I just find it hard that if you don't think that the professionals that are hired to make decisions are absolute idiots, then you are basically called out as a fool as well.
There just isn't much room for a tempered critique or any conversation. Personally I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle...
If you offer no analysis or opinion beyond "they are professionals therefore their decisions are sound", that is a pretty "foolish" or "idiotic" line of thinking... There are nicer ways to describe it, but ultimately a bad argument is a bad argument.
There are lots of interesting discussions here regularly, and, many of the posters who are now critical of the current regime were at one time quite ready to defend it... In fact, if you back to MB's hiring, iirc the vast majority of posters were positive and supportive of his hiring.
The almost complete shift is, imo, a good indication that the "truth is in the middle" type of rationalizing doesn't match the actual situation.
Much thougthful and detailed analysis of his abject failure as a GM has been provided... Conversely, I have yet to see any argument in support of his body of work that presents even a reasonable case to suggest he has done a good job.
There isn't always two valid sides to an argument, sometimes a zebra has stripes.
For those who view the role of the GM to be that of improving a roster with the purpose of driving performance and organizational excellence, it is quite conclusive that MB is a bad GM.