My ideal choice would be a Holmgren-Holland hybrid. Holmgren can be too aggressive sometimes and it's no secret that Holland can be too passive, a mix of both would be good.
A Holmland, if you will. Holgren?
GM's are damned either way because the job doesn't come with HF hindsight glasses (except, ya know, that can see the future...hockey's future). Have one, want the other, greener grass sort of thing.
But yes, at least an active GM gives the impression of taking chances than a more passive/conservative does, and gives us all something more to talk about.
But does Holland really need to do more than bring up prospects just a little bit earlier? If he brought up Smith last year and Nyquist/Tatar this year, would the level of vitriol be the same? Probably not.
Then again, I thought the concept of resigning Bert was solid (except for the 2 year, no trade part). I also thought the Quincey deal was more good than bad at the time when I thought Quincey had a legitimate shot at being a #4 and the pick was going to be mid 20s (not looking too good atm).
So I guess I am a Holland apologist. I hated the Sammy signing though, and wish he brought along prospects a bit faster.