Opinion on Mike Milbury?
I think when someone says "Benning is a moron" they don't mean he's actually a moron, but that on the scale of "compete GM to moron GM", he's a moron GM. My sense of him is that he's smart in an intuitive hockey sort of way, but he's ill equipped to handle the challenges of the modern NHL (cap system, advanced analytics, etc.). He also seems stubborn. But I'm not going to explain my nuanced stance on him every damn time he does something stupid. Why would I?
My point about Lack is that you keep saying it was a bad move to sign Miller. I assume, then, that you think it's a bad move to keep him over Lack, but you're resigned to accepting it is the status quo. I get not wanting to complain about it, but arguing that it makes sense/Benning is competent repeatedly means you come across as in favour of these moves. What's the point of arguing against them so vociferously?
I'm also not arguing that the value for Lack should be higher. I'm arguing that if the value for Lack is what it is (mid 2nd), there's not much value in trading him, particularly if Benning wants to make the playoffs next year. It seems that when people defend Benning they'll point to his mandate to win now and to his building for the future interchangeably to defend different moves, which makes him nearly infallible. It's an irksome practice.
To be perfectly honest, I'd be fine if the mandate was to build for 2017-2018 while trying to compete now if the "compete now" moves were
good moves. But they're not -- and that leads me to believe that when he gets to 2017-2018, he'll be making the same mis-evaluations when it matters. That's process, and it's why I care about his contracts now, whether they'll effect the team during a rebuild in 2019 or whatever.
