Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:28 PM
If the CEO/Manager/President of a company is running a business that's losing money, he gets fired. Much in the way a GM of an NHL team gets fired if he doesn't put a winning team on the ice.
And when a new CEO/Manager/President is hired, he doesn't come in and fire every single person who works in that company. He comes in, gets rid of the deadwood, changes up some processes that put the employees in a position to succeed, and hopefully turns the ship around. Then we the company starts making money, he gets the credit as a good manager. Not the previous CEO/President/Manager who was fired because he was losing money.
Sure the previous manager probably hired a few good people, maybe even the bulk of the company was excellent and only needed minor changes. At the end of the day though, it's the results that matter.
With that in mind, MG gets the credit for the state of this hockey club, not the previous GM's who were fired for putting an inferior product on the ice. Every single new GM to ever take over the reigns of a hockey club keeps a core of the original team that he inherited. Look no further for examples that Burke with his cup winning team in Anaheim.
Does he get the credit despite inheriting Getzlaf, Perry, Selanne, and a couple of top ten draft pick prospects (Smid/Lupul) which he traded for Pronger? It could easily be argued that he came onto the scene with a pretty solid team and a stacked prospect pool. He made a couple of good signings, and traded some of his young assets for the key pieces that put his team over the top. Much like MG has done (although no cup yet).
Does he get the credit for that team? If he does, then Gillis does. I'm of the belief that the guy with the cup ring should get the credit. Much like the guy with two Presidents trophies and a GM of the year award should get the credit for his accomplishments.
Thanks for the sig Tv9924!