Is Nonis pulling these strings?

[cw]

If Nonis 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.

Nonis can do other things if they want to keep him around. Might be time for Cliff Fletcher to pass his special adviser role on. Nonis can scout or be GM of the Marlies.

The deals since February didn't knock me out as acts of GM genius. Players going to the highest bidder and taking a phone call from Columbus on Horton.

I just think someone other than Nonis can examine moving existing deals they didn't sign easier because their name isn't on them and with that, to some extent, their legacy as a GM in Toronto isn't attached to the existing contract - they can just focus on getting max value. And if that max value isn't great, so be it. They can easily pull the trigger because they had nothing to do with the contract in the first place and therefore, it won't reflect as badly on them. They're just cleaning up the mess.

Nonis can't offer that. He has a bit of a conflict of interest. Might be in his best personal interest to hang on to a player longer, hoping he'll turn it around - even though the odds of that happening aren't great. That can put off the embarrassment in the media of how the deal is perceived by the other NHL GMs.

I think it's fair to question the accuracy of how well Nonis valued these guys. And how poorly he failed to build a roster with character.

A new assistant GM - he's not bogged down with any of that baggage.

 

[cw]

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.

So do I.

Having said that, I think making a GM organize his thoughts, come up with a plan & budget, present it and defend it for approval is an invaluable process.

But they need to have autonomy to do their job properly.

 

[Frank E]

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.

Publicly traded or not, there are shareholders.

We'll disagree on whether or not $5 million a year on a operating profit of $70 million is significant.

 

[Frank E]

I think it's important to separate the different mandates that Nonis has had.

The mandate up until recently was to put a playoff team on the ice...at least that's what we've been told.

The mandate now seems to be rebuild the thing.

I think a GM like Nonis can make decisions on moving contracts out that were done under different circumstances than the current plan moving forward.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The mandate up until recently was to put a playoff team on the ice...at least that's what we've been told.

Pretttttty successful.

 

[Kin]

The deals since February didn't knock me out as acts of GM genius. Players going to the highest bidder and taking a phone call from Columbus on Horton.

They don't strike me as acts of genius either but then again, I really don't think that's what's going to be asked of Nonis(or someone else in that role) will require genius. The decisions on which players to stick with going forward aren't that hard and I don't think will be made by Nonis regardless. I think it'll involve working phones and people, getting the best prices for players who decisions have already been made on by higher ups.

I just think someone other than Nonis can examine moving existing deals they didn't sign easier because their name isn't on them and with that, to some extent, their legacy as a GM in Toronto isn't attached to the existing contract - they can just focus on getting max value. And if that max value isn't great, so be it. They can easily pull the trigger because they had nothing to do with the contract in the first place and therefore, it won't reflect as badly on them. They're just cleaning up the mess.

Nonis can't offer that. He has a bit of a conflict of interest. Might be in his best personal interest to hang on to a player longer, hoping he'll turn it around - even though the odds of that happening aren't great. That can put off the embarrassment in the media of how the deal is perceived by the other NHL GMs.

I think you're drastically overestimating the level of authority he'd have going forward. If there's a deal on the table for someone like Kessel or Phaneuf or Bozak I don't think it'll be his call to pull the trigger or not. He'd maybe get to present the offers to Shanahan but it would be Shanahan making the choices going forward.

I think it's fair to question the accuracy of how well Nonis valued these guys. And how poorly he failed to build a roster with character.

And for the most part I agree that those questions should be asked. I'm not even really disagreeing with your answers. What I'm saying is that if Shanahan agrees with you, he should get rid of Nonis. If he doesn't, he shouldn't get rid of him just to throw fans who do blame Nonis a largely meaningless bone.

 

[herman]

The job going forward in terms of GMing is not that hard these next 3-5 years.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Draft for the best available talent (as often as possible)
[*]Sign cheap, but hard working free agents to 1 year deals and then trade them at the deadline for more ammo for 1
[*]Shop any player on expiring deals to the highest bidder for more picks
[*]Shop any player not willing to play by the coach's system to the highest bidder for more picks
[*]DO NOT TRADE ANY PICKS AWAY FOR ANY REASON*
[/list]

Let development and systematic coaching do the rest.

* Until such a time as the team's foundation is solid, the prospect cupboard is overflowing with 22-3 yr olds about to press into the NHL, and a franchise player under 27 is available.

 

[Deebo]

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.

Publicly traded or not, there are shareholders.

We'll disagree on whether or not $5 million a year on a operating profit of $70 million is significant.

