No it's fans who know so little about managing a team that they look at a guy like Shero and claim he's terrible.
But go ahead and enlighten us. With the cap being what it is, top salaries being what they are and your knowledge of available players Shero could've had instead of Kobasew, etc... show us the way. Maybe shero will read this and be inspired by your brilliance.
If you want to criticize him that's one thing but then for your criticism to mean anything, you have to back it up with realistic alternatives and examples of what other GMs in similar situations did... things which Shero passed on based on some evidence you have beyond "HFB posters said it was a better way!"
C'mon, DV, you can't compare to what other GM's did because part of that is assessing what their other options are or what they chose not to do.
For me, it's five basic things:
1. He budgeted 7.5M for Sid's wingers and gave us Kunitz and Dupuis. Yep, he missed on Parise. Maybe there was a deal out there, maybe not. That's the part that you just don't know . . . will he take a risk in a deal these days or only make it when his hand is forced (Staal) or it's a no brainer (Gologoski)? No way to know for sure.
2. Coach, system, and team is pretty much unchanged despite the last two exits (and more). Is that indicative that Shero thinks it's right just as it is and it's just a question of the puck luck or that he really has his hands tied? And, if it's the latter, then who tied them?
3. The day Ray Shero was hired, on the heels of the Craig Patrick era, the one thing he promised is that the Pens never would be easy to play against again. And, from the day he came on board until I'd say maybe 2010, they weren't. The Pens overwhelmed you with top end skill, punched you in the mouth, and you just wouldn't see a situation where Sid and Geno would get the **** kicked out of them by the likes of Toronto or Boston and nobody would do anything (I mean, this team doesn't make it 10% as hard on the other team's stars). The Craig Patrick era Penguins are back. Forget the country club cracks. This team is easy to play against.
4. The lessons he took from the 2008-2010 playoffs. He has built this team like someone who believes that you build this team by filling the holes and then giving Sid and Geno what you can. It's like he's applied the Predators instead of the Senators model to this team. 2009 proved that you can get away with it if all the stars align (although even in 2009 it two two deals to take care of Sid first). But, in terms of personnel mix, the 2008 team was better and one that, on balance, would be more likely to win a cup. That was the one that really took care of Sid and Geno.
5. As a corollary, his draft strategy. I'm not talking about forwards versus defensemen. Shero has adopted a strategy of taking defensemen. But, if that's the case, then to what end? In a cap world, SOMETHING has to give. If you're drafting all of these defensemen, then let it be the dollars allocated there as you work in all these talented young guys on rookie deals. And, if they're not ready-- if you've gotten maybe 40 total games in 5 years out of these young guys where injuries weren't the cause-- then how good at drafting has Shero been? You can't have it both ways. And, if his strategy had been to draft forwards, I'd be saying the same thing about introducing them to the top six (like Bennett).
Again, though, the problem is that it's unfair to do a 'tell me what you'd have done' without knowing what Shero's options were.
That said, looking at the five things cited above and some of the other things people have suggested, is it so unreasonable to assume that Shero has proven as susceptible to the same type of personnel biases that affect, say, Dan Bylsma?
I mean, you see these guys win a cup, you promote a nice family atmosphere . . . it makes it harder to take a hard, honest look at some guys on an on-going basis.
