I don't quite get the "implication" part when we actually have explication. Sisko was two words short of shirking away from his assigned duty and requesting a different job, as shown in an actual scene in the pilot episode. Then Picard gave one of the words, the Prophets gave another, and lo, Sisko stayed. So the part where Sisko is a loser who gets better isn't in doubt.
The part where Starfleet deliberately sends in a loser is the speculative one. If their intent was for the Bajoran mission to fail, fine; if the loser quit, they'd send in somebody even worse. But if the intent was to force Sisko to stiffen his upper lip and get on with his career, clearly this wasn't working. And if the idea was to give him an easy job, clearly this was backfiring as well, because anything would have been better than isolating him with his son on this godforsaken frontier outpost.
The default assumption would be that Starfleet sent in a man who was just about good enough, the corollary being that Sisko was no good for anything else so sending him here would be an efficient use of overall resources.
Timo Saloniemi
The part where Starfleet deliberately sends in a loser is the speculative one. If their intent was for the Bajoran mission to fail, fine; if the loser quit, they'd send in somebody even worse. But if the intent was to force Sisko to stiffen his upper lip and get on with his career, clearly this wasn't working. And if the idea was to give him an easy job, clearly this was backfiring as well, because anything would have been better than isolating him with his son on this godforsaken frontier outpost.
The default assumption would be that Starfleet sent in a man who was just about good enough, the corollary being that Sisko was no good for anything else so sending him here would be an efficient use of overall resources.
Timo Saloniemi