In what way? The Chicago Blackhawks have a sustainable winning model.
They hit their two top end of the draft picks (Toews/Kane) and two more elite/previously elite players signed to significantly illegal contracts (Hossa/Keith)
They have a good GM and scouting staff who were able to unearth a whole ton of gems (ie why just saying they tanked and succeeded is wrong), but to make it like they haven't done some questionable things (Bickell/upcoming Seabrook extensions, whatever this offseason was) is not true. They have certainly avoided rash FA decisions which are the downfall of many a GM (Tallon's signings of Huet/Campbell aside), but AA spent on exactly one major FA while here (Russ Martin).
The Hawks will have a lot of bad, dead money on the table in a couple years. Whether Stan is good enough to navigate the waters (or likely moreso, whether the Canadian dollar goes up enough to give him cap relief) will determine how sustainable everything is.
Stan's greatest strengths have been
1) Consistently find cheaper plug-in guys on the FA/low-end trade market that fit key roles and covered depth issues (Sopel, Versteeg, Kopecky, Oduya, Handzus, Rozy, Emery etc)
2) Establishing his long term core of players (Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Crawford) and sticking with them for as long as possible, replacing them only when absolutely necessary due to the cap (or when they started boinking another core player's wife but uh I digress)
3) Continually stockpiling prospects and draft picks when possible so that the appropriate moves to compete when necessary won't demolish the farm
4) Taking risks on the guys he believed in (Hossa over Havlat, Bickell/Crawford extensions etc)
If I were to judge AA on the same criteria
1) AA pretty much absolutely nailed this in 2015...Smoak/Colabello/Travis/Estrada all contributed far more than expected this year. Always felt like depth was an issue and it was something AA learned from
2) AA failed on this for the most part, but part of that was the previous regime's fault for not having enough of a core in the first place. Note that guys like Hjalmarsson/Crawford didn't become core players until after the first title. A Donaldson/Bautista/Edwin/Martin/Stroman core was fearsome. AA wasn't around long enough for us to see if the 3-5 other players he would pick as part of his core would pan out
3) AA was elite at this.
4) AA was also elite at this - just like with Stan he missed on a couple (Romero, Dickey trade etc) but the ones he hit (Bautista/Edwin extensions at the forefront) more than made up for it.
So I mean...when I hear 'well Shapiro will give a sustainable winning model' I really hear 'Shapiro won't take any major risks so there will always be some prospects to make it look like we will win in the future.'
You don't win without taking risks. In any sport.