We're not talking straight probability here. We're talking wildly unpredictable weighted probabilities.
And in that market...Benning has basically managed to tread water on the whole so far...with key results pending?
...If one of these guys rings the bells as a key contributor in the NHL...that's a win overall, even if the whole rest of the slate chip in only a few bits here and there and mostly bust out completely.
I take "tread water" as something different from "skirting the win/loss line pretty well". The latter infers more wins than losses, instead of collecting 'maybes'. Which is why I asked you to provide examples of those 'wins' (skirting the line well).
I see more losses than wins. More sub-50% moves to this point. That's why he's getting critiqued as hard has he is.
And no, I don't agree with the premise that 1 hit absolves every other poor gamble, or makes that a win overall. Each gamble on its own has to be justified. If one hits, great. However, if 9 fail while 1 hit, that ratio just cannot be ignored or absolved away. (And it won't be)
Great, you thought the Garrison trade was poor...based on ONE YEAR of results.
...the Tampa side...that's just going to get worse from here.
Ummm yeah: When a top4 Dman goes for relative peanuts, that's a poor trade outright. Period. Poor value that cannot be altered. His great year this year only confirmed that misread.
Further, how do you know it's going to get worse from this exact point? He can't stay level for a few years a top4? He's 30 yrs old.
In this particular context as applied? Essentially...it's the acceptance of reality. For example...That when trades happen, they happen because they're awfully darn close to what two parties will agree on. That a perceived difference in value might not always be completely down to something as basic as "used car salesman negotiating prowess"...and is in fact often times, simply a case of a player being traded for what a player is worth.
Precedent in the fanbase and media as a "consensus" is an extremely dangerous thing to rely on. Rarely does it seem to align with the reality. Each team values its own players over others...it's natural. But it can also be very misleading, and often ends up being completely removed from what "actual values" are in trade for example.
I'm talking about precedent in the majority of past trades. The actual transactions. People are critiquing Benning because his execution fell well short of those seen in past transactions. That's where the media and fans derive their expectations: Past record.
From the above, it seems like you're not understanding what a non-sequitur is. The 'reality' is all the trades have occurred. That's the execution. The value garnered is different from the execution though, and here in lies the problem with your logic: A poorly executed trade does not reverse apply poor value to the asset prior to the trade.
Two parties agreeing on a trade does not mean that each GM has properly valued their assets in that trade.
It is fair to critique along the way. And i've been quite active in that...
But that's a far reach from condemning an entire regime one year in based on the critiques of individual moves, independent of the "overarching goals".
Frankly, i didn't particularly like either of those moves. I would've kept the better and more proven goaltender in Lack as i said many times. I would have hoped for and tried to press for a more futures-based return for Kassian. But there is still plenty of reasonable logic behind these moves that i can accept and see how they play out...even if the "value" was very disappointing and poor.
What a strange position to take. You disliked the deals, felt value was "very disappointing", but above you say don't worry about value and said player went for what they were worth...?
These individual moves add up. It's the culmination of these moves that has me critiquing Benning right now. Condemn the whole regime? No. Otherwise, I would not say that he needs to improve. I would be saying, "get him the hell out of here ASAP". But so far, he's fallen well short of the mark.
That's not my definition of the world "knowledgeable", that's the apparent consensus here.
No, it's your perception of what the consensus is saying. Like I said, arsmaster doesn't have this issue. I respect his opinion and think that he offers keen insight. He's not a 'stats guy'.