see I disagree
I think his drafting,the backbone of a frachise... is much better than it's been in the past...a massive positive
I think he identifies a core...specifically centres and defenseman...and built around it...a positive
he tend to overpay players...a negative
the Lucic signing looks bad...a negative
even the Hall-Larsson, while a loss in value (which I've said all along) isn't a disaster IMO because Larsson is still young, cost-controlled for a while, can easily play top-pairing minutes against the tough opponents...and I think in the long run, his defense will be needed more than Hall's offense
Tough to say. While I love the Bear, Jones, Stafin. Yamamoto, Stafin etc picks, none have panned out yet. Even Puljujarvi is a ? at this point in time. We can revisit this is 3 years when those prospects are either NHLer or not
Ok, he identified the important positions that almost all the 30 other GMs did to as well. His contributions to building around those 2 positions have been Sekera. Larsson and Russell (McDavid was a gimme). He actually drastically overpaid to focus on the D core and really hasnt done much to make it great. He gave out 2 overpayments to Sekera and Russell and gave up the Hart winner for Larsson. So added 2 top 4 D and 1 bottom pairing D for alot of money and assets. The D core is still meh, although Nurse might save it (Not a Chiarelli pick).
You also forget the Eberle trade and the Reinhart trade. I wont rehash the Larsson trade, because if you dont see it as being a tremendous loss in value, then I wont convince you at this point. My point of contention is that you say he can "easily" play top pairing minutes against tough opponents. Well its not that simple, he can play top pairing minutes if his partner is playing very good (ie Greene or Klefbom). As we saw last year, he is not capable on his own of playing top pairing minutes