There are shareholders in Rogers and Bell (1.56B and 3.67B net income respectively). Each own 37.5% of MLSE, if the Leafs entire profit were to disappear, it would be 1.6% of Rogers' profit and 0.7% of Bell's profit.

From a shareholder in either company's perspective, its 37.5% of 5M (1.875M) out of 1.56B or 3.67B of profits, or 0.1% for Rogers and 0.05% for Bell. Not much impact to the shareholder.

 

[Kin]

We'll disagree on whether or not $5 million a year on a operating profit of $70 million is significant.

That's not fundamentally the disagreement though. I'm not saying the board shouldn't have a say in whether the team spends 65 or 70 million dollars on payroll, I'm saying that they're not qualified to have an opinion on "should we give 5 million a year to Free Agent A or Free Agent B" once that money has already been approved.

 

[cw]

I think it's important to separate the different mandates that Nonis has had.

The mandate up until recently was to put a playoff team on the ice...at least that's what we've been told.

The mandate now seems to be rebuild the thing.

I think a GM like Nonis can make decisions on moving contracts out that were done under different circumstances than the current plan moving forward.

I don't think he's totally lost his mind. So he still has some capability to do the job.

But his track record in Toronto isn't so hot on:
- acquiring character players
- analytics
- some of these contracts
- adapting away from top 6/bottom 6
- getting to the playoffs
etc

This is the Toronto Maple Leafs - not an ECHL team. They have deep pockets.

For those who still want Nonis around AND in this role, make the case why he's the best man in hockey out of all the available candidates (some/many that may be currently employed elsewhere) for continuing to do this job.

As well, for the hockey team, everyone in the organization, the fans, the media and the league, holding someone accountable is not exactly a terrible thing to do.

What is a non Leaf player more likely to do?:
a) put the Leafs on his no trade list because Nonis, who has failed, is still GM in Toronto
b) keep the Leafs off his no trade list because Shanahan held the GM accountable and got a credible replacement in

How will that decision impact UFAs or the existing Leafs deliberating how long to sign in Toronto?

I think Dave Nonis is a nice guy and a pretty good hockey man. But the best thing they could do for the franchise is make a change to a good qualified hockey man - proving to everyone in the hockey world that the Leafs have held people accountable and turned the page trying to be a better franchise. I think that will have a stronger ripple effect.

 

[cw]

• DO NOT TRADE ANY PICKS AWAY FOR ANY REASON*

That's one thing Nonis deserves being noted for to some extent. He didn't trade away the 1st rounders.

 

[Kin]

For those who still want Nonis around AND in this role, make the case why he's the best man in hockey out of all the available candidates (some/many that may be currently employed elsewhere) for continuing to do this job.

To do that someone would first have to be able to speak definitively as to what "this job" entails.

What is a non Leaf player more likely to do?:
a) put the Leafs on his no trade list because Nonis, who has failed, is still GM in Toronto
b) keep the Leafs off his no trade list because Shanahan held the GM accountable and got a credible replacement in

I think both are equally so unlikely as to not even merit discussion.

 

[Frank E]

We'll disagree on whether or not $5 million a year on a operating profit of $70 million is significant.

That's not fundamentally the disagreement though. I'm not saying the board shouldn't have a say in whether the team spends 65 or 70 million dollars on payroll, I'm saying that they're not qualified to have an opinion on "should we give 5 million a year to Free Agent A or Free Agent B" once that money has already been approved.

Well, that's not what you said:

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.

In looking at your quotes earlier though, I can see that perhaps you meant "working within a pre-approved budget".

There are shareholders in Rogers and Bell (1.56B and 3.67B net income respectively). Each own 37.5% of MLSE, if the Leafs entire profit were to disappear, it would be 1.6% of Rogers' profit and 0.7% of Bell's profit.

From a shareholder in either company's perspective, its 37.5% of 5M (1.875M) out of 1.56B or 3.67B of profits, or 0.1% for Rogers and 0.05% for Bell. Not much impact to the shareholder.

Again, multi-million dollar contracts on an operating profit of around $70 million (according to Forbes anyway) is a significant dollar amount.  I don't know if many GM's have the unilateral authority to sign up millions of dollars without getting approval from the ownership group (whatever that looks like)...and really, I would suspect that those with a recent track record like Nonis' would probably be on such a leash.

 

[Kin]

Well, that's not what you said:

That's absolutely what I said. You just happened upon one part of a multi-post point and misunderstood. No worries, it happens.

