Maybe the best part is that Eriksson aside that is what he decided to do with the Sedin retirement cap space.Remember when we had a $12 million 4th line of Beagle, Roussel, and Eriksson? They really helped build a winning culture here.
Anyway from Nonis to Gillis to Benning and now onto Allvin it should really make clear all the nonsense that came up during the Benning regime. First more my own thought that you can give credit here and there for assets on a team but that's always going to accrue naturally. You're always going to get a new set of picks each year, and our proverbial potato could functionally run a team.
So to the point what really separates good teams from bad is good management. And good management is not just how you draft players and make trades, but top to bottom how you run the organization from management to coaching. For the Canucks to get out of our Benning funk it wasn't a matter of accumulating enough assets, but instilling proper team structure through good coaching and making a few effective tweaks to the roster.
I think what it really boils down to is the people running everything tend to all come from the pool of former players and doesn't require any further education or specialization. Like I implied above, day to day decisions running an NHL team can be made with a potato baseline. So that leaves you with a pool of managers where you can anywhere from have good/competant (Gillis, Allvin), to poor/mediocre (Nonis), to out right terrible/incompetent (Benning) people running your team.