In fact it is that simple. If you throw in all the BS excuses people like to give Hendry, you complicate the story. The fact is Hendry has done a poor job. I don't mean to be flip, but you just restated your opinion without providing any reasons why it should hold up under logical scrutiny. I can make an argument why it is fair and accurate to take into account the state of the team at the time the GM takes over and why it is hard to fault a GM for catastrophic injuries. Can you make an argument for why it is more fair and accurate to judge a GM on one statistic? In the long run, I think it is fair to judge a GM strictly on on-the-field performance. Sure, state of the team at the start and injuries will happen along the way to all teams but they can't obscure the results in the long run. The only excuse I can imagine is sample size, and my question is how many years do we have to give him before the noise is filtered out? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the sample size is large enough to judge by on-field results, and the overall results are unacceptable.