Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

[me2]

1 If we look at all the Vets on this team. Sedins Vanek Eriksson Sutter Gagner Edler MDZ Tanev. Sedins and Edler don't want to waive. Vanek was traded but he didn't have much value. Gagner and MDZ are stop gap players. Cup contender dont trade secodnary players with term. Eriksson has no value with that contract. Sutter he is overpaid but I would just keep him. Let him play the tough mins and let Horvat and Pettersson get the easier matchup.

2 yes Horvat was here already but Benning is building the team around him. If you look at all the contracts that were signed. Nilsson 2yr term because they expect Demko to be ready in 2yrs. MDZ 2yrs they expect Juolevi to be ready like in year or two. Burmistrov was signed for 1yr because they expect Gaudette to be ready in a year. Gagner was 3yrs. I don't think they expected Pettersson to be this good so fast. I think the plan was for him to come to NA in a few years. So many of moves on what there doing since March 2017 deadline is about letting the young players take over when the stop gap contract ends.

3 I did say we are rebuidling but I never said it was good rebuild. You can't expect a hot Returns for most of the players. Good players don't fall on trees. Also like I said before you need a full roster so you need to get players.

Seem like we are going around circles a little bit. Why don' we just say this it is rebuild but it's just not a really good one. Is that fair?

Benning had little cap space, he had little choice. I've no doubt if a big UFA was around and amenable he'd have thrown all he had at them as he has done consistently. I expect him to do it again this year. If he can't find a UFA I expect him to try and trade futures for a contacted player.

 

[krutovsdonut]

No. Being "irrational" is precisely equivalent to "using bad/unreliable reasoning", regardless of whether it turns out to be right or wrong. However, good reasoning combined with good evidence should always result in correct conclusions, otherwise, it's not actually good reasoning. Something rational can be wrong, but only if the premise was based on wrong information/no evidence. You can't be both rational but also have unreliable reasoning-- that doesn't make any sense.

So no, using that logic, you couldn't just claim that someone is irrational just because you don't think something is true. You could claim that they're irrational if you could prove that it was untrue, though.

But that was never the claim anyways. I think the original claim made was that someone is irrational because they ignore the flaws pointed out in their arguments. If that's true, then it's fair claim, because it means they can't show that their initial reasoning actually holds up. (Note-- I'm not making this argument myself)

i am not sure if you don't understand how logic works, or if you don't understand english, but you made 3 posts in a row there about what rational means which are out to lunch.

 

[Shareefruck]

i am not sure if you don't understand how logic works, or if you don't understand english, but you made 3 posts in a row there about what rational means which are out to lunch.

How so?

 

[krutovsdonut]

How so?

rational conclusions do not need to be correct, and rational opinions particularly do not need to be correct.

 

[Shareefruck]

rational conclusions do not need to be correct, and rational opinions particularly do not need to be correct.

You're not giving a specific objection, you're just nay-saying the claim altogether.

This is more or less the line of reasoning I've followed.

Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Valid Argument: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
(Having evidence seems to imply that premises are assumed to be true)

Rational conclusions based on correct premises should always be correct. If they aren't, either the premises aren't actually correct, or the conclusions aren't actually rational.

Which part of this do you think is framed incorrectly?

 

[Lindgren]

You're not giving a specific objection, you're just nay-saying the claim altogether.

This is more or less the line of reasoning I'm following.

Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Valid Argument: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
(Having evidence seems to suggest that premises are true)

Which part of that do you think I'm taking incorrectly?

Source?

 

[Shareefruck]

Source?

Just took the first few Google results.

Rationality
rationality - Google Search
Logic
logic definition - Google Search
Valid Argument
valid argument - Google Search

It's just how I've come to understand rationality in general from taking various related beginners courses, though.

 

[Lindgren]

Just took the first few Google results.

Rationality
rationality - Google Search
Logic
logic definition - Google Search
Valid Argument
valid argument - Google Search

It's just how I've come to understand rationality in general from taking various related beginners courses, though.

My source is just a handy dictionary. Working with your definitions, I'd say that in many cases where I think a poster is rational while perhaps you and others do not, what is going on is a disagreement about what constitutes relevant evidence. (For instance, I might be labelled irrational if I don't accept as evidence the "fact" that Benning could have received more for Granlud/Holm/whomever than he did.)

Let's substitute "trying to be rational." Numbers of posters think that nobody in the anti-Benning group is trying to be rational: according to those posters, the pro-Benning side is not presenting evidence in any reasonable way, or they're not connecting their argument to evidence in a way that demonstrates a reasonable effort to be logical, etc.

