Burke Fired

[cw]

To be fair to Burke and his assessment of the D, I don't think you can judge the quality of the defensemen under Ron Wilson's style.  They were put into a position that wasn't geared towards team defense.  That being said, it's totally Burke's fault for leaving Wilson in place and not having a coach in place like Carlyle who stressed better team D.  Yes, Carlyle wasn't available, but i'm sure he could have found another coach that subscribed to team D.  If I recall, Hitchcock was available for a while before he took the reigns in St. Louis.

A couple of seasons back, Wilson attempted a defence first strategy out the gate. Heavily. But when he did that, although they did manage to cut their goals against down, their scoring dried up even worse and they got off to a terrible start. You can't do that with a roster of water bugs like they had and hope to maximize their results as a team.

Carlyle yesterday on how he wants his defence to look "There is a model we liked to have but we have to have the personal who fits into that model. As a coach, you use the players that you have and try to fit them into the situations so they can have success and give us success as a team."

Pat Quinn did the same thing. After the UFA signings in early July, Quinn routinely sat down with his coaching staff and adjusted his system around the talent he would have to play with in the following season. Cujo liked shot blocking. Eddie didn't. Etc from the goal on out.

Wilson blew a season failing to properly recognize or do that with the talent he had to work with and Burke did as well in how he built his roster for that season - stuck on top 6/bottom 6.

 

[lamajama]

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

I'm sure lots of people have a different perspective than I do. Explain to me how Burke could have gotten better results. By drafting different players with the picks we had? By trading a bunch of pieces out of town? By rushing players that he has been patient with?

I believe he couldn't do what he set out to do, mostly because of the market, which I believe was out of his control.

I don't understand what you mean, when we haven't even had the time to see what his picks and development produce.

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I agree. If Burke just had the ability to Top 5 protect that pick most of this issue is gone. Why he wouldn't do that is absolutely beyond me. He had leverage and his self-acclaimed negotiating skills to make it happen. He failed miserably at this - and this is not related to PK at all, who has essentially delivered his skill set to the team.

 

[cw]

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

I think that early bluster was fueled by him being convinced he could get the Sedins.  He was off on that opportunity by only a few hours. Clearly, if he had acquired them, the fortunes of this team would have lept forward in leaps and bounds.  After that summer, there has been little to touch the UFA market even close to their level.  Kessel may have been the only player available from that point forward who came close.  And not that Kessel hasn't delivered what was expected of him, for the most part, but of course the price is what we all wince over.

So he shouldn't have been as confident in that as he was, and when he didn't get the chance to sign them, probably retooled the plan then and there, and took the slow and steady way immediately.

Can a GM reliably structure his retooling effort around a possibility of signing a particular couple of UFAs that he cannot talk to due to tampering rules? Yes, I realize there is chatter behind the scenes. But that strikes me as putting too many eggs in one basket of slim hope.

In terms of sound strategy, "oh well, I didn't get to sign the Sedins so my whole retooling plan is out the window" doesn't work for me. In my opinion, a good GM has to have better contingencies in place than that when setting his direction for building his franchise.

I didn't say it was a good strategy, I just think that is one of the things that happened.  He had that as plan A for sure.  Plan B (Sedins go elsewhere) probably could/should have been to immediately opt for a more bottom-up rebuild. I think he tried to find substitutes for the Sedin option after that and they didn't materialize, while continuing on as if achieving that was a foregone conclusion, hence the price paid and risk taken in that price for Kessel.

Thing is, aaaaaalll that said, his biggest error was judgement in goaltending.  He believed in Toskala and said it himself.  Gave it two seasons too.  Same thing that sunk him in Vancouver sunk him here. In Anaheim he inherited Jiggy so it worked out nicely.  Still remains his biggest issue in team building and talent evaluation.  Even reasonably good goaltending would have prevented the 29th place finish that resulted in the Seguin pick and what put a lot of bruises on the foreheads of many people in this town from banging their heads on tables.

I was not as critical on his strategy for goaltending
http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=1308.msg96505#msg96505

The fact that he didn't get a good starter was deadly for his won-loss record and the biggest shortcoming but I thought his approach was a reasonable one and there were not a ton of "the great ones that got away" in terms of building a Cup winner - ignoring the short term "I want to make the playoffs"

 

[cw]

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

I'm sure lots of people have a different perspective than I do. Explain to me how Burke could have gotten better results. By drafting different players with the picks we had? By trading a bunch of pieces out of town? By rushing players that he has been patient with?

I believe he couldn't do what he set out to do, mostly because of the market, which I believe was out of his control.

I don't understand what you mean, when we haven't even had the time to see what his picks and development produce.

