No, your only metric for 'good' GM is "literally wins every year," apparently. I brought up two legendary GMs and your response is 'yeah but look at them now,' hence why my criticism about your criteria. You want to talk about head buried in the sand, how about try being realistic?
Holland has been GM since 97 and has 3 Cups and made the playoffs every single year of his tenure except this one.
Just gonna copy about Lou: "over the next 28 years, Lamoriello presided over one of the most successful rebuilding projects in North American professional sports history. In his first season as GM, the Devils notched their first winning season in franchise history (dating back to their time as the Kansas City Scouts [1974–76] and Colorado Rockies [1976–82]) and reached the Wales Conference Finals. The Devils made the playoffs in all but five of his 27 seasons as GM, and appeared in the Stanley Cup Finals in 1995 (won), 2000 (won), 2001 (lost), 2003 (won) and 2012 (lost)."
Are these guys bad GMs?
Obviously times change but see my previous posts re: not infallible and shelf life/term. Just like any job, there's a need to adapt. I've never stayed in any one job more than 10 years, and by the end of that one it was time to move on--it gets stagnant, you need to learn/grow and sometimes adapt, yes. GMing is like that in fast forward. I would never presume to mock these guys relentlessly the way you and some others have. Even the best make some bad decisions.