And you'd be wrong. Look, I don't agree with his style or approach. I make no bones about that. But, I notice that you don't dispute the facts I set forth. Instead, you just want to assume I have a vendetta against him. Show me where I'm wrong and I'd be happy to discuss it. I just ask that the debate remain civil instead of foisting assumptions around. For instance, I didn't call him a fool. I gave him credit for the Hawkins deal, just not a huge amount. Show me results. He set this team up in 2004 to be succesful and they blew it, and in a big way. I don't blame him for 04'. I do agree that in 2005 and 2006 his foresight and approach have been very bad, bordering on awful. I guess I didn't like the way you approached your argument. For all intents and purposes you argued that he lucked his way into every good deal, a sort of Forest Gump among GMs. Beyond having no proof of this assertion, it also makes no sense that other GMs would be taken so easily.