Talk:Jim Rutherford

Criticism section

Seriously, 50% of the article is devoted to criticism over a single trade made by Rutherford. This is way undue. References aside, it should either be culled, or put into the context of the rest of his managerial career. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I plan on adding more on other more positive trades in the future. Please recommend which parts to cull please before removing it entirely. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• What parts to cull? The whole thing. Rutherford's been a GM for decades, and has made many trades, a number of them controversial. The concept that just a couple months in, this was so major and controversial a steal to warrant such treatment is absurd. This manner of extreme treatment hasn't been used for some of the epic steals of NHL history: not the Esposito trade, not the Nordiques getting a future Cup for Lindros, not the ripoffs for first draft picks that turned into Ray Bourque or Guy Lafleur, no one. Should Simon Despres turn into a legendary Hall of Fame bound defenseman, I'll apologize beautifully fifteen years from now, but for right now ... may I ask, just out of curiosity, what's your motivation here? Ravenswing 02:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)