John, I took your premise that GMs shouldn't be held accountable for the first 2-3 years of their tenure and did the math that way. Cutting his first three seasons (95, 96, & 97) and all of his second run (being generous, 12-current), you end up with a .508 regular season winning percentage and a .285 winning percentage in the playoffs. Even cutting off the worst years, he still was the head of, on average, a mediocre regular season team. Then we get to the playoffs. I will grant you the playoffs are a crap shoot, but can we not agree that a .285 winning percentage is bad even for a crap shoot? At this point, when these numbers are what you are arguing for, I have to ask, "Why?"
