Ok, I think we are getting hung up on draft > trades + signings, so I'm going to take away that crutch from the argument so you and Shirokov don't feel the need to provide a default answer:
In a rebuild, the draft is paramount. OK? Now that this is out of the way, my question is: What does it mean to a GM when we say the draft is paramount? What is his role or job?
Your answer will probably be something like "draft the best players to make the next core". OK, how does he do that? He does it by setting parameters for his head scout. He does it by accruing picks so as to give him the best odds. He does it by liquidating decent/good assets for futures, and he does it by weaponizing cap space. Meaning, the actual selection of the top player is a very minute part of a GM's job --> and it's likely not even him that does it.
So when I say trading + signings are more important than the draft, I'm actually talking about the GM's role ultimately affecting the draft. I'm talking about what he actually does. I'm also talking about what GMs have done to supplement their cores outside of the draft. Nil with Seguin, Wilson with Burns/Thornton, Treliving with Hamilton/Nilsson and so on...
From the GM's perspective, short of making the top pick himself, his role is very limited in the actual draft process.
--
What is not objective about the Potato?
Did Benning serve the draft with a pick deficit? Yes or no?
Missed opportunities accruing tradeable assets: Hamhuis. The key point here is that he has nothing to give up because he's so bad at contracts and trades.
Missed cap space opportunities: Marleau, and countless other instances.
I mean, if you are still unaware about what could have been done, but wasn't, I don't know what to tell you?
Is it your opinion that Benning made the picks himself? Ultimately, he gets credit and discredit for his hits and misses. However, what is his role in those hits and misses? If it is limited, and you acknowledge that it is, then please also point out where he actually has the ability to affect the most change? If it's trades and signings, then you will finally see why I'm saying that 2/3rds portion of his job is more important.
Ok, I think we are getting hung up on draft > trades + signings, so I'm going to take away that crutch from the argument so you and Shirokov don't feel the need to provide a default answer:
In a rebuild, the draft is paramount. OK? Now that this is out of the way, my question is: What does it mean to a GM when we say the draft is paramount? What is his role or job?
I honestly think the reality of this is pretty far removed than what you, me, or anyone could speculate. A professional sports team is a complex organization with lots of people making decisions and lots of moving parts. I dont think it's fair to praise or criticize Benning solely for the majority of the things he gets praised/criticized for. If I had to imagine, the things he's most individually responsible for are hirings and firings, and penning the paper on contracts. I would at the very least hope that there are a lot of people involved in the decisions of a pro sports org worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Benning probably has a larger say than most, and he's the one that actually does the final act and thus I suppose the final say on these matters, but I doubt he just trades players by himself without consulting anyone else in the organization. Most trades take weeks, if not months, to organize and negotiate. He's the one on the phone with other GMs negotiating and asking around, so I suppose I could imagine a lot of the responsibility being on him, but I think its not necessarily a good idea to attribute too much to one individual.
What is not objective about the Potato?
It draws from an incredibly, and I mean INCREDIBLY small sample size with a poor statistical selection. From what I saw on the website, it only draws results from 2014 onwards, and again, too much recency bias means that you do not have the entire careers of players to judge when using the potato. Many players did not reach their full potential (in fact, I'd say that very few do) or even make their mark on the league within 3 or 4 years of being drafted. The potato hasn't even been updated with the 2018-19 season. It also only judges draft picks by total TOI, which is a relatively one-dimensional evaluation for a player. I'd like to see it go much farther back in terms of sampling before I re-evaluate my opinion on it. It's sort of shocking to me that it's gained such an authority around here.
Did Benning serve the draft with a pick deficit? Yes or no?
Stop it. You're being incredibly rhetorically lazy with this. I offered my comprehensive take on this and you wont accept it because it isn't a simple yes or no answer, in a situation that has far more nuance attributed to it. I can only guess you're trying to "gotcha" me somehow, but I'm not humoring this any further. I've already given you my take. Take it or leave it.
Missed opportunities accruing tradeable assets: Hamhuis. The key point here is that he has nothing to give up because he's so bad at contracts and trades.
Agreed on Hamhuis being a missed opportunity - but in terms of tradeable assets? I'm a little confused at this. Shouldn't you be trying to accrue draft picks and young players/prospects in a rebuild, not more trade chips? Again, if we go with your point of logic that the GM should be using trades/signings to bolster his position in the draft - why are you adding extra pieces to the puzzle and trading for assets... to trade for picks instead of just trading that asset for picks in the first place?
Missed cap space opportunities: Marleau, and countless other instances.
If they're countless then you could probably offer more than one. In regards to Marleau - you have to admit that this is a far more grey move than the obvious "yeah we totally should have done it". The reason these cap dumps get serious assets is because they're an awful thing to have on your team. We would be in a pretty dire situation if we had Marleau on our books for the next season. I guess you could say that, well, we overpaid some players in the past and thats why we couldn't take him on, but I just don't think the timing was right. If we want to make the playoffs this year or next taking on a cap dump when we could spend that money on more useful players is a pretty poor choice. The time to do this sort of move was in 2015, and in that regard I agree with you, those moves should have been made in the past - but Marleau was probably not a good example given the circumstances.
Is it your opinion that Benning made the picks himself? Ultimately, he gets credit and discredit for his hits and misses. However, what is his role in those hits and misses? If it is limited, and you acknowledge that it is, then please also point out where he actually has the ability to affect the most change? If it's trades and signings, then you will finally see why I'm saying that 2/3rds portion of his job is more important.
Absolutely not. The process of scouting and drafting a player is a pretty complex process that takes place over a long period of time and with a lot of people contributing to that decision. I mean, we've seen videos of the Canucks drafting process and their draft table. It's pretty foolish to say that Benning has ever made these decisions single handedly, which begs the question as to why he ever shouldered the sole blame for Virtanen/Juolevi in the first place.
It is his job, however, to hire and fire people within that process, and to delegate additional responsibility to people that deserve it. In those regards, I think he's done a pretty good job in renovating our scouting infrastructure to a place where it was improved over the administration that preceded it. Again, this sort of rhetoric of "Benning bad" is not nearly nuanced enough given the reality of the situation.
A good example of a great move Benning made was in hiring Ian Clark to the goalie staff. This is something you can more or less trace back to him (and Linden, I suppose), was a move that was smart and pertinent with Demko coming up the pipeline, was likely a fairly difficult pry from Columbus given Bobrovsky's success, and has begun giving some tentative results with Markstrom. I think it's fair to give Benning credit for that, at least somewhat. I'm also a fan of Travis Green and I think Benning made a good decision to promote him. I'm a fan of a lot of the hires the team the administrative staff has made, and I think it's benefit the team in a pretty evident fashion.
