I think a lot of people are too hung up on winning the cup as the be all and end all of management success. On average you can do this once every 32 years now. Every team has smart people working there, every scout knows who the very best kids are. I think a better way of evaluating management is grading the quality of the assets they manage to keep. If I owned the Leafs I would be looking for management to field a team that had a chance to win, and hope like hell it happened each year. If I was grading Dubas this year and the Leafs missed the playoffs, I wouldn't be ready to fire him as long as he sold off the expiring assets for good value and shuffled the deck for next year. On the other hand If he went nuts expending good assets on deadline acquisitions, plus kept the expiring UFAs and didn't have playoff success I would be looking at replacing him. I think its a mistake to say that you're only happy if they win cup. You should be happy with continual playoff appearances, really happy if your team frequently makes it past the 1st round and thrilled if they win it all.
Leafs were a last place overall team when Lou Lam drafted franchise centre Auston Matthews with the #1OA pick. The very next there was a +26 point improvement in the standings and a playoff birth against Washington which resulted in a 1st round loss.. Team improvement was significant and impactful so all of Leaf Nation would have been thrilled or
"happy" with those results particularly after going nearly a decade with no playoffs. While it was a loss the improvement and jump in competitiveness from last to playoffs would earn that grade as a good start.
The following year under Lou Lam the Leafs organization set an All-time franchise best 105 points and all time wins in a season.. Unfortunately it resulted in a hard fought but 1st round exit again. Nobody after having the previous year mark of #1 round loss matched would be happy and at best it would be "adaquate" as his high mark, but with disappointment.
So this is ground zero as it resulted in a GM change in hopes that it would produce results >> 1st round loss. The goal is the Cup and falling short could and did result in change.
That is Dubas starting point by which we would start grading his body of work and team success upon what he inherited and where he takes the team going forward.
In his 1st year Dubas produced a 100 point team and played the same opponent Boston and produced the identical 1st round loss, that got the last GM replaced.. At best that could only be viewed as breakeven or using the terms here as
"adequate".. Making a GM change and producing the same results could not be viewed as "happy" results nor GM performance. We already had those results before the GM change.
Now we're in year #2 post GM change when evaluating Dubas and Leafs currently sit #23 out of 31 teams on points% and out of a playoff spot and projected/pacing for 84 points and missed playoffs .. .As of today the only realistic way to grade that would be
"concerned" should the Leafs miss the playoffs, and if they do sneak in and again lose in round #1 for the 2nd time then the best grade one could give this is season is
"adequate" at best.
The only way to achieve a "happy" grade with team improvement at its core on this current year would be playing into round #2 or beyond.
Dubas is not being graded on trades nor signings nor daily transactions as they're only subset transactions of the greater goal of advancing the team closer to the Stanley Cup.. Nobody will care if a player is overpaid or if a trade was good or bad individually, if the TEAM succeeds as that is the only measure by which ultimately the GM job will be evaluated on job performance. His livelihood and job security is based on that.
