Burke Fired

[cw]

Isn't Tanenbaum the Leafs owner with the history of influencing hockey decisions?

That's the impression I got - but I don't have anything to back that up.

The only 'decision' that I know came down from ownership that was clear meddling was Stavro denying the contract that Fletcher worked out with Gretzky. From a hockey perspective, that was sheer lunacy, but I understand Stavro was counting his pennies at that point due to other financial issues he was having.

Otherwise, I can't think of a hockey player move that was made that just screams 'owners meddling' in the post Ballard era.

Somone pointed out Domi. That is the only other one I know of.

I think Peddie meddled pretty heavily with JFJ - not so much on a particular player transaction that I can recall specifically- more on team "win now" direction. But it followed for example with the Raycroft for Rask deal.

All GMs have some sort of bar set where transactions above a certain amount or the trading of a franchise player must get board approval. JFJ's bar was set pretty low and his autonomy as GM was quite questionable.

Maybe we'll learn more when Peddie's book comes out (probably not - just maybe).

 

[cw]

It's not at all. Bell and Rogers own 75% of the votes and they have to vote together - they don't own the votes separately, they own them jointly. As long as they agree on things, it doesn't matter what Tannenbaum wants, and, so far, he's been the only board member known to have an issue here.

He's the Chair though (not just any board member.) - It's never a good thing when they're not on the same page... at least optically.

He won't  be the chair for long if he doesn't get on board with what the new majority owners want.  He really has no say, he has his 25% and will continue to reap profits off the organization, but his days of having huge influence over the hockey operations are over.

His position as chairman came about to get him to go along with change in ownership transactions. It's hard to take the title away from him.

But he's always been a figurehead chairman - never truly in control like Stavro was.

Therefore, he's been in a position to influence the board but he's never been the final decision maker and never will be unless he buys control of the team (which Bell/Rogers probably won't ever allow in his lifetime).

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think Peddie meddled pretty heavily with JFJ - not so much on a particular player transaction that I can recall specifically- more on team "win now" direction. But it followed for example with the Raycroft for Rask deal.

All GMs have some sort of bar set where transactions above a certain amount or the trading of a franchise player must get board approval. JFJ's bar was set pretty low and his autonomy as GM was quite questionable.

Maybe we'll learn more when Peddie's book comes out (probably not - just maybe).

If this wasn't the case, would Burke have said that line "there is two hands on the wheel, and they are both mine" when he got hired? There is a reason that happened and we're not privy to it, but I think we can see signs of it in the way the team is run.

I think there is more meddling going on than we think there is, but of coarse that is a guess. But I think you can tell when a GM is castrated like JFJ was, whether it was always like that or it morphed into that as his tenure went on.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think Peddie meddled pretty heavily with JFJ - not so much on a particular player transaction that I can recall specifically- more on team "win now" direction. But it followed for example with the Raycroft for Rask deal.

It was Tannenbaum, but a specific transaction we know of was re-signing Tie Domi to that extension which was all but enforced on JFJ.

 

[Bender]

I can tell you for a fact I didn't like Bell's upper management style when I was there. Kept changing processes every few years, and I'd argue harmed.consistency. Hopefully the gear changing doesn't translate to MLSE.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think there is more meddling going on than we think there is, but of coarse that is a guess. But I think you can tell when a GM is castrated like JFJ was, whether it was always like that or it morphed into that as his tenure went on.

I think if the board is asking lots of questions and putting pressure on the GM, possibly such as "why not Luongo" or things like that then they are simply doing thieir job. If Nonis can explain clearly why a Luongo deal is bad, or at least right now it's bad, then they should trust and accept his view.  If they are telling him he has to go get Luongo then that is a problem, and supposedly this is what JFJ was dealing with. We could certainly see that at times.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think if the board is asking lots of questions and putting pressure on the GM, possibly such as "why not Luongo" or things like that then they are simply doing thieir job. If Nonis can explain clearly why a Luongo deal is bad, or at least right now it's bad, then they should trust and accept his view.  If they are telling him he has to go get Luongo then that is a problem, and supposedly this is what JFJ was dealing with. We could certainly see that at times.

Would any GM think that is at all ok? I think not. They need to just stick to counting beans IMO.

