A
Not disagreeing with what you are saying but couldn't the same have been said about Elliott and Hutton too? To a degree Halak?
To a degree, yes. And I wouldn't want Elliott or Halak if they came with Darling's contract.
If you're talking about Halak in the summer before we acquired him, he was coming a a 43 start season where he posted a .924, stole the #1 job by the end of the year and had a lights out 3 round playoff run. He had proven much more than Darling has at this point in his career and most people still consider that acquisition/extension by Army as a mistake.
Elliott had proven nothing before he got here and was compensated to reflect that. He was brought in to fight for the backup job on a 1 year, league minimum deal. He played excellent as a Blue and eventually was traded to get a job as a true starter instead of a tandem guy. By the time he left St. Louis, he had 45 and 38 start seasons on his resume and excellent numbers. He also had a lights out, 3 round playoff performance on his resume. That was more than Darling has proven. Since that time, he has been mediocre at best and (IMO) demonstrated that he can't be a starter in the NHL. I certainly wouldn't want him on Darling's contract.
With Hutton, I wouldn't have given him Darling's contract after last season with the Blues. Since that time, Hutton has proven much more over 21 starts as a starter than Darling has in his entire time in Carolina. I still think the jury is out on Hutton's true ability as a starter until we see his overall season through 45 or 50 starts, but he has gotten much closer to proving himself since he left us than Darling has at any point since leaving the Hawks. I would certainly not want Hutton if his end of the season SV% winds up looking like Darling's has over his time in Carolina.