canucks do have enough veterans, to attempt such things and this things will work itself out because it teaches their young players how to be a professional and play for the team rather than individualism in this league to be successful with their past performance and carry them through. By the time they retire, the young players will become veterans themselves and entering their prime years is their goal for now.
If I see a team is in going through a rock bottom year, I'd offer my aging top veteran a top dollar for a year or two-year contract just to keep things afloat while developing my prospects in the minor should be the way to go to prevent an Edmonton Oilers. If I say top dollar, I mean, 8-10 million a year where my superstar is unlikely to bolt to other team. If I offer him 5-6 million dollars a year, then he is more likely to play for a cup contender during his UFA for same term. That is the wise business to give us some time to keep this afloat. Calgary should have offered Iginla 10 million a year to keep him in Calgary and to give the Flames time to develop properly. The ship has sailed and Calgary will struggle for a few more years.
In what world do you wait to analyze a manager if the one thing he may be doing well takes 3-5 years to properly analyze and is largely a crap shoot? So it doesn't matter what he does with the roster in the present, the key factor to whether he should be fired or not rests on waiting 3+ years to see if guys like Brisebois and Lockwood become NHLers?
Seems like some of you have fooled yourself into thinking this way, that become Gillis was good at everything but drafting then as long as Benning can draft well that's all that matters?
Most NHL GM's (good ones and/or bad ones) don't get 7 years. That's just reality.
Ken Holland is one of a few example where it has some kind of continuation from a scout to assistant GM and GM of the Red Wings. Another example, an expansion team from other sport, coach for Dallas Cowboy, Tom Landry went through a few losing season to a Super Bowl Champion. You need some kind of patience and sadly, nobody has patience for that kind of project in this business.
In today's era, drafting has been the key for all teams and a good drafting teams will have excess assets to do a trading business. The Canucks has paid premium and unload any assets for nothing because they are scraps and they do not have anything to offer. So Benning has some creativity to trade for players he wanted, Sutter, Dorsett, Sbisa, Baertschi, Grundlund and is not afraid to make moves to make this team look better in due time. Once this foundation has been set for a few years, he will keep his draft picks just to build excessive assets to get superstar players he wanted. You need excessive asset so that holes won't be created by trading markets. Once his draft picks is ready to replace, he can then trade Dorsett when the 4th line is looking good. Honestly, since his injury, the 4th line has looked good with two AHL call-ups. Sbisa is a stop-gap and has looked good with Tryamkin to get his asset value up for another trade when one of his other assets in the minor is ready to replace them guys like Subban, OJ, Brisebois or even Pedan ready to replace him. You don't want to rush those guys in the fire so this is a right move.
Goalie situation wasn't poor.
Edler who's still our top or number 2 defenseman
Chris Tanev
Bo Horvat
Ben Hutton
Dan Hamhuis (what's this BS about being sad and homesick?)
Jason Garrison (who only wanted to play in Florida after he was traded by Benning without being asked to waive his NTC)
bundles of cap space
Not saying he left Benning in the same situation that he received, but let's not act like Benning had nothing to work with. Meanwhile, if Benning's fired this season, the next GM will have a huge problem with the turd contracts Benning has signed.
Gillis regime had 6 years and all of his draft picks don't pan out except for two, Gaunce and Horvat. Even if he is able to assemble a cup contender roster in the short years but his greatest failure is ability to draft in latter rounds, even his top 10 pick in Hodgson is a bust. Gillis has left us without a suitable replacement to his core. He did not handle the Luongo situation well and imo was the main reason he was let go by the huge pressure from the fan base.
Benning has done a good job rebuilt on the fly with his defensive core and secondary scoring is beginning to show up for this team. All they need is to score the first goal to have a good chance on winning consistently and they have came back 6 times already even if they didn't have the benefit of playing with a lead for almost a whole season so far.
It is not Benning's fault that Sedin has not produce for them and has lost a step. What is he supposed to do when his first line is not doing a good job. For example, an open net shoot in which Sedin elected to pass? Is it his fault that the Canucks was not able to produce goals? Is it his fault that Rodin is not able to step in the line-up? Is it his fault that Tryamkin showed up in the camp out of shape? Is it his fault that Benning has inherited too many players with NMC/NTC contracts which handcuff ability to negotiate with few teams with a fair trade? If you are in his shoes dealing with this NTC/NMC, you'd be frustrated with this negotiation session with other teams and accept the lesser trade value otherwise you'd have a cancerous locker room.
If I see Benning's draft picks who are not in NHL yet is performing and even improved his craft elsewhere gives us hope that they will pan out within 2-3 years. If I doesn't see any improvement in their performance, then his draft picks are high likely becoming a concern.
So far, it is not a big concern on his drafting. Because of his pick, Tryamkin is a wrecking ball with some smart in his game. Because of Benning's honesty, Stecher chose to sign with us. Eriksson may be a bad signing because of his slow start but once he get going, he will finish the year with 20-25 goals and might even surprise us with 30 goals despite his slow start. Because of his negotiation, his contract could be friendly with NMC/NTC in each year and gives us room to trade him late in his term. If Demko is playing with lights out in Utica, then that's a better news for our goaltender situation when Miller's contract comes off the book.
There are many "what if" here in that I wouldn't jump to conclusion after 3 years. 5-7 years would be the best way to judge a GM, rather than 3 years.