There is nothing "on the fly" about this rebuild. We've been in the basement three straight seasons, and our prospect pool has drastically improved because of it. It's not rocket science, and not a sign of genius. It's a sign of a bad hockey team being able to pick the better players each season. That Benning has been able to select good players in later positions is a sign of his drafting ability, something few disagree with.Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:00 pmI see no change of plan. Transition =Rebuild on the fly. Same difference.
But his methodology has not changed much from one year to the next. How he managed that philosophy changed based upon the needs from year to year, his approach shifted. But his goals have remained unchanged.
I would say from the time he got here, until the Summer of Loui, you could certainly argue he was hoping for (and working towards) a shorter term turnaround. You don't trade prospects like McCann, target players like Vey with higher-end picks, or overpay for depth players like Sutter if you're working on 5+-year plan. Once the wheels went off the 16/17 season, I think the approach definitely changed.
I think most of the disagreement stems from his desire to accelerate a traditional rebuild by bringing in guys that most felt were just not going to be part of a long-term solution (the Veys, Clendennings, Pedans, Gudbransons). His strategy to fix a perceived "age gap", bringing in quasi-NHL players and trying to pass them off to the season ticket holders as a youth movement never passed the smell or eye test. That he did that while choosing not to stockpile picks that could easily (given his scouting reputation) be more valuable to the team in 3-5 years added to the annoyance. Some will jump in and say "but he maintained a standard amount of draft picks" miss the potential that having 2-4 more picks every year would bring (or chose to ignore it).
Now that his approach has shifted to a more "traditional", patient rebuilding approach, most are satisfied with his performance.