Of course it's calculated, but calculated to achieve his goals and not yours.
At the time of those deals he was trying to fill in this age gap and bring in young players to bolster a flagging roster, and you could make a case for each of those deals.
Vey as a young player caught in a numbers game, trying to crack a deep Stanley Cup calibre roster. Good AHL performer.
Pedan stuck in a very deep New York Islanders system with physical tools for days.
Clendenning trying to crack a deep Stanley Cup calibre roster in Chicago.
You can mark two of those down as pro scouting fails, so that's on Benning and whoever told him those players were good.
I supported the Pedan acquisition then and fully understand it now, even thought it didn't work out. If that kid had been a hit, he would have added a huge element to the defence.
The thing about chatting on message boards is, we have zero idea what is going on behind the scenes, so we form concrete opinions based on speculation and our own biases.
So I'll do that.
I believe Benning took the job knowing ownership expected him to keep the Canucks in the playoffs. Probably not the way he wanted to go, but he wanted control of his own NHL team and signed on, believing he could succeed.
Clearly he couldn't succeed. I don't know many GMs who could have. At some point there seems to have been a tangible shift in the thinking of ownership/management and I believe Benning is now doing what he would have wanted to do in the first place, enduring a handful of down years to re-stock the prospect cupboard.
You can argue about his signings, the Gagners and Erikssons, but if you do you have to concede that a roster consisting entirely of young players is not conducive to good development.
There does need to be some level of insulation, and these players he's signed may have been signed as much for their work off the ice as their work on it.