topheavyhookjaw
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2008
- 3,601
- 0
Meaning, two cores were put together without solely relying on drafting. It can be done.
The presence of a salary cap matters a lot here. 1/3 of the league wasn't financially competitive so developed talent flowed out to the bigger markets consistently. Not sure there's a good post-cap example of a team not built in draft that's a consistent contender (maybe boston?).
This is exactly it. Pick frequency was a significant issue during the Gillis regime. It's remained an issue during the Benning regime. Only, Benning's NHL team is nowhere close to being as good as the one Gillis had to support.
Yes, unless you consistently win the best 'free' assets (undrafted UFAs, College UFAs, waivers) it's nearly impossible to accumulate talent without one of either the current roster or prospect pool being drained significantly. Such is live with a salary cap.
With the likely the best NHL record over that span. Put it this way, if Gillis could produce talent consistently from the 1st round, while maintaining a top5 NHL team, Aqua would still be answering questions as to why he was fired.
I think it was cup or bust. MG wasn't graded against the GM options out there, he was graded against the expectations he established.
Does it? having multiple picks gives you a better chance of landing a NHL player, yes. However how did you get those extra picks by trading Nhl players. So the net effect can still be negative. Best would be drafting muliple NHL players with less picks while acquiring good nhl players with picks traded. Gillis did the latter without the former while Benning is doing the former without the latter. Which is still a net positive.
Perhaps true, but Benning has also lost NHL players without recouping picks routinely through UFAs not dealt at deadline, poor waiver management etc.