 

[Shareefruck]

My source is just a handy dictionary. Working with your definitions, I'd say that in many cases where I think a poster is rational while perhaps you and others do not, what is going on is a disagreement about what constitutes relevant evidence. (For instance, I might be labelled irrational if I don't accept as evidence the "fact" that Benning could have received more for Granlud/Holm/whomever than he did.)

Let's substitute "trying to be rational." Numbers of posters think that nobody in the anti-Benning group is trying to be rational: according to those posters, the pro-Benning side is not presenting evidence in any reasonable way, or they're not connecting their argument to evidence in a way that demonstrates a reasonable effort to be logical, etc.

I mean... I know that for formal arguments in philosophy/science, they do use strict and absolute definitions (like the ones I've given) for words like logic, rational, valid, reason, etc. as rules that are measuring tools for proofs. I wouldn't be surprised if some sources had looser definitions that were closer to casual everyday language, but personally, I would find those problematic to use in a discussion about arguments, disagreements, truthfulness, etc.

I'm fine with that rephrasing. Just to be clear, I was only taking exception to the statement made about how rationality works, generally, I wasn't really commenting on or even thinking about how the statement applies to the larger point you guys were arguing about (whether arguments for/against Benning have been fair or whatever).

 

[F A N]

You're not giving a specific objection, you're just nay-saying the claim altogether.

He specifically objected to your definition of rationality. Obviously, whether someone made a rational decision is often debatable, that's why in law the reasonable person standard is used. In business, it's about whether one made an informed decision. Correctness in objective hindsight is not part of the equation. And rationality is evaluated based on the information one has at hand. You are suggesting that if one made a decision based on incorrect information that he must not be rational. You also suggested that if one used good reasoning based on correct information then the decision must be correct and if it is not correct the reasoning must be bad. That's not how it works.

In poker if you have pocket aces and you are headsup with a player who you know has 2, 3 off suite (because you saw his hand), and your opponent goes all in pre-flop, the good reasonable decision is to call every single time. The fact that you end up losing is irrelevant to the rationality or reasonableness of your decision.

 

[Shareefruck]

He specifically objected to your definition of rationality. Obviously, whether someone made a rational decision is often debatable, that's why in law the reasonable person standard is used. In business, it's about whether one made an informed decision. Correctness in objective hindsight is not part of the equation. And rationality is evaluated based on the information one has at hand. You are suggesting that if one made a decision based on incorrect information that he must not be rational. You also suggested that if one used good reasoning based on correct information then the decision must be correct and if it is not correct the reasoning must be bad. That's not how it works.
In poker if you have pocket aces and you are headsup with a player who you know has 2, 3 off suite (because you saw his hand), and your opponent goes all in pre-flop, the good reasonable decision is to call every single time. The fact that you end up losing is irrelevant to the rationality or reasonableness of your decision.

Err.. No I'm not-- My suggestion is being really warped and twisted here. You're treating the conclusion and outcome of a decision as if they're interchangeable in every argument, when they aren't.

The premises you've given in your example are
"I have pocket aces"
"he has 2, 3, off suit"
"Pocket aces has a higher probability of winning than 2, 3, off suit"

If my conclusion was..
"therefore, I have the best chance to win if I call, so I should call"
.. that would be a valid/rational argument where if the premise is true (two players have those cards), the conclusion will ALWAYS be true and correct. The outcome of the decision is not the conclusion if the argument is framed this way, and whether or not the player wins as an outcome has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the conclusion.

If my conclusion was..
"therefore, I will win if I call."
.. the conclusion WOULD depend entirely on the outcome if the argument is framed this way, but that would be a completely invalid/irrational argument built on bad reasoning, because it's assuming certainty where there is none.

There is no way to write up a valid/rational deductive argument and still end up with an untrue conclusion when the premises are true. If any uncertainty exists (which seems to be your main objection), it needs to be accounted for in the conclusion in order to be rational.

 

[F A N]

Err.. No I'm not-- My suggestion is being really warped and twisted here. You're treating the conclusion and outcome of a decision as if they're interchangeable in every argument, when they aren't.

Okay. Please define and give an example of "conclusions" then in a hockey context. Use a trade example.

Are you saying that the outcome of a trade doesn't matter?

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay. Please define and give an example of "conclusions" then in a hockey context. Use a trade example.

