Is Nonis pulling these strings?

[GhostofPotvin29]

That's ridiculous. I don't care what the media says of this team, they would not have any trouble hiring whoever they wanted if that person was available. And I believe that for any team in the NHL. There are only 30 jobs out there - the can't be THAT picky.

To me, I think the bigger issue that question raised is would an established GM want to come into a situation where he isn't picking his the rest of his management team. Dubas/Hunter/Pridham are Shanahan hires, they're not going anywhere. Would somebody want to come into a situation sandwiched between those 4? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's a fair question to ask.

Sure - but that's not how it's presented in the original post... but yes, given that structure, that could complicate things... but then again, I think there's enough people in place that they can operate with or without Nonis. There's no need to go get a new GM.

Isn't that how it was presented?  Or at least as one of the reasons for the general question of the post.  This is from that article:

One thing a General Manager worth their salt won?t be able to look past? Not being able to bring in their team of executives.

That is not to say there would not be room for a potentially new General Manager to bring in a few of his own coworkers, but Brendan Shanahan has essentially hired his team. He brought in Brandon Pridham to be his capologist, Kyle Dubas to be his assistant General Manager team, an accompanying analytics team, and a director of player personnel who will also oversee scouting in Mark Hunter.

What experienced manager worth their salt is going to want to step into a situation where their front office team has been picked for them?

 

[Kin]

To the first point, I really have no idea what goes on behind closed doors with this team.  But I have trouble believing Nonis has/had been given carte blanche to run this team.  If you know something to the contrary, then great.

Ok, so assuming you're right...isn't that bad? Wasn't the whole point of bringing in someone like Burke that we didn't want hockey decisions being made at the board level? Do we want Cable executives and Larry Tanenbaum exercising significant control in decisions on free agents and trades?

And again, assuming you're correct, if they do have that control...wouldn't it be largely bogus then to lay all of the responsibility for those decisions turning bad on Dave Nonis? I mean, if they approved them beyond a basic rubber stamp for finances why aren't they responsible for them being made? I don't doubt they might want to pass the buck and use Nonis as scapegoat in that case but that seems like something else entirely.

To the Clarkson thing, who said it was bad?  Personally, I think it's great that Nonis moved him and I did my own little dance when I heard the news.  But I still can't imagine MLSE is happy about it.  They spent money to acquire an asset that would play meaningful minutes for a team on the rise.  Instead, they're paying for a guy to sit at home and not contribute at all.  If that were my business, I wouldn't be happy about it.

You seemed to be saying that Nonis presenting the Horton deal to the board as being one that would put him further in the jackpot. Leaving aside, like I said, that it was almost certainly Shanahan doing that and that all of these decisions right now are Shanahan's if I'm a board member my dissatisfaction is with the Clarkson deal full stop. It's not like being presented with the Horton deal makes things worse. Like you say, if they're interested in building a winning hockey team, it would make things better.

 

[Joe S.]

That's ridiculous. I don't care what the media says of this team, they would not have any trouble hiring whoever they wanted if that person was available. And I believe that for any team in the NHL. There are only 30 jobs out there - the can't be THAT picky.

To me, I think the bigger issue that question raised is would an established GM want to come into a situation where he isn't picking his the rest of his management team. Dubas/Hunter/Pridham are Shanahan hires, they're not going anywhere. Would somebody want to come into a situation sandwiched between those 4? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's a fair question to ask.

Sure - but that's not how it's presented in the original post... but yes, given that structure, that could complicate things... but then again, I think there's enough people in place that they can operate with or without Nonis. There's no need to go get a new GM.

Isn't that how it was presented?  Or at least as one of the reasons for the general question of the post.  This is from that article:

One thing a General Manager worth their salt won?t be able to look past? Not being able to bring in their team of executives.

That is not to say there would not be room for a potentially new General Manager to bring in a few of his own coworkers, but Brendan Shanahan has essentially hired his team. He brought in Brandon Pridham to be his capologist, Kyle Dubas to be his assistant General Manager team, an accompanying analytics team, and a director of player personnel who will also oversee scouting in Mark Hunter.

