I don't really think Sutter was a 'huge cap blunder'. Neither was Miller or Dorsett imo. All three players are getting paid what comparables make. You may disagree with the need for such a player (ie veteran starter, 4th line pugilist, shutdown 3rd line C), but don't think you can claim those contracts are anything more than standard for the players, or type of players, involved.
IMO Sutter was a huge cap blunder because he was targeted by Benning to fill a top-6 role - and we can see he's just not that player. With Horvat in the system, the logical reason for getting Sutter would be to ease his transition into the top-6 , where Sutter could slide to the 3rd line when Horvat was ready. Horvat's already shown he's ready and there is no doubt at all that he's higher on the depth chart already over Sutter. Still the mistake happened when he extended him early - without seeing his fit in the lineup at all - to a long-term deal that will keep him at top-6 salary as he continues to fall down the depth chart.
Even without the surprising fast development track demonstrated by McCann, surely he would have been expected to earn a top-9 spot over the next 2 to 3 years. Yet Sutter gets a 5 year extension, so for the next 6 years he's tied up to a $4.375mill cap hit, and will likely be a 4th line center within a year or two (some could argue he's there now) - a position that can be filled at minimum wage. That's 3 and half million that could be spent elsewhere to improve the roster - like getting a legitimate top-6 winger instead of plugging your defensive center in that spot and hope he learns offense finally.... or adding that fourth top-4 dman that this team still badly needs.
The reason why it was a huge blunder IMO was because the long-term ramifications of the contract, with the options you already had developing in place, doesn't justify the player or contract given. I agree Sutter could have been worth that on the UFA market, and giving it to him specifically isn't a contract blunder. But targeting a player who gets that type of contract, at center-ice, with the options you have (and the holes elsewhere), and then giving him a deal which will keep him here at that contract over the next 6 seasons, while better younger talents will need another contract - may 2 or more - before that is off our cap, is a huge blunder.
Agreed on Miller. I would have personally gone with Lack, as a cheaper younger option to get us through the next few years, but Miller's term doesn't impact this team's cap situation.
Dorsett wasn't a huge blunder, but he's another of the smaller ones, as it's still another overpaid contract. It's not a problem as he's not that overpaid.. but another sign you're still paying too much for a bottom end depth player... still $2.65 for 3 years isn't much to worry about.
Sbisa on the other hand, I would classify as a huge blunder. Particularly because he dished out that contract before the season even ended and seeing him in the playoffs, while he had RFA status and really no leverage at all through a pretty bad season for him. This is a guy who could easily have been just qualified. There was no risk at all to it, and huge savings. He still hasn't proven that he can't easily (emphasis on easily) be replaced by a journeyman player making at or near league minimum.
Again, this just shows his lack of ability here.
There is an admittedly small chance that Sbisa actually becomes an ok bottom pairing defenceman (basically a #5), and that is what he makes. I am optimistic, perhaps naively so. The last few games indicate there is something there. Independently of that all GM's, and almost all good times have a few bad contracts, for whatever reason. Anaheim has Stoner, Chicago has Bickell, Tampa has Carle.
Personally, I'd love to see Sbisa work out. Who doesn't want a physical dman who can skate, and has the tools to help at both ends? He just can't think the game consistently at the pace it's played at. That's why I don't see him becoming anymore than a serviceable bottom pairing guy - like a Bartowski (impact wise, not style wise). And that cap hit for that player again handicaps the team from improving it other areas. Still I hope it just clicks for him eventually... that contract makes him immovable and still a big cap hit if you waive him.
Finally to address the point regarding losing all trades, the losses are so trivial or minor in nature they are irrelevant, at least to me. I am a firm believer in making trades to make your team better as opposed to 'winning' each and every trade. You often have to overpay in regards to the former, however if the on-ice results bear fruit that is the whole point of managing a team. Not making sure you get an extra 3rd rounder of whatever while your team plummets to the bottom of the standings (a la Regier).
I agree in making trades to help improve the team, over winning or getting as much value as possible. Which trades has Benning made that improved this team?
The Kesler trade was forced, so can't fault him for having to make that even if it weakened the team.
So, the Garrison trade? The Vey trade? Clendenning?
Maybe the Sutter deal? Still too early to tell, but seeing as how the very early signs point to an overpaid player who isn't really fitting the lineup as he's moved from his natural position as others overtake him on the depth chart already... I'd say it's not looking great as in a move that actually improved the team.
Maybe the Kassian deal, an improvement by subtraction?
Yes, Benning is losing value in trades, but more concerning for me is that he's not targeting the right guys to spend whatever value he has left. As he continues to deplete his tradeable assets - however slowly - he has less chances to actually make a good trade that improves this team.
Basically I agree with you when you said ... "I am a firm believer in making trades to make your team better as opposed to 'winning' each and every trade." ... I just don't think that Benning has made the trades which have improved this team overall.