Are you saying that the outcome of a trade doesn't matter?

Why don't you explain what you're actually skeptical about, instead of randomly giving me additional homework assignments that I'm supposed to come up with from scratch? If you don't think a hockey trade works the same way as a poker hand, then show me why not. And why did you waste my time with a poker example if that's the case?

I've addressed your poker example already, and explained why it's consistent with what I've been arguing rather than the "gotcha" that you suggested. I don't see why an argument about a trade would function differently. Why don't you address what I said about that example before moving onto other things? Do you accept my explanation of it?

I'm not saying that outcome never matters-- The outcome of a trade can be a premise or a conclusion or irrelevant in an argument (it was irrelevant in the first conclusion above). It depends entirely on what's being argued. What I am saying is that your example was a bad one because it did a bait and switch with the outcome where it was relevant (aka a part of the conclusion) in circumstances that were consistent with my point and irrelevant in circumstances that you suggested contradicted it. As demonstrated above.

 

[Canucks1096]

Benning had little cap space, he had little choice. I've no doubt if a big UFA was around and amenable he'd have thrown all he had at them as he has done consistently. I expect him to do it again this year. If he can't find a UFA I expect him to try and trade futures for a contacted player.

MDZ, Nilsson, Gagner make about 9 M combined. He could of decided to get two players on lower contract and offered a big contract about 6 to 7 M for one player but he didn't. Benning have no money to play with is wrong.

He offered a big contract consistently to ufa? Aside from Eriksson he never signed a ufa for more than 3yrs. Trade futures? He does trade picks for younger player. But.you are making sound like he trading young players/picks for old Veterans.

I will be honest I am not a fan Benning as well but I do call things the way I see it. With so much generalization about Benning. It is getting a little ridiculous.

 

[CanaFan]

MDZ, Nilsson, Gagner make about 9 M combined. He could of decided to get two players on lower contract and offered a big contract about 6 to 7 M for one player but he didn't. Benning have no money to play with is wrong.

He offered a big contract consistently to ufa? Aside from Eriksson he never signed a ufa for more than 3yrs. Trade futures? He does trade picks for younger player. But.you are making sound like he trading young players/picks for old Veterans.

I will be honest I am not a fan Benning as well but I do call things the way I see it. With so much generalization about Benning. It is getting a little ridiculous.

Ya but what does it matter if he trades McCann + 2nd for a 25 year old Gudbranson or a 35 year old Gudbranson? When the player you target is terrible and largely done developing, age is essentially irrelevant. It just means we have 10 years of Gudbranson’s lousiness instead of 2. Age is only relevant when you acquire players with development upside or who you would actually want to have on your team for any length of time.

And that’s the problem with focussing on so many of these “reclamation projects” who are described as “young” because they are 22-24 but in reality have little untapped upside left and are just poor quality players at the end of the day. That’s why the Dahlen trade stands out like a sore thumb as his best trade. Because Dahlen was just 19 when we got him, his upside was still undetermined. Since then he’s progressed further to the point where there’s no way we’d get him again for Burrows. Unlike Goldobin who was older (21) and had already stagnated and lost value by the time SJ gave up on him. Trading picks and assets for 23 year olds isn’t a good strategy just because they are “young”. It’s a poor strategy because developmentally speaking they are “old” and unlikely to turn into anything more than they already are.

 

[Canucks1096]

Ya but what does it matter if he trades McCann + 2nd for a 25 year old Gudbranson or a 35 year old Gudbranson? When the player you target is terrible and largely done developing, age is essentially irrelevant. It just means we have 10 years of Gudbranson’s lousiness instead of 2. Age is only relevant when you acquire players with development upside or who you would actually want to have on your team for any length of time.

And that’s the problem with focussing on so many of these “reclamation projects” who are described as “young” because they are 22-24 but in reality have little untapped upside left and are just poor quality players at the end of the day.

I agree that Gudbranson trade was horrible. Yeah but when Benning is making a trade. Do You really think he is making a trade and think that players has no upside or he think that player has upside? Trading a pick for a young player and drafting a young player. There isn't really that much of a difference. You are getting that playwr and hoping that young player develope into a solid nhl player.

If we look at the trades. Only the Forsling one was a big mistake. Regarding those picks. 2nd round pick had about 25% of playing in the nhl. 3rd round pick it drops down to 15%. I think those player acquire has about the same chance as being a solid nhl player. Jensen and Shinkaruk and that 6th round pick has no value.

