The GM has nothing to go on but past production.
Incorrect. The GM has more to go on than that. Age, size, declining play and production, injury history, and other variables factor into personnel decisions.
Liles suffered a concussion at age 31.
Rask hadn't even sniffed the NHL level when he was traded. Raycroft was coming off a Calder trophy campaign. So that trade was a results based trade.
Rask was a bonafide 1st round caliber prospect playing exceptional hockey in Europe.
JFJ decided to trade him for a one-hit wonder who was on the decline and replaced with two career backups.
But under your paradigm, not only is it Raycroft's fault he got traded and planted in a starting role in Toronto, apparently it is also his fault Rask went the other way.
Can't tell which is more ridiculous.
Raycroft showed the ability to play very well at the NHL level, and Rask was a question mark at the NHL level. JFJ made a deal based on production. The blade falls on him if the player doesn't perform, but the deal was made based on how he had performed.
And he lost his job to career backup goalies in Boston and was on the decline ever since his Calder Cup win...but let's ignore that.
Is JFJ Nostradamous? Does he have a crystal ball that tells him the player will always play to that level? I don't think so.
He is a professional hockey executive paid a handsome salary and with all the resources, such as a pro scouting staff, at his disposal to make correct decisions involving players and prospects.
The Rask/Raycroft trade blew up in his face. Among many other trades and signings.
The player on the ice plays the game, and if he doesn't play up to his past performance, is JFJ on the ice dictating that? No. Raycroft is.
The GM has unlimited resources to watch the player play the game, and in the case of Raycroft, he lost his job to two career backup goaltenders and was on a statistical decline ever since his Calder winning season.
I used other sectors to show the argument you were using, and they're just as ridiculous as the one you're presenting. I apologize if that's hard to swallow, but that's what you're saying.
No it's not. You are using a strawman argument that neither applies to what my argument suggests nor what actually happens in reality in sports.
A GM is paid to make correct player personnel decisions because they are experts in their field and know the landscape of the NHL and hockey.
What your argument suggests is that these men are idiots who are throwing darts at a dartboard with a blindfold on.
I have no idea why you have such a low opinion of these men and their abilities as hockey executives.
I guess everyone should blame everyone else for their downfalls, and shortcomings. Damn the Gods for their plights, blame your employer for your inability to perform your duties, blame whoever, but not yourself.
We can blame MLSE for hiring Burke and giving him all the power to make the horrible decisions on the ice. But most of us already knew that and that isn't the argument here. The argument is about how bad of a decision it was to re-sign Liles while he was concussed for $17 million. You seem to want to assassinate Liles' integrity and character by suggesting he isn't trying to the best of his ability.
Why? I haven't the foggiest idea why you would bash him as a person.
I find it's more sane to appoint blame to the person who acquired the players in question rather than attack the character and integrity of the hockey player at every turn. Because under your paradigm, no GM is responsible for anything he does. It's some sort of underlying character flaw that caused the player to decline and not live up to the contract the GM signed off on.
