I have a question, which deal was worse, Tim Connolly's 2006 3 year $2.9 per coming off his 2nd major concussion or Leino's contract?
Think of these deals when they were signed, not what happened after. I couldn't believe they gave Connolly 3 years at the time.
I'd go with Connolly, easily. Too much injury history, and the two-faced excuse for why it was okay to resign him after two major concussions, while Pat LaFontaine basically was not allowed to resume his career here, just didn't sit right with me. I'm not doubting the LaFontaine decision if it were purely for health reasons, but if they really cared that much about player long-term health, wouldn't the same have applied to Tim? It put that doubt in my mind that LaFontaine was just as much about money, too.
You see, when you miss the playoffs its hard to praise a GM. When you sign a guy that doesnt deserve it to 6 years and he has 25 points, its hard not to say its not the worst contract ever.
There are easily other contracts the are the 'worst contract ever'.
Yashin's abomination; the Isles are still paying over 2mill a year on his buyout for the next 3 seasons. Sure Yashin was productive but he had an attitude issue and I think everyone would agree that in spite of his productivity his contract was unwise.
Rick DiPietro's contract, which may not be bad if he could play even relatively close to his draft status (hard to evaluate how good he is with how little he has played) but he's been injured so much. They gave him that record length contract after 2 average-ish seasons which barely justified the length or the money at the time. Now with his injuries it looks even worse.
That Jeff Finger contract was pretty crazy too, he had what one good season and the Leafs hand him 3.5 over 4 years, barely justified...
I am sure there are a fair number of players out there signed to contracts that don't seem to be justified at the time... Leino included. Not all contracts are signed based off overall production/history of the player. Some contracts are signed with the idea of promise in mind.. the idea the player shows potential to meet or exceed the expectations commensurate with the terms of the contract. So you take a gamble and sign a person hoping they produce. You cannot judge a GM by a few bad transactions, much less one.
The way I look at it Darcy has pulled off some amazing trades and has had his fair share of good signings. He also has made some bad trades, notably trade deadline ones, but IMO he hasn't really handed out many bad contracts. I think he probably has won more than he has lost in terms of transactions in that the club hasn't been saddled by very many bad contracts for very long.
His draft history is up and down, he has had some bad drafts but lately the pipeline has been pretty well stocked and if you compare what we have to what many teams have coming up... it looks like he is above average with drafting, developing and acquiring young talent.
In terms of results, it's a mixed bag. We have no championships and offhand I'd say we've had just as many good seasons as we have had bad under his tenure. We've seen a bit of playoff success but I think we could all agree we'd like to see more. Obviously a championship helps but even just being right there contending is a fair measure of success and would help make us as fans happy, and we haven't been there consistently enough. A good share of the blame falls on Darcy's shoulders as it is his product he puts on the ice and the group that he drafted and brought up through the ranks just didn't have it, ergo the changing of the guard is underway. But if you think about it, the players he drafted had good pedigrees and I think if you reflect back on their draft days they looked like good picks.
Roy captained a Memorial Cup champion, leading the team in playoff scoring and winning the playoff MVP.
Gaustad was a leader type player who enjoyed some regular season and postseason success on the Winterhawks if I recall correctly, I am not sure but I thought he was captain or assistant with them ?
Vanek and Miller also came with good college pedigrees...that I think we all are familiar with.
All those players looked promising and came with favorable amounts of success in the young careers... they looked like good draft picks. That they formed a core that hasn't shown the ability to consistently be competitive is an unfortunate coincidence and raises the question of how that happened and was the problem rooted in just a few players ?? Does this fall at Darcy's feet or is it just a failure somewhere else, is it a combination of variables ??
Overall I'd have to say Darcy is average to above average... consider the other GMs and the operations they run...
Last edited by Mellifleur: 07-31-2012 at 08:51 PM.