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I agree. If Burke just had the ability to Top 5 protect that pick most of this issue is gone. Why he wouldn't do that is absolutely beyond me. He had leverage and his self-acclaimed negotiating skills to make it happen. He failed miserably at this - and this is not related to PK at all, who has essentially delivered his skill set to the team.

According to Burke, they discussed the possibility of losing a top 5 pick and Burke maintains he still liked the deal. I sure didn't.

 

[Redleaf]

One thing that may or may not have already been mentioned was when Burke brought in Martin Gerber in 2009.  We ended up with Kadri in the #7 spot. If he would have just left the situation alone, he may have had Luke's brother who sat at #5. I remember Burke talking about season ticket holders, and why that move was necessarily to appease fans.

 

[ensco]

That's it in a nutshell for me also, as I think I stated near the front of this thread. Maybe the feeling about all this for me is more about MLSE's new owners, the way the BOG does their business and not Burke being fired per say.

For what it's worth, I'm warming up to the idea of the new ownership group. I like the idea of people owning the Leafs with their primary interest in the team being as content for other ventures and I do like what the Burke firing says about their interest in the club.

I was always amazed at the free pass Teachers got from the Toronto fans and media. There was no "MLSE", it was majority owned by Teachers. Teachers and Teachers alone are responsible for everything - from hiring Burke under terms that no other team in the league would ever agree to, on down.

Teachers abdicated their responsibility to manage this asset, and it is in this vacuum that Peddie, Tanenbaum and Burke (and Anselmi at TFC) did what they did. I think Teachers wouldn't manage anyone because they were terrified of press scrutiny - their ownership of this asset was potentially very controversial, MLSE was very different from 99.9% of their assets (which are minority, passive investments). Teachers also have no operational expertise at all, so even if they wanted to do it, they were untested rookies at running companies, and they knew it. The public could have (and should have) questioned their motives for this investment. Even though they made money, they'd probably have made more if they'd just bought Bell or Rogers stock in 1996 or 1998 - those stocks are up 5-10x since then.

Anyway, it's done. So beginning last summer Burke had actual bosses, like the rest of the world does. Bosses who aren't terrified of press scrutiny, because they are used to getting ripped every day already. Burke had lots of time to think about this. He decided the rules don't apply to him. "I gotta be me".

Burke got fired because he's insubordinate, and proud of it. Other people are calling it terrible, that a guy gets canned for his personailty/style, but stop and think about it. Cope and Mohammed manage too many other strong personalities in their other businesses, to allow a guy to publicly give the boss the finger, and brag about it. Especially when he really hasn't been that good at his job.

Burke's style wasn't this over the top in Anaheim or Vancouver, but here it got out of control. His Toronto act was a childish fantasy possible only in the Teachers leadership vacuum, and because of the truly off-market non-interference clause in his contract.

His many feuds with reporters didn't help. He wasn't speaking to half the media because of perceived personal slights. Not really a winning hand when the media is the owner.

The real news was the double cross of Tanenbaum. He thought he would be the balance of power between two bitter rivals. But guess what? This is Canada, and Bell and Rogers don't actually compete!

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

One thing that may or may not have already been mentioned already was when Burke brought in Martin Gerber in 2009.  We ended up with Kadri in the #7 spot. If he would have just left the situation alone, he may have had Luke's brother who sat at #5. I remember Burke talking about season ticket holders, and why that move was necessarily to appease fans.

All they really had to do, if you like tanking, is lose the final game of that season.

 

[rdowdall]

The real news was the double cross of Tanenbaum. He thought he would be the balance of power between two bitter rivals. But guess what? This is Canada, and Bell and Rogers don't actually compete!

I don't understand this statement.  The sale had to pass through the competition board.  Also, thanks to the information that busta provided yesterday about how Rogers and Bell have to vote one way, I think I understand how it did.

 

[ensco]

The real news was the double cross of Tanenbaum. He thought he would be the balance of power between two bitter rivals. But guess what? This is Canada, and Bell and Rogers don't actually compete!

I don't understand this statement.  The sale had to pass through the competition board.  Also, thanks to the information that busta provided yesterday about how Rogers and Bell have to vote one way, I think I understand how it did.

While "busta" may have 1000s of posts, and I only have a few here, his statement that Bell and Rogers have to vote together was completely and totally incorrect.

And yes, the competition board blew it by allowing this transaction to happen, thereby ensuring that there can be no new entrant in the digital/mobile sports media business in one third of Canada.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Does that add something to the report in media that there is "in-fighting" going on there right now?

 

[Kin]

While "busta" may have 1000s of posts, and I only have a few here, his statement that Bell and Rogers have to vote together was completely and totally incorrect.

I don't think it was. Both Rogers and Bell's stake is part of a jointly owned holding company, as opposed to each of them owning 37.5%.