What experienced manager worth their salt is going to want to step into a situation where their front office team has been picked for them?

Yup... you got me... lazy reading on my part.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Yup... you got me... lazy reading on my part.

You really Kessel'd that one!

<Please keep all Phil Kessel discussion to the appropriate threads>

 

[cw]

I think the biggest issue for Nonis is what cw brought up before.  Namely, going to the board to get approval to sign a bunch of big $$, long-term contracts, and then hitting them up again a couple years later to say please can I get rid of them.

Do you really think that's how this team operates? That the GM doesn't just have a budget and can operate with relative freedom within that budget but, rather, he has to go to the board and ask if he can use his available cap dollars to sign a particular free agent? 

And then he has to ask permission to "get rid of them" via trade? If that's really the way things are going at MLSE I think there are deeper problems than just who the GM is.

As teams started to get in trouble financially over the last couple of decades, that's how it evolved such that many of them operate now requiring approval on the larger financial transactions - major personnel changes. GMs typically have financial limits on the size of deal they can do without ownership/board approval. Sometimes, that approval might come via conference call if there's a timing issue. And they can have limits on personnel changes like the coach or one of the major stars of the team - that could require ownership/board approval.

I sincerely doubt Nonis pulled the trigger on the Clarkson-Horton deal without Shanahan and the MLSE board's blessing. Even if it fell within a financial limit, that's one you'd want to get cleared as a courtesy if nothing else. MLSE board approval is required to fire the coach or GM.

Naturally, the board/ownership also discusses and approves a GMs plans - where the GM tries to sell them on where he wants to take the club.

Having said that, historically, Leafs GMs like Quinn & Burke have assured after their departure that the MLSE board supported them and didn't turn them down.

The only Leafs deal I can recall that got turned down was UFA Gretzky. At the time, Stavro was cash tight with business cash flow issues and trying to finance the Raptors/ACC - couldn't afford him.

It's not something that happens very often. I think Rick Dudley tried to trade Lecavalier and the owner shot that down. Ed Snider has weighed in more than average. A number of owners have been active in the process.

 

[Kin]

As teams started to get in trouble financially over the last couple of decades, that's how it evolved such that many of them operate now requiring approval on the larger financial transactions - major personnel changes.

And for the clubs where moves like that could have a significant impact on the team's profitability, that makes a degree of sense.

We're talking about the Leafs though.

 

[Frank E]

As teams started to get in trouble financially over the last couple of decades, that's how it evolved such that many of them operate now requiring approval on the larger financial transactions - major personnel changes.

And for the clubs where moves like that could have a significant impact on the team's profitability, that makes a degree of sense.

We're talking about the Leafs though.

I don't think that precludes the Leafs.  Any large corporation is under scrutiny from shareholders for a proper return on investment, so the board would likely want a veto on big transactions that could markedly affect their ROI.

 

[Kin]

I don't think that precludes the Leafs.  Any large corporation is under scrutiny from shareholders for a proper return on investment, so the board would likely want a veto on big transactions that could markedly affect their ROI.

MLSE isn't publicly traded. I'd really question the idea that any contract would markedly affect someone's ROI in Rogers or Bell.

 

[cw]

As teams started to get in trouble financially over the last couple of decades, that's how it evolved such that many of them operate now requiring approval on the larger financial transactions - major personnel changes.

And for the clubs where moves like that could have a significant impact on the team's profitability, that makes a degree of sense.

We're talking about the Leafs though.

We could have easily made that comment in the mid 90s or so when Fletcher had something worked out with UFA Gretzky. It was a little surprising Stavro couldn't afford it and couldn't approve it. Though today, I doubt Rogers-Bell would have that problem.

The board also gets a batch of activities/line items explained for their approval with the annual plan presented by the GM (ie buy out Grabbo's deal for $2x. mil and spend $35 mil on a UFA like Clarkson), add in two new Zambonis or whatever, etc.

 

[Kin]

We could have easily made that comment in the mid 90s or so when Fletcher had something worked out with UFA Gretzky. It was a little surprising Stavro couldn't afford it and couldn't approve it. Though today, I doubt Rogers-Bell would have that problem.

