What interests me about this question is how you even determine the skill of a GM. I found
this article from ESPN ranking the top NHL GMs. ESPN is notoriously bad for their hockey coverage, but I wanted to see what they said. They wrote the article around the deadline last year.
They have Bergevin as one of the two worst GMs in the league, along with Chiarelli. Obviously, Bergevin’s in contention for GM of the year this year, and he’ll probably win barring a ‘critical-failure’ meltdown by the habs.
What I found more interesting was the inclusion of Jim Rutherford in the top tier. Jim Rutherford built the Carolina Hurricanes, but they’ve yet to find success. It’s his work with the Penguins, inheriting Malkin and Crosby along the way, that apparently earned him top-tier honors.
But, if you look at the body of work in Pittsburgh, I’m not sure everything Rutherford touches turns to gold. He made some good trades, and some bad trades, but really there’s only a few key trades that matter in terms of helping win back to back cups. That's what I ended up focusing on for the majority of this post; how teams at different stages of development trade, and how those trades shape their futures.
Trading James Neal for Patric Hornqvist was Rutherford’s first move and it’s a good one. Hornqvist is cheaper, younger, and doesn’t give up all that much in terms of production. Even better, Nashville no longer has Neal, but Pittsburg has retained Hornqvist. Hornqvist has scored about fifty points every year in Pittsburg, and Neal has only scored more than fifty points once since the trade. All in all, a homerun success for Rutherford and the Pens in hindsight.
One move that I think is more questionable, but not necessarily a sign of bad management, is the trade for Lovejoy. Pens gave up the younger Despres for Lovejoy, which looks really bad on the surface. Less bad if you consider that perhaps all parties knew about Despres’ concussion problems, which have virtually ended his NHL career since this trade.
Next comes the deal that’s really Rutherford’s claim to fame. He trades Kasperi Kapanen, Scott Harrington, Nick Spaling, Conditional 1st and a 3rd rounder for Phil Kessel, a few garbage depth players, and a second round pick. This is a really good trade, especially with retention on Kessel’s salary. Kapanen looks like a player, but the rest of the pieces there are replacement parts. Toronto traded that first (30th) and it became Sam Steel.
Later that month, Rutherford victimized the Vancouver Canucks by trading impending RFA Brandon Sutter for Bonino, a decent prospect in Clendening (at the time), and a second round pick. The Penguins have no room for a middle six center making almost five million dollars, so they shipped out Sutter and got a cheap replacement in Bonino, a second rounder, and (at the time) a good prospect out of it.
Later on he made moves like trading for Hagelin. Picked up Schultz and Oleksiak for two fourth rounders. Those were shrewd moves.
These moves set up the Penguins for back to back cup wins and everyone toasted Rutherford on his success. Most of the major pieces of the Pens that won the cup were already there. Matt Murray, Crosby, Letang, and Malkin were all there. Of course, adding depth is important, but I’m not sure you can say Kessel won them the cup himself. He did it in part with the high-end pieces already there.
He also made the, IMO, questionable move of trading a first and Oscar Sundqvist for Reaves and a second. Although, the trade looks better in the big picture. Reaves then got moved on in that three-way deal that netted the Pens Brassard.
Rutherford’s a very active GM in trades, and how he did in the draft doesn’t even come up because it’s irrelevant. The Penguins aren’t being built through the draft. He took a team with a very strong foundation and built it into a bonafide champion-quality team by making shrewd trades to acquire guys that filled roles he needed. The Schultz and Oleksiak trades stand out, where he added two everyday NHL defensemen for two 4ths, one condition.
To compare with Benning, let’s now look at a rebuilding team that rose to the top in the Toronto Maple Leafs. I’m starting in 2015 with the hiring of Lou Lam.
First trade Lou Lam made was to ship out five garbage depth players for Michael Grabner. Next, a five-player trade with Ottawa, both ways, that includes Dion Phaneuf and his disgusting contract. Toronto doesn’t get much value back, only big name is Jeff Cowen, but they do get a second round pick. Next, they ship out Matthias for a fourth. After that, Spaling and Polak to the sharks for Raffi Torres, another second rounder and another fourth.
They pick up a third second and a third fourth by shipping out Winnik and Reimer.
In June of 2016, the Leafs trade out draft picks for the first time after stockpiling them. They trade a first and a second for Freddie Andersen. A very strong trade in hindsight. I think one lesson here is, if you’re going to trade first and second rounders, you NEED to get quality roster players back. If you mess that up, bad news.
Everything else, the Leafs achieved through the draft. Now they’re looking like a team with a bright future. Obviously, signing Tavares helps but they were trending upwards before that. Only one trade was made where the Leafs shipped out significant draft picks for a roster player. That’s for Freddie Andersen, and a trade I think most armchair Gms would make again in hindsight.
This brings us to everyone’s favorite problem child, Jim Benning. When you look at the prices being paid to acquire value, there’s a stark difference between Rutherford, Lou Lam, and Benning. Rutherford picks up roster quality players in exchange for dust. Lou Lam only trades significant draft picks for what will become his number one goalie.
