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.
I'm not sure that the traditional concepts of 1st line, 2nd line, 3rd line, etc really apply to this team anymore.
IE - in a season or two we could see something along the lines of Sedin playing 18 minutes per game, and Sutter, McCann & Horvat all playing around between 14-16 each depending on specialty teams, line-matching, zone starts and the like. If Sutter is still playing 15+ per game, playing against the other team's top lines and shorthanded, while potting 20+ goals, he is getting the going rate for said contribution.
I think you've answered my rebuttal for me when you state "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." Even if McCann makes the team this year, or were to next year, the team still needs a centre capable of eating up those hard minutes. This will free up Horvat and McCann to contribute more offensively. Would be a win-win, just as Malhotra freed up Sedin and Kesler offensively prior to his injury.
The thing I think you are forgetting in your assessment is that the Sedins may retire in a few years - thus the team would have 3 top 9 centres locked up in Horvat, McCann and Sutter. The Canucks were wisely planning for the post-Sedin eara with his contract which is why I am ok with it.
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.
I guess here is where we differ - I see this has a mistake (one that could still work out, even if that is highly unlikely). I do not see it, as so many around here do, as damning evidence of some sort of lack of inability or incompetence. Every GM makes a mistake here or there, or tenders a bad contract. I view this in isolation as opposed to confirmation of a broader judgment regarding Benning.
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.
Not going to comment on the individual trades as they've been discussed to death, but the team just finished a 100 point season. They've also looked great out of the gate to the start of this season, so the evidence for Benning improving the team would be the on-ice results of those trades. Which indicate that team is improved.
I agree that it is far too early to tell regarding the Sutter deal - so I don't think it's accurate to state that others have overtaken him on the depth chart. He was moved to the Sedin line to give McCann a look imo.
We can revisit the Sutter / Bonino comparison at the end of the season, but I suspect, and will even go out on a limb and predict, that Sutter will come out on top.