Baertschi for 2nd round pick
Vey for 2nd round pick
Pouliot for 4th round pick
Grandlund for Shinkaruk
Etem for Jensen and 6th round pick
Pedan for 3rd round pick
Clendening for Forsling.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I agree that Gudbranson trade was horrible. Yeah but when Benning is making a trade. Do You really think he is making a trade and think that players has no upside or he think that player has upside? Trading a pick for a young player and drafting a young player. There isn't really that much of a difference. You are getting that playwr and hoping that young player develope into a solid nhl player.

If we look at the trades. Only the Forsling one was a big mistake. Regarding those picks. 2nd round pick had about 25% of playing in the nhl. 3rd round pick it drops down to 15%. I think those player acquire has about the same chance as being a solid nhl player. Jensen and Shinkaruk and that 6th round pick has no value.

Baertschi for 2nd round pick
Vey for 2nd round pick
Pouliot for 4th round pick
Grandlund for Shinkaruk
Etem for Jensen and 6th round pick
Pedan for 3rd round pick
Clendening for Forsling.

Okay, as has been explained on this forum about a thousand bloody times, this is seriously faulty logic regarding the % of draft picks that turn out successful.

It's like buying used scratch and win tickets and going: "Well sure, this ticket isn't a winner, but then most scratch and win tickets aren't winners so if I buy ones that other people already scratched and lost with, it saves me the time of waiting in line at the till and scratching them myself." That's the logic you're employing here.

As for your list there, Baertschi wasn't one of the lost boys that had already fallen through the cracks, he was having a hissy fit with Burke. So looking at the rest: Vey's garbage and was a waste of a pick, Pouliot's garbage and was a waste of a pick, Etem, Jensen and the 6th were all lost for literally nothing, Pedan was a waste of a pick (and thrown in with the 4th for Pouliot, in case you forgot), Clendening and Forsling were both also lost for literally nothing, and Granlund for Shinkaruk ended up a rare deal that weakened Utica by taking away their leading scorer and didn't make the Canucks any better.

So yeah. Doesn't f***ing work.

*edit* Also, you were going on earlier about how Benning doesn't have any players that would have been attractive trading targets for other gms. The above is exactly why. He's pissed away all his draft picks dumpster diving for crap other teams threw away, and now he's got barely a handful of promising prospects from the few picks he kept, and nothing worth much on the big team. Where did you think other teams got valuable players from?

 

[CanaFan]

I agree that Gudbranson trade was horrible. Yeah but when Benning is making a trade. Do You really think he is making a trade and think that players has no upside or he think that player has upside? Trading a pick for a young player and drafting a young player. There isn't really that much of a difference. You are getting that playwr and hoping that young player develope into a solid nhl player.

Uhmm, no. There’s a TON of difference. Jake Virtanen is 21. Do you think he has the same “upside” as he had when he was 17 and entering the 2014 draft? Do you think he would go anywhere near #6 in a redraft today? If you say “no”, please explain why if you believe there is almost no difference between the upside of a 17 year old vs a 21 year old.

If we look at the trades. Only the Forsling one was a big mistake. Regarding those picks. 2nd round pick had about 25% of playing in the nhl. 3rd round pick it drops down to 15%. I think those player acquire has about the same chance as being a solid nhl player. Jensen and Shinkaruk and that 6th round pick has no value.

But in those % there is a chance (albeit small) that those players can be *top end* players as well. There is practically no chance these 21-23 year old discards have the same upside. They’ve been evaluated by their former teams and judged to be disposable. What then is the point of trading for them? To get a warm body? Warm bodies are plentiful and not worth giving up picks for.

Baertschi for 2nd round pick
Vey for 2nd round pick
Pouliot for 4th round pick
Grandlund for Shinkaruk
Etem for Jensen and 6th round pick
Pedan for 3rd round pick
Clendening for Forsling.

Exactly. Considering we got Gaudette in the 5th and Tryamkin in the 3rd, I don’t think we should be dismissing the potential to find *valuable* players with later picks. That entire list above combined is not worth Nikita Tryamkin’s value to an NHL club.

 

[Canucks1096]

Okay, as has been explained on this forum about a thousand bloody times, this is seriously faulty logic regarding the % of draft picks that turn out successful.

It's like buying used scratch and win tickets and going: "Well sure, this ticket isn't a winner, but then most scratch and win tickets aren't winners so if I buy ones that other people already scratched and lost with, it saves me the time of waiting in line at the till and scratching them myself." That's the logic you're employing here.