 

[Corn Flake]

I think if the board is asking lots of questions and putting pressure on the GM, possibly such as "why not Luongo" or things like that then they are simply doing thieir job. If Nonis can explain clearly why a Luongo deal is bad, or at least right now it's bad, then they should trust and accept his view.  If they are telling him he has to go get Luongo then that is a problem, and supposedly this is what JFJ was dealing with. We could certainly see that at times.

Would any GM think that is at all ok? I think not. They need to just stick to counting beans IMO.

I think to a point some poking and digging is the reality of the job.  These guys own the team and you can't say they aren't allowed to ask questions to the GM of what his plan is and whether or not it may include a potential name or two being thrown about.  An owner of a team has every right to get a detailed understanding of what his GM is doing to make the team better.

But where it has to stop is when they start 'advising' the GM on what moves he should make.  Ask away but start telling him, then there is a problem.

In the case of Luongo, Nonis should have a strong for and against case for making that move already put together for his own purposes. He can simply relay that to the board if they are indeed asking about that player.

 

[rdowdall]

Otherwise, I can't think of a hockey player move that was made that just screams 'owners meddling' in the post Ballard era.

Well, no. I suppose it depends on how loosely you want to describe running the team as "meddling". I mean, apparently the whole post-Fletcher Smith/Dryden/Quinn era was apparently one where the board had to sort some things out but I don't know what, if any, extent that counts as meddling.

Didn't Stavro pull the rug out from under Fletcher on a Gretzky deal?  Is that considered meddling?  Or is that cool because Stavro just couldn't spend the money anymore?

 

[cw]

...
If there is one area where I fault Burke this season is the goaltending situation. This will turn out to be the Leafs 'achiles heel'
should James Reimer, whom Burke professed to harbour complete faith in, falters again.  A huge question mark hangs here, what with backup Ben Scrivens still completely unproven in NHL terms.

A solid or semi- reliable starter is what the Leafs are in desperate need of -- someone who can take the enormous pressure off of other two netminders (Reimer & Scrivens) so that they can continue to develop at a better pace.

Luongo comes to mind, but his monstrous contract wouldn't make one feel comfortable in the $ department (in which Burke was an unwilling participant in on account of that as well).  It didn't have to come down to a Luongo when there were other goaltenders available back in the summer that could have possibly been had for a lot less $.

Oh, well. Leave it up to Nonis to solve the goaltending puzzle, otherwise worse for worse, just take a chance on Reimer and hope & pray all is fine.

I'm not as down on Burke for the goaltending.

Goalies take years to develop - longest development time - roughly 6 years. And good ones are really hard to come by.

We can debate how effective Allaire was as a goalie coach but he helped attract some highly regarded prospects as young UFAs (Gustavsson, Scrivens, Rynnas - for example). We might not be as high on that group now but they were sought after when they became available. It was a pretty good effort by a GM. Few goalies prospects come with a guarantee.

The UFA market for goalies has been lousy and some of the contracts close to nuts.

Burke's failure to get good starting goaltending is probably the #1 reason for his poor won-loss record but largely, he did a lot of rational things and for that, I can't heavily fault him.

He could have sent Gardiner, Kadri & Bozak and/or Reimer for Luongo before the trade deadline or last summer. Or overpaid for another starting goalie to save his job (like Rask for Raycroft). But he stuck with rationalizing his deals on the basis of building a Cup winner down the road.

So I do not entirely fault him nor completely fail him for his GM efforts to get a goalie.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I'm not as down on Burke for the goaltending.

Goalies take years to develop - longest development time - roughly 6 years. And good ones are really hard to come by.

We can debate how effective Allaire was as a goalie coach but he helped attract some highly regarded prospects as young UFAs (Gustavsson, Scrivens, Rynnas - for example). We might not be as high on that group now but they were sought after when they became available. It was a pretty good effort by a GM. Few goalies prospects come with a guarantee.

The UFA market for goalies has been lousy and some of the contracts close to nuts.

Burke's failure to get good starting goaltending is probably the #1 reason for his poor won-loss record but largely, he did a lot of rational things and for that, I can't heavily fault him.

He could have sent Gardiner, Kadri & Bozak and/or Reimer for Luongo before the trade deadline or last summer. Or overpaid for another starting goalie to save his job (like Rask for Raycroft). But he stuck with rationalizing his deals on the basis of building a Cup winner down the road.

So I do not entirely fault him nor completely fail him for his GM efforts to get a goalie.

Good post. I have similar thoughts on Burke's tenure and is probably why it doesn't sit right. It almost feels like it has potential to be like Chicago, with Tallon, for me personally. Nonis taking over the team relieves some of the angst I felt.