From the CRTC on the deal:

10.  In regard to the second step, the parties would then undertake a corporate reorganization, which would result in 8047286 Canada holding 75% of the voting interest in TMLN and TRN, and Kilmer holding the remaining 25%. As a result, TMLN, TRN, GTC and 2256247 Ontario would be jointly controlled by BCE Inc. and RCI pursuant to the terms of a shareholders? agreement.

 

[bustaheims]

While "busta" may have 1000s of posts, and I only have a few here, his statement that Bell and Rogers have to vote together was completely and totally incorrect.

Well, sure, except that it's not. Neither company owns their share directly, so, they don't get their own votes. What they own is 50% of a holding company that owns 75% of MLSE. It's the holding company that is granted the votes, and whichever way the holding company chooses to vote gets their entire 75% share of the votes.

This was not done accidentally either. This way neither Rogers nor Bell can get Tanenbaum on their side to vote for something that is their interests and not their competitor's.

 

[rdowdall]

While "busta" may have 1000s of posts, and I only have a few here, his statement that Bell and Rogers have to vote together was completely and totally incorrect.

Well, sure, except that it's not. Neither company owns their share directly, so, they don't get their own votes. What they own is 50% of a holding company that owns 75% of MLSE. It's the holding company that is granted the votes, and whichever way the holding company chooses to vote gets their entire 75% share of the votes.

So the only place where a disruption could happen is if it takes a long time for Rogers and Bell to agree with one another, and place their vote.  I haven't been to a lot of board meetings so I don't really know if there is a time limit on voting or not. 

I understand though that once they do decide, then watch out, cause it's going to happen. 

(BTW I so wanted to follow this up with a line from Family Guy, but I so didn't want to get banned).

 

[Corn Flake]

I was not as critical on his strategy for goaltending
http://www.tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=1308.msg96505#msg96505

The fact that he didn't get a good starter was deadly for his won-loss record and the biggest shortcoming but I thought his approach was a reasonable one and there were not a ton of "the great ones that got away" in terms of building a Cup winner - ignoring the short term "I want to make the playoffs"

No argument here, I was pointing to the results more than the strategy with two exceptions: his belief in Toskala was ill advised and going with the inexperienced Reimer/Monster tandem last year wasn't the best idea. A veteran backup really was needed.

Was there a better option for a legit #1 in the meantime as you suggest? No, not really but who knows what potential deals were out there he could have jumped on. Hard for us to say.

Going after the Monster was logical, stockpiling all kinds of highly touted young FA goalies was great and seeing guys like Reimer rocket through the system showed good development was happening. 

The results just never came and that's on Burke, no matter how good the strategy.  I'd be more defensive of it if it hadn't happened to him in a similar way in Vancouver too.  So it's a bit of a trend with him.

 

[bustaheims]

So the only place where a disruption could happen is if it takes a long time for Rogers and Bell to agree with one another, and place their vote.  I haven't been to a lot of board meetings so I don't really know if there is a time limit on voting or not. 

I understand though that once they do decide, then watch out, cause it's going to happen.

Well, I mean, that depends on how many contentious issues really arise. I don't think the MLSE board meets all that frequently, so, there'll be plenty of time for things to be discussed privately before voting becomes a necessity.

 

[ensco]

So the only place where a disruption could happen is if it takes a long time for Rogers and Bell to agree with one another, and place their vote.  I haven't been to a lot of board meetings so I don't really know if there is a time limit on voting or not. 

I understand though that once they do decide, then watch out, cause it's going to happen.

Well, I mean, that depends on how many contentious issues really arise. I don't think the MLSE board meets all that frequently, so, there'll be plenty of time for things to be discussed privately before voting becomes a necessity.

With respect, this is why you are wrong. Get ready for a world of nothing but contentious issues.

That's where the problem with this mechanism lies. I have heard lawyers laughing about this exact part of the transaction. If the holdco can't vote, then Tanenbaum decides the matter. The problem is especially acute with Tanenbaum as Chairman (which is something he negotiated), which gives him the power to call meetings and call votes.

Larry thought (I think) that there was a balance of power because both Bell/Rogers had to worry about how Larry viewed them, in a scenario where the holdco couldn't vote. Which was his supposed protection from what just happened. Which didn't work.

Which exposed new, big problems for Tanenbaum. For example, can Bell/Rogers can be trusted to bid top dollar for MLSE rights in good faith, or will they have quiet advance conversations, and lowball? What do you think Tanenbaum thinks now?

This whole setup is deeply unstable. Every step these three parties take, from here on, each side will be lawyered up to the gills.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Is that what Ken is saying?

In our recent issue ranking the Top 100 People of Power and Influence in hockey, we had George Cope at No. 26 and Brian Burke at 22. Oops.

Burke is, of course, larger than life. You might not be able to pick Cope out in a lineup of captains of industry. But make no mistake, with Burke being fired as GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs last week, Cope has established himself as the alpha dog with the richest, most high-profile franchise in the NHL.