Let’s look at GM Benning’s major acquisitions, and I note as soon as I open his transaction history that he’s been in charge longer than either Lou Lam or Rutherford, starting his job in 2014.
His first transaction is to trade Jason Garrison, someone called Jeff Costello, and a seventh to Tampa for a second rounder. That looks like Lou Lam’s approach, ship out veterans for picks. Next, Benning trades a third for Dorsett. That doesn’t look like either team’s history of moves, except for maybe Rutherford’s ill-conceived notion that Reaves is worth a first. At no point did the Leaf’s give up a third-round pick during Lou Lam’s tenure.
Next, we have what is without a doubt the worst trade any of these three GMs made. A third rounder and Ryan Kesler for a first rounder, Sbisa, Bonino, and a third. Benning gave up a high-end second line center for a first and third essentially, Sbisa being a replacement level defenseman and Bonino getting shipped off not long after for a middling six center in Sutter. This is just bleeding quality from the roster. There’s a parallel between the Canucks trading Kesler and the Penguins trading Sutter. Kesler was a far superior player to Sutter at the time of the trade, but Sutter returned fairly similar value in a top d prospect, a cheaper, cap-controlled center, and a second rounder. Considering how late Anaheim’s pick was destined to be, not so different in value. Overall, an underwhelming return for a player like Kesler.
That’s when things start getting really ugly for Vancouver and Jim Benning. A second rounder for Linden Vey is another terrible trade. Lou Lam has no parallel moves on his resume, he built his team through the draft which meant trading for picks, not trading picks for replacement level players. Linden Vey’s not playing in the NHL anymore. Next, we have another head scratcher, where the Canucks trade Alexandre Mallet (second round pick) and a third-round pick for Andrey Pedan. Pedan’s not in the organization anymore. Again, you just don’t see this during Lou Lam’s time in Toronto. He trades players for picks, not picks for players who never make the NHL.
Next, we have a trade that drove me nuts when it happened. Forsling for Clendening. I liked Forsling more back then, and considering he’s played in the NHL while Clendening looks like a bust, I’d say I was right. Another trade where we’re just bleeding value. You can’t trade a young defenseman like that and not get a roster player or eventual roster player back. I’d sure prefer Forsling over Pouliot on our team right now.
Then Benning trades a second for Sven Baertschi. Again, Lou Lam just didn’t do trades like this. He traded players for young projects, never picks, except in the case of Andersen. I don’t mind this trade as much as some of the others, just because Sven at least still plays with the Canucks, but that second rounder became Rasmus Andersson who’s looking like a player. Another defenseman I’d take on the Canucks in a second.
Finally, the Canucks acquire a third and seventh by shipping out Eddie Lack to Carolina. This is a year into Jim Benning’s tenure and he’s traded away as many picks as he’s stockpiled. We also acquire a seventh for McNally, a nothing deal, and a second for Bieksa, which isn’t bad at the time considering KB looked to be on his last legs.
After this, we ship out a fifth with Kassian for the honor of dressing Brandon Prust. Bleeding more picks for replacement players.
Finally, the Sutter deal. We ship out Bonino (so a significant portion of the Kesler return), Clendening (forsling), and a second rounder for Brandon Sutter and a conditional third. This trade is terrible for the canucks. We’re giving up another second round pick, the dregs left over from Kesler, and our only decent defense prospect at the time for Brandon Sutter; a middle six center with a high cap hit.
Of course, we haven’t given up enough draft picks so we package former first round pick Nicklas Jensen and a 6th rounder for Emerson Etem. Giving up another late pick for a player who’s not with the Canucks anymore.
That’s not enough tho, we trade another fifth rounder for Philip Larsen, another replacement level player who’s not with the canucks anymore.
I actually like both the Dahlen and Goldobin trades. These seem to match the moves made by Lou Lam more closely, giving up vets for quality prospects. Despite the fact neither of these guys has been a home run, I think the moves were good in theory.
After trading a third for Pedan a few years back, we package Pedan and a fourth to pick up Derick Pouliot. Again, we’re bleeding draft picks here to plug a hole we wouldn’t have had if we just held onto Forsling.
Next, Benning makes a bunch of small trades for Leipsic type players. We do pick up a sixth in the recent Nilsson trade.
In summary, I wanted to point out the different roles of trading between a championship contender and a rebuilder/bubble team. Lou Lam dealt draft picks carefully, and always made sure he got a surefire roster player in return when shipping one out. Rutherford traded picks more willingly, and he picked up some quality for basically dust. Benning ships out draft picks for players who might, someday, if we’re lucky, become roster players. This is why so many of his trades look terrible in hindsight. He’s a river gambler who bets on replacement level players showing unexpected upside.
I personally think our drafting’s been much improved under Benning when compared to Gillis, but it’s a complicated question. How much of that is picking higher in the draft and how much of that is Benning? I do think the way he trades second, thirds, and fourth-round picks for non-roster players is terrible. It’s a good way to bleed your roster dry.
I don’t think Benning’s the worst GM in the league, but based on his trades alone, he’s definitely in the conversation. I do think that Benning would be better suited to running a contender/boarderline championship team like Rutherford given his tendency to trade draft picks. I don't think he's a good fit for a rebuild.