Sure, but that's why it's not much of a comparison. The issue there was a larger budgetary one and I'm not saying that ownership shouldn't have control over the team's total budget. The Leafs, or more accurately Stavro, couldn't afford the 5 million(if memory serves) they were going to pay Gretzky and so the deal didn't work within the team's larger financial framework. It's entirely different if you're talking about whether that five million should go to Gretzky or another free agent.

 

[Peter D.]

Sure - but that's not how it's presented in the original post... but yes, given that structure, that could complicate things... but then again, I think there's enough people in place that they can operate with or without Nonis. There's no need to go get a new GM.

I'd suggest that the current structure could actually help Nonis's cause.  All four of them are raw from an NHL management perspective, so they might want to keep him around to show them the inner workings and because he has built connections throughout the league over many years.

Would Nonis have free reign?  Highly doubtful.  But I could see him holding the GM title while doing AGM work as he was under Burke, brokering trades and the like.

 

[cw]

We could have easily made that comment in the mid 90s or so when Fletcher had something worked out with UFA Gretzky. It was a little surprising Stavro couldn't afford it and couldn't approve it. Though today, I doubt Rogers-Bell would have that problem.

Sure, but that's why it's not much of a comparison. The issue there was a larger budgetary one and I'm not saying that ownership shouldn't have control over the team's total budget. The Leafs, or more accurately Stavro, couldn't afford the 5 million(if memory serves) they were going to pay Gretzky and so the deal didn't work within the team's larger financial framework. It's entirely different if you're talking about whether that five million should go to Gretzky or another free agent.

I'm not sure if he'd have to but in some fashion, I suspect Nonis ran Kessel's $64 mil deal past the board -whether he pitched it in his annual meeting or after. Even for the Leafs, that's a hefty deal.

I also strongly suspect that if they trade Kessel, they'll brief the board - because they could be bringing major money (that they might eat) back or because it changes the face of their franchise.

Getting approval upfront, even if it isn't required, is a safer way to manage as a GM because you're less likely to do something that really ticks off ownership.

 

[herman]

Nonis is in a position now that leverages his strengths (existing relationships, network, experience) and limits his weaknesses (shortsightedness, salary structure). He makes the group a better unit overall, as do the other people on the team.

 

[cw]

Sure - but that's not how it's presented in the original post... but yes, given that structure, that could complicate things... but then again, I think there's enough people in place that they can operate with or without Nonis. There's no need to go get a new GM.

I'd suggest that the current structure could actually help Nonis's cause.  All four of them are raw from an NHL management perspective, so they might want to keep him around to show them the inner workings and because he has built connections throughout the league over many years.

Would Nonis have free reign?  Highly doubtful.  But I could see him holding the GM title while doing AGM work as he was under Burke, brokering trades and the like.

If Shanahan is going to wear the GM hat, Nonis is even more vulnerable because he's easier to replace. Lots of guys out there who could help Shanny in an assistant GM role. And the Leafs can throw the unhappy fans staying away from the ACC a bone of accountability while giving the piranhas in the media a headline to devour at the end of the season with his firing.

 

[Kin]

I'm not sure if he'd have to but in some fashion, I suspect Nonis ran Kessel's $64 mil deal past the board -whether he pitched it in his annual meeting or after. Even for the Leafs, that's a hefty deal.

I also strongly suspect that if they trade Kessel, they'll brief the board - because they could be bringing major money (that they might eat) back or because it changes the face of their franchise.

Getting approval upfront, even if it isn't required, is a safer way to manage as a GM because you're less likely to do something that really ticks off ownership.

Sure, but my issue isn't with the ideal of relatively open lines of communication, it's about ownership exercising any meaningful control over decisions that don't fundamentally or immediately affect the team's bottom line.

 

[Kin]

If Shanahan is going to wear the GM hat, Nonis is even more vulnerable because he's easier to replace. Lots of guys out there who could help Shanny in an assistant GM role. And the Leafs can throw the unhappy fans staying away from the ACC a bone of accountability while giving the piranhas in the media a headline to devour at the end of the season with his firing.

