This list doesn't exactly scream unique for an NHL GM.
I am curious why the player sacrificed the salary to help NYI... there has to be more to it. He could easily finish the contract in the AHL and then played in the KHL instead of flushing money to help his former team.
But those moves (even if considered average) as a collection have yielded well above average results. Especially more impressive when considering the Isles lack of success and reputation for the past 30 years.
My direct point is that by every metric Lou has done a very good to great job for the Isles. However there is an anti Lou bias by select posters who show up in every single Isles thread to voice what a bad GM he is and why that was a bad move:
Choosing Lehner over Varlamov
Trading too much for Pageau
Signing Nelson for his deal
“Going to lose Barzal as a RFA”
Every single time these posters are proven wrong on their predictions or assessments. Ultimately they hang all of their arguments on Komarov and Toews. Even oversimplifying and incorrectly assuming one contract was a causality on the other.
But looking at Lou’s tenure as an Islander, how can any reasonable person suggest he has been a “bad” GM? Then do so by completely overlooking the results AND the overall health of the franchise compared to the past 30 years?
Yet the same posters, not you or the poster I originally quoted; come into each and every Isles with…
“Lou is a horrible GM, because of Toews, Komarov and…. Well that’s all I got because the other stuff I LOL’d at the time actually turned out to be good moves, so I’m going to harp on the only ones I can.”
In their narrative Lou not being perfect means Lou is bad.