As for your list there, Baertschi wasn't one of the lost boys that had already fallen through the cracks, he was having a hissy fit with Burke. So looking at the rest: Vey's garbage and was a waste of a pick, Pouliot's garbage and was a waste of a pick, Etem, Jensen and the 6th were all lost for literally nothing, Pedan was a waste of a pick (and thrown in with the 4th for Pouliot, in case you forgot), Clendening and Forsling were both also lost for literally nothing, and Granlund for Shinkaruk ended up a rare deal that weakened Utica by taking away their leading scorer and didn't make the Canucks any better.

So yeah. Doesn't ****ing work.

I disagree with that logic. Buying a lost lottery ticket is 100% chance that is a losing ticket. Buying a player from another organization there is still a chance that player can be an impact player. Chances are it may be low but there still a chance.

Are you saying you had some crystal ball or magic that you knew 110% for sure that when we traded for those players they will have no chance of becoming impact player? Because if weren't 110% that means your lottery ticket doesn't analogy doesn't make any sense.

It's easy to say now those trades were bad because we know some of those players won't turned into impact players. If you go back with past forum it was like 50/50 people liking or not liking.

 

[Hit the post]

Exactly. Considering we got Gaudette in the 5th

It should be repeated that THE reason we got that extra 5th round pick to draft Gaudette then in the first place (Benning selected another prospect with the Canucks normal 5th round pick) was a result of Gillis trading Raphael Diaz to the Rangers (that was the Rangers 2015 5th round pick we received from them).

Are you saying you had some crystal ball or magic that you knew 110% for sure that when we traded for those players they will have no chance of becoming impact player? Because if weren't 110% that means your lottery ticket doesn't analogy doesn't make any sense.

Don't need a crystal ball - just compare the list of "hits" as a result of the clubs professional scouting vs the list of "hits" as a result of the clubs amateur scouting. There's a notable difference.

 

[CanaFan]

I disagree with that logic. Buying a lost lottery ticket is 100% chance that is a losing ticket. Buying a player from another organization there is still a chance that player can be an impact player. Chances are it may be low but there still a chance.

Are you saying you had some crystal ball or magic that you knew 110% for sure that when we traded for those players they will have no chance of becoming impact player? Because if weren't 110% that means your lottery ticket doesn't analogy doesn't make any sense.

It's easy to say now those trades were bad because we know some of those players won't turned into impact players. If you go back with past forum it was like 50/50 people liking or not liking.

Should we trade our 2nd round pick for Curtis Lazar who is young (only 23) and a proven NHLer? The odds of 2nd round picks becoming an NHLer are around 20-30% IIRC.

Do you think this would be a good strategy for a rebuilding team?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I disagree with that logic. Buying a lost lottery ticket is 100% chance that is a losing ticket. Buying a player from another organization there is still a chance that player can be an impact player. Chances are it may be low but there still a chance.

Are you saying you had some crystal ball or magic that you knew 110% for sure that when we traded for those players they will have no chance of becoming impact player? Because if weren't 110% that means your lottery ticket doesn't analogy doesn't make any sense.

It's easy to say now those trades were bad because we know some of those players won't turned into impact players. If you go back with past forum it was like 50/50 people liking or not liking.

The chances are lower because the player already hasn't become an impact player on their draft team. What about that don't you get? You've already had one team give up on them. They've already washed out of somewhere. That makes it a lot less likely they become impact players. Seriously, how many times has that worked out here? C'mon, man. Has the total lack of impact players acquired that way register at all with you?

 

[Canucks1096]

Should we trade our 2nd round pick for Curtis Lazar who is young (only 23) and a proven NHLer? The odds of 2nd round picks becoming an NHLer are around 20-30% IIRC.

Do you think this would be a good strategy for a rebuilding team?

I can play this game as well. No but if I was fortune teller I would trade a 2nd round pick for an early 20 something year old Sharp, MSL, Pominville, Bishop, Palmeri, Doan, Moulson, Beauchemin

Pomineville was put on waivers but nobody claim him. Doan was almost traded since he was only 20 point scorer for his first 3 seasons. Other 6 players there team gave up on the player

Would you trade 2nd round pick for those players when they were in the early 20s?

To answer your question No because I don't see upside in him. It depends on the player.

It's a good strategy if that player still has upside.

 

[tyhee]

... Buying a player from another organization there is still a chance that player can be an impact player. Chances are it may be low but there still a chance. ....

