I would rather get a bench player who is inconsistent, but promises flashes of brilliance.
You mean someone who's generally useless, but provides just enough mustard to tease you? We had this one, his name was Gerald Green.
No, I mean someone who is great 30% of the time, horrible 30% of the time, and the other 40% of the time plays at a mediocre level between great and horrible rather than someone who is consistently mediocre, but never train wreck or difference maker.