Losing a single contract slot to someone who may not play a game of NHL is poor management, and while trivial, these types of decisions can cumulate into something a lot worse later on down the road.
That's pretty unrealistic of an expectation though. Every player signed to a contract that hasn't yet played "a game of NHL" *may* not. In fact the opposite is very much true...to have a successful organization you're going to HAVE to allot a percentage of your contracts to players that have no shot at a game of NHL. I don't think that's a controversial statement.
At the end of the day, it's pretty inconsequential as it costs nothing but a contract slot but you have to wonder if there are better gambles out there.
Problem with "better gambles out there" is there's no guarantee you land them. There's potentially 30+ teams (the + being a Europe/KHL fall back for some UDFAs) bidding on a given asset. You can take a prospect like Sautner and say "well, other options exist" but those other assets aren't promised in anyway.
I believe you have to take a shotgun approach to signing UDFAs. Throw enough ****** hockey players against a wall, something will stick. Of every 10-15 UDFAs signed over a 3-5 year period you might get, what 2-3 that contribute at the NHL level, a few more that contribute at the AHL level (from a season long tryout to being a productive piece).
Benning saw something worth taking a chance on, and they added a piece for practically nothing. I'll take my standard position on added prospects and give him a couple years. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If he becomes a contributor for Utica it's a good signing. Anything more, bonus. Anything less, *shrug*.
