part of winning a cup is trial and error. Hardly no GM in the history of the game has won off of their original vision. Part of what makes some GM's so successful is their ability to adapt. This is just another example of Kyle doing so. I can understand why people may not agree with his philosophy on how a team should be built, but I don't understand how people can look at his willingness to go back against his original vision as a bad thing. So many times we have seen GM's live and die by "their guys".
it takes a man to be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them. This may be the preamble to something just like that.
And if you need another example:
Mistake: Signing Nick Ritchie
Problem: Money tied up to non-performing player left vacancies on the back end
Correction: Move Ritchie + pick for Lybushkin
Zero ego involved, just on the fly problem solving. Not many GM's are that willing to contradict themselves. And before anyone goes on to say "well he shouldn't need to correct himself if he didn't make the mistake in the first place", as if they weren't happy with the signing of a Stanley Cup player who plays with jam. Not even mentioning the countless signings he does well with.
Again, I have no problem with people having different viewpoints on Kyle vs. the one I have. I just feel like comments like yours are just lazy attempts to throw shade at a person you don't like. I just don't understand how waiving NAK can be viewed as a negative.
