To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?
What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault.
Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.
Both Lebron James and Cristiano Ronaldo are top players at their sports, and known for their high athleticism. You wouldn't expect them to switch and still be performing at the level they do.
Heck, you wouldn't even expect them to be performing at a high capacity if you just switched positions inside their own team!.
As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.
Irrelevant to the analogy. A striker cannot play in central defence, or vice versa. That's the point.
Sure they can. Perhaps not as well, but I bet a premier division striker will easily be able to play defense for a lower division team, and with a bit of experience could probably become really good. Hell I'm sure LeBron James could make a pretty decent soccer player if someone gave him some coaching and the right incentives.
Don't even need to get out of football to think of an example where this experiment has failed. Falcão is to this day considered one of the greatest players of indoor football. He tried to get into football by playing for São Paulo FC and stayed in the bench for most of the season, then went back to futsal.
Or if you want to go back to Basketball: Michael Jordan and his baseball career.
In any case, what I am trying to say is that you seem too quick to pin the lack of performance in the "common workplace" on the individual, when there are so many other parts on the system that can and should be analyzed. What the others and I are saying is "no, we can't say that poor performance 'will very possible transfer to the other position". Especially if you have access to the people that worked with them and can have a deeper look at the context, it makes no sense to be looking at past performance to judge potential.
Sorry, but no, not at all. I explicitly said "sometimes": "sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness". My message since the beginning has been that, while not a great indicator, previous performance will at least have some correlation with future performance. Again, it's not great, but it's also not a random relationship.
I hope it goest without saying, you can and should try to have a deeper look at the context.
But, having said that, it takes some rare managerial skills to pull it off. I've worked with someone who had those skills and it was fascinating to watch it happen. It took an ability to be bluntly honest to the "problem" employee without tearing them down, an ability to figure out their strengths, and then knowledge of where those strengths could be applied elsewhere in the company.
Often, especially with early career employees, what they're good at doing, and what they went to school for are wildly different. And they don't yet know their own competencies and aptitudes until they hit a job. I've had a few employees who were spectacularly unable to do the job we hired them for, but blossomed in other positions.
You retain a knowledgable employee (there are real costs, both financially and production-wise, to firing and hiring).
There is now some built-in loyalty and trust. Not only have they kept their job, but their situation may be improved. That will likely be remembered and respected.
There's times when firing is the only course of action, but investing in people also pays off. If a manager is just another cog in the machinery who is only concerned about their tail, then they may care less about the long-term benefits to the company and the individual. But it could also work to their advantage to resolve matters this way.