 

[Tigger]

1. After Brian Burke's Saturday media conference, one source came up with an actual sensible reason for the timing of the change. It sounds like the Toronto Maple Leafs new ownership disagreed with Burke's CBA philosophies -- the unwillingness to use bonuses, back-diving contracts and offer sheets among other things. It's about using your resources to the fullest extent. In the new deal, there are further limitations, but still advantages to being a financial powerhouse (bonuses, for example, were not touched). If this is true, we're going to see a change in the way Toronto does business.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2013/01/30-thoughts-corey-perry-ryan-getzlaf-take-priority-on-ducks.html

That's interesting but not quite what's been claimed through Anselmi.

I don't know so anything at this point is a guess but my instinct is telling me that the new ownership group could very well have clashed with Burke over a more direct 'win now' mentality that he chaffed at, in his particular style. I can only imagine how grating that would be to someone who perceived themselves as the biggest dick in the room.

My reluctance to take this positively, Burke's firing, dwells there. I have no idea what influence the board is exercising here, what degree or magnitude of this is simply a clash of personality or a desire to win that has the potential for negative consequences. Burke is a hockey man who made some mistakes, as they all do, but seemed to be more interested in building a team rather than buying one.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Leafs ability to spend, formerly their main development 'muscle' pre-'05 lockout, has re-emerged in many ways and my personal 'fear' is that any kind of long term Leaf success and a cup will be hampered by a higher level or degree of impatience.

I don't know how it will go, once the dust settles perhaps it will be for the best but at this juncture I get the feeling that a rather large mistake has been made, from the influence of a short sighted personal problem and a change of corporate perspective at a fairly critical time.

I wish Nonis the best of luck.

 

[Redleaf]

...
If there is one area where I fault Burke this season is the goaltending situation. This will turn out to be the Leafs 'achiles heel'
should James Reimer, whom Burke professed to harbour complete faith in, falters again.  A huge question mark hangs here, what with backup Ben Scrivens still completely unproven in NHL terms.

A solid or semi- reliable starter is what the Leafs are in desperate need of -- someone who can take the enormous pressure off of other two netminders (Reimer & Scrivens) so that they can continue to develop at a better pace.

Luongo comes to mind, but his monstrous contract wouldn't make one feel comfortable in the $ department (in which Burke was an unwilling participant in on account of that as well).  It didn't have to come down to a Luongo when there were other goaltenders available back in the summer that could have possibly been had for a lot less $.

Oh, well. Leave it up to Nonis to solve the goaltending puzzle, otherwise worse for worse, just take a chance on Reimer and hope & pray all is fine.

I'm not as down on Burke for the goaltending.

Goalies take years to develop - longest development time - roughly 6 years. And good ones are really hard to come by.

We can debate how effective Allaire was as a goalie coach but he helped attract some highly regarded prospects as young UFAs (Gustavsson, Scrivens, Rynnas - for example). We might not be as high on that group now but they were sought after when they became available. It was a pretty good effort by a GM. Few goalies prospects come with a guarantee.

The UFA market for goalies has been lousy and some of the contracts close to nuts.

Burke's failure to get good starting goaltending is probably the #1 reason for his poor won-loss record but largely, he did a lot of rational things and for that, I can't heavily fault him.

He could have sent Gardiner, Kadri & Bozak and/or Reimer for Luongo before the trade deadline or last summer. Or overpaid for another starting goalie to save his job (like Rask for Raycroft). But he stuck with rationalizing his deals on the basis of building a Cup winner down the road.

So I do not entirely fault him nor completely fail him for his GM efforts to get a goalie.

I have similar sentiments. After an initial plan to fast track the team, Burke began to slow down and build for the future instead. My guess is there is at least one good NHL goalie among the 4 still playing in the organization. Perhaps 2. Time will tell.

 

[Justin]

A must-read from Howard Berger on his encounters with Burke over his years in Toronto:

http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2013/01/brian-burke-reflectionfinal-thoughts/

 

[Kin]

A must-read from Howard Berger on his encounters with Burke over his years in Toronto:

Let me just stop you there a second...

 

[Justin]

A must-read from Howard Berger on his encounters with Burke over his years in Toronto:

Let me just stop you there a second...

argh, just click the link!