So much so that Larry Tanenbaum, who currently occupies the chairman?s seat on the Leafs board of directors, has to be thinking of freshening up his resume at the moment. These guys don?t do public humiliation real well and Tanenbaum, who at one time controlled the levers of power with the Maple Leafs, endured the mother of all come-uppances when Burke was dismissed by the organization. With things unfolding the way they did, it?s very clear Cope has established himself as the undisputed boss of the franchise, leaving the once-powerful Tanenbaum with basically one of two choices. He can either learn to play with the others and live with being a figurehead or he can get out. Bet on the latter.

 

[ensco]

Is that what Ken is saying?

Mostly. But he doesn't understand the broader setup or the governance. Tanenbaum's not just going to quit as Chairman.  He negotiated for the right to be Chairman, and to be the nominee to the NHL Board of Governors. (These terms were not disclosed, but are rumoured to be in force for 5 years or longer. Tanenbaum told the Globe he wanted to be on the Board of Governors until he died.)

Even more importantly, Tanenbaum would have a stranded, unsellable, passive 25% stake in MLSE.

So Bell/Rogers will have to buy him out.

But at what price?

That's the game now.

 

[cw]

So the only place where a disruption could happen is if it takes a long time for Rogers and Bell to agree with one another, and place their vote.  I haven't been to a lot of board meetings so I don't really know if there is a time limit on voting or not. 

I understand though that once they do decide, then watch out, cause it's going to happen.

Well, I mean, that depends on how many contentious issues really arise. I don't think the MLSE board meets all that frequently, so, there'll be plenty of time for things to be discussed privately before voting becomes a necessity.

With respect, this is why you are wrong. Get ready for a world of nothing but contentious issues.

That's where the problem with this mechanism lies. I have heard lawyers laughing about this exact part of the transaction. If the holdco can't vote, then Tanenbaum decides the matter. The problem is especially acute with Tanenbaum as Chairman (which is something he negotiated), which gives him the power to call meetings and call votes.

Larry thought (I think) that there was a balance of power because both Bell/Rogers had to worry about how Larry viewed them, in a scenario where the holdco couldn't vote. Which was his supposed protection from what just happened. Which didn't work.

Which exposed new, big problems for Tanenbaum. For example, can Bell/Rogers can be trusted to bid top dollar for MLSE rights in good faith, or will they have quiet advance conversations, and lowball? What do you think Tanenbaum thinks now?

This whole setup is deeply unstable. Every step these three parties take, from here on, each side will be lawyered up to the gills.

I take it that Tanenbaum is effectively out of the picture in terms of voting because the Bell-Rogers holding company has two thirds of the MLSE votes.

The "lawyers" very probably put some form of tie breaking mechanism into the by-laws for that holding company. For example:
- a provisional or independent director
or
- a rotating chairman who votes only to break a tie

I don't see it as a gigantic problem.

I do see the marriage between the two as potentially getting split up at some point - particularly if a second NHL team enters the Toronto market. In fact, it would not shock me if they haven't already worked out the details because this current arrangement could solve a bunch of problems for the NHL trying to put a second team in Toronto - and that may well be part of the reason they got married to own MLSE in the first place.

 

[cw]

Is that what Ken is saying?

In our recent issue ranking the Top 100 People of Power and Influence in hockey, we had George Cope at No. 26 and Brian Burke at 22. Oops.

Burke is, of course, larger than life. You might not be able to pick Cope out in a lineup of captains of industry. But make no mistake, with Burke being fired as GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs last week, Cope has established himself as the alpha dog with the richest, most high-profile franchise in the NHL.

So much so that Larry Tanenbaum, who currently occupies the chairman?s seat on the Leafs board of directors, has to be thinking of freshening up his resume at the moment. These guys don?t do public humiliation real well and Tanenbaum, who at one time controlled the levers of power with the Maple Leafs, endured the mother of all come-uppances when Burke was dismissed by the organization. With things unfolding the way they did, it?s very clear Cope has established himself as the undisputed boss of the franchise, leaving the once-powerful Tanenbaum with basically one of two choices. He can either learn to play with the others and live with being a figurehead or he can get out. Bet on the latter.

Tanenbaum owned 13-20% of the previous MLSE. He was always a figurehead chairman. That isn't new.

The Teachers were a more passive group who were interested most in money matters: the bottom line and franchise valuations. So Tanenbaum probably enjoyed more influence because of his interest in the hockey team but his actual voting power was still similarly limited.

So he's effectively gone from a figurehead chariman with limited, non controlling votes on the board to a figurehead chairman still with non controlling votes on the board - but now, those votes have been rendered completely useless with the holding company voting the 4 board controlling votes as a block.