Again, multi-million dollar contracts on an operating profit of around $70 million (according to Forbes anyway) is a significant dollar amount.  I don't know if many GM's have the unilateral authority to sign up millions of dollars without getting approval from the ownership group (whatever that looks like)...and really, I would suspect that those with a recent track record like Nonis' would probably be on such a leash.

Again, you're confusing a GM having a budget with a GM needing approval to sign individual players.

 

[Frank E]

Again, you're confusing a GM having a budget with a GM needing approval to sign individual players.

Well, not really, because the term budget is usually used in a fixed term sense.

NHL contracts are usually multi-year commitments...my budget this year might look different than the next.  I'm more referring to signing Clarkson type deals, in that I might have $5.25 million worked into this year's budget, but I'll need to check if the bosses are good with it being in the budget for the next 7 years, and how I'm going to sell them on how this will help us in year 2 and 3, etc... Also, I might not be working here in a couple of years because my contract is only that long, and therefore I'd have to get some clearance on using up budget in the years that I'm not even signed for. 

I can see GM's having the authority to sign Winnik to a 1 year deal to fill a hole, and promote Matt Carrick, and things like that...but multi-year-big-cap-hit deals would probably need to be approved by ownership in most situations. 

It's all supposition anyways though, I really don't know.  I just think it makes some sense.

 

[cw]

For those who still want Nonis around AND in this role, make the case why he's the best man in hockey out of all the available candidates (some/many that may be currently employed elsewhere) for continuing to do this job.

To do that someone would first have to be able to speak definitively as to what "this job" entails.

What have we been talking about in this thread? The above relates to the discussion on whether or not to replace Nonis who has been effectively functioning as an assistant GM in an organization where he's reporting to Shanahan.

And in that role, as we've discussed, he or the new candidate would be doing transactions to clean up the contracts on this roster and rebuild, etc.

I have a hard time believing, out of all of the hockey world, Nonis is the best they can come up with to do that role going forward, given that Nonis is carrying some baggage in his present position from what has gone on in Toronto.

 

[Kin]

NHL contracts are usually multi-year commitments...my budget this year might look different than the next.  I'm more referring to signing Clarkson type deals, in that I might have $5.25 million worked into this year's budget, but I'll need to check if the bosses are good with it being in the budget for the next 7 years...

The problem with referring to deals as "Clarkson-type" is that almost all multi-year deals differ from Clarkson's in that they're not so bad that they're basically unmovable within a year or two. Most GM's would know that signing a 7 year deal with a player isn't necessarily a firm commitment to them being on the books for the next seven years and with most deals it is a year by year commitment.

Again, for a team where their budget might significantly change from year to year what you're saying makes a degree of sense. That's not so much the case with the Leafs.

 

[Highlander]

Nonis is an intelligent puppet for the time being. If Babcock comes in he is gone. That is what my crystal ball is saying.

 

[Kin]

And in that role, as we've discussed, he or the new candidate would be doing transactions to clean up the contracts on this roster and rebuild, etc.

Unfortunately the specifics of that etcetera matters and "doing transactions" isn't really much in the way of an explanation of his actual responsibilities.

I think most people agree that when it comes to who to trade and who to keep the decisions aren't going to be made by Nonis or whoever is in that role. So take a specific example.

Let's say the decision is made to trade Phaneuf. Is Nonis the person who's deciding which prospects to ask for in return? Weighing the prospective value of a first rounder from, say, Minnesota vs. one from Colorado? Will he be deciding whether to look to sign Kadri to a short term vs. a long term deal? Will he be making the day to day decisions on which Marlies to call up? Which bargain UFA's to sign? Or will he just be doing the grunt work on these things and leaving the final decisions to Shanahan? Will he just be a voice, along with Dubas and Hunter, advising Shanahan?

Reality is we won't know the specific management structure or how tasks will be delegated so it's impossible for anyone to say what "the best" candidate for the job would even look like.

 

[Deebo]

Again, multi-million dollar contracts on an operating profit of around $70 million (according to Forbes anyway) is a significant dollar amount.  I don't know if many GM's have the unilateral authority to sign up millions of dollars without getting approval from the ownership group (whatever that looks like)...and really, I would suspect that those with a recent track record like Nonis' would probably be on such a leash.

I was commenting on your statement that the board would want to be able to veto a contract that would markedly effect the ROI of the shareholders.

Speaking from an ROI to the shareholders perspective, and shareholders meaning those who own shares in Bell and Rogers, a $5M swing in net income isn't significant and won't markedly effect ROI.

MLSE/Leafs are a small part of Bell and Rogers, Bell has 45B in assets and their 37.5% stake in MLSE is about 1.67% of that.