You're absolutely right that there is still a chance that the player can be an impact player. The problem is that it will happen very, very rarely when the team that has been developing him for several years is giving up on him. Non-zero does not mean substantial nor that it is nearly as good as the chance was when the player was drafted.

Say you draft an 18 year old at a point in the draft where his chances of turning into a marginal depth player are 10%, a solid NHL player are 5% and his chances of turning into a top line forward or top pair defenceman are 2%. You can play with those numbers if you'd like-the exact numbers aren't important to my point.

Four or five or six years later considerably more has been seen of him and his chances have changed immensely.

That 10% chance of him becoming a marginal or depth player will hae changed. It may have improved. He might even have already gotten to that stage so you might get a chance of close to 100% that you're getting someone who can be among your top 9 defenceman or top 15 forwards.

But what is the value of that top 9 defenceman or top 15 forward? Yes, every team needs them, but they aren't hard to find, aren't hard to acquire. You can find players close to that level every year in August accepting professional tryout contracts and you can find them every July as free agents whose agents are making phone calls trying to drum up interest for. You don't need to spend assets to acquire those players. A good system will get them automatically as drafted players mature and develop.

Now returning to that guy you're considering trading for four or five or six years after he was drafted, the chance of him becoming that top line forward or top pair defenceman you hoped for when he was drafted have really, really dropped. Teams that are giving up on players like, for instance, Adam Clendening or Brandon Leipsic or Linden Vey, are doing so because they don't think the player is going to turn into a good NHL player. The problems in his game will be fairly obvious and that 2% chance of getting a top line forward or top pair defenceman are probably now more like 0.01%. That 5% chance of getting a solid NHL player will have dropped to less than 1%.

That's why those of us who criticize the direction of wanting other teams' prospects in trade instead of picks have been doing so. We'd rather have that 5% chance of a solid player than the 100% chance of maringal scrub or better with a less than 1% chance of being a solid NHL player.

The marginal guys are easy to obtain for very little. In the long term it isn't necessary to trade for them. They are worth almost nothing in trade. Your chances of getting impact players through the draft are far higher than they are getting players who other teams are giving up on after trying to develop them for a few years.

A 5% chance is better than a chance under 1%. Getting those <1% developed players will occasionally lead to a trade won, but more often lead to a roster full of mediocrity, which the Canucks have right now. The point we make is that this mediocre roster is the most likely result of the direction the Canucks have taken, not that it was preordained and the chance of being good were zero.

To take a revised lottery example, if I were to offer you the following for 50 cents which would you choose:

-a ticket with a 60% chance of winning 10 cents, 20% chance of getting $1 and a 1% chance of getting $10, or
-a ticket with a 10% chance of winning 10 cents, 10% chance of winning $1 and a 5% chance of winning $10?

Taking the 1st ticket is like taking the known marginal player with a very small chance at something worthwhile. You'll get something back on your ticket far more often (81% of the time) but if you do that 100 times you'll "win" $36 for the $50 invested.

Taking the ticket with a higher chance of getting nothing back but a higher (though still low) chance of getting something worthwhile is more like the draft pick. If you take that bet 100 times you'll win $61 for that $50 invested, even though you get nothing at all back on your ticket 75% of the time.

So in one case you "win" something 81% of the time but end up losing heavily based on the initial investment, while in the other case you only win something 25% of the time but come out ahead.

Benning's direction of targetting other teams' castoffs is like the first ticket-high chance of some almost useless return and very low chance of a good return.

If you have unusually superb pro scouting, then it is possible to beat the odds against making that kind of trade and uncover a few real gems. At this stage, after the trades and free agent signings that have been made over the past four seasons, it is impossible to make a logical argument that Benning's record in pro scouting is good enough to beat the odds with that kind of trade. His team has become exactly what one should expect from targetting other teams rejects-few impact players and an abundance of mediocre ones.

 

[Canucks1096]

Don't need a crystal ball - just compare the list of "hits" as a result of the clubs professional scouting vs the list of "hits" as a result of the clubs amateur scouting. There's a notable difference.

As of right now 2nd round pick to 7th round pick from 2014 to 2017 you don't have 1 regular that's playing in the nhl right now. Forsling has been sent down to AHL this year a few times. Tryamkin is in Russia but if stay he would played here so I will give you one. So not sure where you argument is. You can't use players that didn't even play nhl games yet as an argument. Who knows how those prospects will work out.