I thought I answered that question in the post to which you responded. I provided examples. I didn’t even praise Briere that much. I gave him an incomplete grade.
To recap the second paragraph, you’re saying I’m not wrong to credit Briere for drafting Michkov. We agree. I’m old enough to remember the Chuck Fletcher years, so I consider it an advancement.
Please excuse that I pulled this out into the Roster thread. It wasn't about the game and I didn't want to flood people with a different topic because I went off on a tangent.
This is one of places where deady and I (plus many others) have always agreed. Fletcher wasn't hired to build. He was hired to win immediately. He didn't do it well, but that's a separate issue. I'm going to use a common football analogy to illustrate my point here and trust that most people will get it. For many years, it was popular to quote a team's record when their star Running Back got 20+ Carries. Well it turns out that the correlation here was that teams with leads run the ball more and so therefore they win more. It didn't have anything to do with the star RB. The instructive bit was the game script.
The examples you gave were things like the Provorov trade for futures. That's the GM script. If Fletcher was still here through the other changes, he would have sold some players off too. He wouldn't have sold exactly the same ones in exactly the same ways or for the same reasons, which is where we can better evaluate a GM. What they've done since Briere took over are the easy moves. They took 3 guys who were unwanted in their own locker room because of problems with people in the organization and they traded them. In practice, it's the same reason they traded Gostisbehere. There's nothing new here.
We essentially have 5 data points of even minor internal conflict. They signed 3 UFAs of note. The two Forwards are good 4th liners. One of them is too old for their timeline and the stated reasons are spurious at best, but I'm willing to roll with it because they're net positive players. I'll hope there's signal in the talent evaluation noise. Staal is what he is. I don't think he's very good. But again, we're talking lower rung decisions. I don't expect to agree with every single move they make.
The two more impactful NHL decisions they made were to desperately try to dump Sanheim and to not take the offer for Laughton. Neither one of those looks very good to me. Maybe you wanted to keep Laughton at all costs and think Sanheim will turn into a pumpkin any day now. Then I understand having hope. But don't tell me that you're hopeful because it's different now. We have no idea yet. Learn from the Hextall years. Wait for the difficult moves instead of assuming a GM is good because he got a draft pick for Zac Rinaldo.