The argument that "oh, everyone does it" doesn't really hold water. But the big problem isn't that Chevy made some bad decisions - it's his foot dragging when it comes to fixing the problems. Letting the clock run out on a 5 year deal hoping you get a couple of good years out of it isn't dealing with your mistakes. At least Jokinen was only a terrible 2-year deal. Letting the Kane situation fester for 3.5 years...taking 2.5 years to evaluate the team (and then bringing in Maurice to help out some more with the evaluating). I don't think there's a GM in the league who takes so much time...what is he, an Ent?
Yes it does. It shows us a measurement to which we should gauge our operations. If one is to expect operations to occur without mistakes, then one is out to lunch and should recalibrate their expectations to what reality dictates. Every organization has blemishes, even the best ones.
He didn't deal with the 5 year mistake, because he does not see it as a mistake. And according to last season, he was right in doing so, as his mistake operated at an above average level.
Kane deal worked out exactly as well as we could have hoped for. Great return, solid move, not much else to discuss. Your timeline, or your observation that this "festered" are "your analyses" of a situation you only understand, maybe 5% of. In the end, the return was excellent, that is factual. You believing that Kane was a detriment to this organization 3 seasons ago, is pure speculation, as you do not know.
So, you do not think GM's spend years evaluating?
Evaluating never stops for a GM, every minute of everyday they are evaluating. Its their job. And reevaluating last years talents this year, as its an ongoing process.
Is this weird to you?
Do you not understand that an evaluation of everything, everyday is important, as things change, players change, talent rises and decreases.
Also, do you understand that things that are evaluated as negatives today, can be addressed by development tomorrow? That you do not pull the chord on a negative, cut ties, but instead try to address those negatives through development, coaching, and practice.
Should every negative be dealt away, immediately, without hesitation or consulting? If so, you must love how the Leafs have operated for the last decade. Great template?
And any player in the history of the NHL, that was traded, and went on to resurrect their careers, performing at high level after the trade, was traded prematurely by a GM that overreacted and chose to cut ties instead of trying to work the problems out themselves.
Making knee jerk reactions based off of limited information is what kills organization.
That is what every incompetent GM does, along with bringing in a great coach like Maurice, then not ask his opinion on the players he coaches. Is that something you see as a negative? A GM asking for his coaches opinion?
