I have no idea if Calgary was the problem for Sam Bennett or if he's just a shitty hockey player that was over drafted and frankly neither do you. His career numbers are pedestrian outside of a short stint in Florida. What is closing off the blood flow to your brain that is causing you to believe a 95 game sample size is more representative of a player than a 400 game sample size? Shiny new toy syndrome? HFAvs group think?
(As an aside I do find it endlessly funny how many of you like to distract from the main point of a topic by analyzing avatars and usernames. It almost comes across as a distraction from people grasping at straws...but maybe that's just me.)
LOL, no he didn't, but I'm not surprised someone that immediately resorts to logical fallacies and ad hominems would think otherwise.
I believe the original premise of the discussion involved a hypothetical trade between Sam Girard and Sam Bennett. Valeri Nichuskin had zero to do with it and was only brought up as a red herring to try and justify and distract from the facts I pointed out above.
The transitive property doesn't apply to hockey players and just because Valeri Nichushkin was able to succeed in Denver after a slow start in Dallas doesn't mean every underachieving forward that comes to the Avs will produce at a high level. It's absolutely not the "same story" in any shape or form outside some superficial, cursory details. This isn't a difficult concept so I assume you're obfuscating further to score cheap points.
Trading established, cost controlled players for lottery tickets based on recency bias seems like a pretty poor way to run a hockey team. But what do I know, I just wear a helmet all day?