If Leafs fans are looking for sacrificial lambs then this off-season should serve them many of them and with more meat on the bone than Nonis. Horacheck, Kessel, Phaneuf, Lupul, Bozak...no matter where that fan wants to lay blame(and I think most casual fans are first and foremost interested in new players) he'll have options.

I'd really question, however, the fan who would really be satisfied by giving Dave Nonis a three year paid vacation. The guy's under contract at GM's wages, might as well have him working for it so long as Shanahan thinks he's suited to a secondary role.

 

[cw]

I'm not sure if he'd have to but in some fashion, I suspect Nonis ran Kessel's $64 mil deal past the board -whether he pitched it in his annual meeting or after. Even for the Leafs, that's a hefty deal.

I also strongly suspect that if they trade Kessel, they'll brief the board - because they could be bringing major money (that they might eat) back or because it changes the face of their franchise.

Getting approval upfront, even if it isn't required, is a safer way to manage as a GM because you're less likely to do something that really ticks off ownership.

Sure, but my issue isn't with the ideal of relatively open lines of communication, it's about ownership exercising any meaningful control over decisions that don't fundamentally or immediately affect the team's bottom line.

Sadly, I think we saw that with JFJ to an ugly extreme and to the detriment of the club. More than some clubs, I think Flyers GMs have had that problem to a lesser extent with Ed Snider.

To some extent, it's happening in Toronto right now. For example, the Globe & Mail report saying the board had approved Shanahan's "scorched earth" rebuild in February or so. I suspect there's some truth to that report and that approval came in mid season - that wasn't the plan last June. And my sense is that's far more closer to the norm around the league.

Off the top of my head, I could provide anecdotes for a number of other NHL teams over the recent years but it's hard to separate financial decisions with talent decisions because the top players get paid bigger bucks and it's sometimes hard to know whether ownership/board input for approval was contractually required. The media/GM just drops the word "approved" associating it with the owner or board.

 

[cw]

If Shanahan is going to wear the GM hat, Nonis is even more vulnerable because he's easier to replace. Lots of guys out there who could help Shanny in an assistant GM role. And the Leafs can throw the unhappy fans staying away from the ACC a bone of accountability while giving the piranhas in the media a headline to devour at the end of the season with his firing.

If Leafs fans are looking for sacrificial lambs then this off-season should serve them many of them and with more meat on the bone than Nonis. Horacheck, Kessel, Phaneuf, Lupul, Bozak...no matter where that fan wants to lay blame(and I think most casual fans are first and foremost interested in new players) he'll have options.

I'd really question, however, the fan who would really be satisfied by giving Dave Nonis a three year paid vacation. The guy's under contract at GM's wages, might as well have him working for it so long as Shanahan thinks he's suited to a secondary role.

I always kind of liked Brian Burke - the person. Don't always agree with him and I was quickly disappointed in the job he did here - as it unfolded. I hoped it would work out but ...

Similarly, I've always liked Nonis and still do. I think his contracts have been worse than Burke's - particularly those signed Jun-Jan 2013. I would have fired him already. There's lots of good hockey people around and I think a new face would provide some needed objectivity to help us shed these bad contracts. That's a major need right now.

 

[Kin]

There's lots of good hockey people around and I think a new face would provide some needed objectivity to help us shed these bad contracts. That's a major need right now.

If Shanahan thinks there's someone out there who can do the job he's tasked Nonis with as well or better than Nonis than I don't care in the slightest if Nonis is back next year. If not though, and I'm encouraged by the personnel moves made since February began, then I don't think there's an intrinsic value in paying Nonis not to work for the club.

 

[Kin]

Sadly, I think we saw that with JFJ to an ugly extreme and to the detriment of the club. More than some clubs, I think Flyers GMs have had that problem to a lesser extent with Ed Snider.

I'm a Leafs fan. I was alive for most of the 80's. I know that some owners frequently do try to insert themselves into those decisions. I just think it's almost universally a bad thing.