also what bullshit about the "proven right" part. the rule is that hindsight is only permitted by "benning critics" if it verifies their hypothesis. examples of hindsight proving them dead wrong are rejected in favour of their original take being right at the time.
that happens all the time like, i don't know, yesterday, when i was discussing benning's trade record since 2017.
Hindsight applies when predictions are made that specific actions will turn out badly, and then they do. I think the two trades that could be debated would be the Miller one (which I think in the end was a great trade for value, though most people who debated that one were more about whether it's a move we should be making now or focusing on building for the future), and the Toffoli trade, and there again most of the critics of the trade were against it largely because of whether we'd have room to keep him, less so the value of the trade, and that prediction turned out sadly true.
Other things like that we'd regret Myers is obviously true, that we'd regret Pearson I think is true but room for debate, and as much as people might want to "move on" from talking about Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel, that's not fair since those three signings were damned at the time, defended by Benning defenders, and now we're in a position of having to trade away assets and take on an anchor of a contract and still having trouble for long-term deals for our stars AND likely to lose one of Miller/Boeser/Horvat.
Toss in the idea that Holtby's contract was silly (and we bought him out, so I think that speaks a lot to how valuable that is), and calling out the "but hindsight" and "let's move on" is fair and IS relevant because it speaks to the credibility of these same defences of Benning and the legitimacy of whether or not Benning should be given the benefit of the doubt.