FWIW, I was never a fan of Howard's when he was at the FAN or Hockeybuzz but his personal blog is excellent. He provides detailed analysis of every game and a photo blog to go along with it showing his travels through visiting cities. His detailed and lengthy blog posts on Leafs history are also unparalleled and the best out there. Even his weekly Simmons-style thoughts column is a good read. Berger's blog has shockingly become one of my favourites out there.

It's interesting, Howard Berger probably holds the distinction of seeing more Leafs games over the last four decades than anyone else on the planet. Aside from covering the Leafs for the FAN for all those years he was a Leafs seasons ticket holder since he was a boy. From his blog:

Since the autumn of 1975, I?ve been to roughly 90 percent of Leaf home games ? as a season-ticket holder and reporter. By my calculation, that?s about 1,300 of 1,444 games at the Gardens and Air Canada Centre. Since late-January of 1995, I?ve attended roughly 90 percent of Leaf road games ? as a broadcaster and writer: 612 of 680, give or take a few (and not including exhibition or playoffs). That?s 1,912-odd Leaf games in 35 full, and one abbreviated, season.

 

[nutman]

A must-read from Howard Berger on his encounters with Burke over his years in Toronto:

Let me just stop you there a second...

argh, just click the link!

FWIW, I was never a fan of Howard's when he was at the FAN or Hockeybuzz but his personal blog is excellent. He provides detailed analysis of every game and a photo blog to go along with it showing his travels through visiting cities. His detailed and lengthy blog posts on Leafs history are also unparalleled and the best out there. Even his weekly Simmons-style thoughts column is a good read. Berger's blog has shockingly become one of my favourites out there.

It's interesting, Howard Berger probably holds the distinction of seeing more Leafs games over the last four decades than anyone else on the planet. Aside from covering the Leafs for the FAN for all those years he was a Leafs seasons ticket holder since he was a boy. From his blog:

Since the autumn of 1975, I?ve been to roughly 90 percent of Leaf home games ? as a season-ticket holder and reporter. By my calculation, that?s about 1,300 of 1,444 games at the Gardens and Air Canada Centre. Since late-January of 1995, I?ve attended roughly 90 percent of Leaf road games ? as a broadcaster and writer: 612 of 680, give or take a few (and not including exhibition or playoffs). That?s 1,912-odd Leaf games in 35 full, and one abbreviated, season.

He should have a very good idea on anything leafs. One might tend to want to listen when he talks leafs, and its going to be a good book to read if he writes one.

 

[rdowdall]

argh, just click the link!

That's what the prince of nigeria wants me to do too.  If I won't do it for the prince, what makes you think I will do it for you?

 

[Peter D.]

Anyone listen to Bruce Arthur's take on Burke's dismissal yesterday on TSN1050? 

He suggested, after attending the press conference on Saturday and hearing a few more things, that this had nothing to do with one move (Luongo), and everything to do with Burke's "high and mighty" style and inability to properly present a plan for going forward. 

To the effect of new ownership having a meeting with him back in August asking him a whole set of questions regarding the current state of the team and the plan going forward.  Only to have Burke come back with grumbled answers.  Then they had a second meeting asking him again as to redeem himself and he came back with the same rhetoric.  Ownership didn't like his plan nor his style ("brand"), and Burke made the decision easy for them.

It does make a lot of sense.  I think Nik presented a similar argument on one of the first pages.

 

[Fanatic]

Anyone listen to Bruce Arthur's take on Burke's dismissal yesterday on TSN1050? 

He suggested, after attending the press conference on Saturday and hearing a few more things, that this had nothing to do with one move (Luongo), and everything to do with Burke's "high and mighty" style and inability to properly present a plan for going forward. 

To the effect of new ownership having a meeting with him back in August asking him a whole set of questions regarding the current state of the team and the plan going forward.  Only to have Burke come back with grumbled answers.  Then they had a second meeting asking him again as to redeem himself and he came back with the same rhetoric.  Ownership didn't like his plan nor his style ("brand"), and Burke made the decision easy for them.

It does make a lot of sense.  I think Nik presented a similar argument on one of the first pages.

That makes the most sense to me. Now that the dust has settled I see this as Burke taking the Board for granted. He thought that he has Tannenbaum in there and that because the two of them were solid he had nothing to worry about. But Tannenbaum only holds 25% of the team now and both he and Burke found out last week that that is not enough to keep an uncooperative GM in place.

The perception of it all kinda stinks, but that will pass. MLSE will get a new CEO, Nonis will settle in and life will go on.