Kyle Dubas not returning as GM
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
IJustLurkHere
Member
cw said:
With the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't a black & white decision. Dubas would hardly have been the first sports exec to get extended and then fired, and this mess probably tells us something about why we see those situations.
The opportunity for the board, Shanahan et al in that moment was to hedge by saying "we think 0-4 is a series of unfortunate events" (as John Maynard Keynes said "The Market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent", they'd be betting the market had been irrational) and that by sticking the course, we give ourselves options. Even if there's a salary cost to firing him, the difference in what he'd have signed for last year vs the end demand this year vs the cost of where the Leafs are at now is measurable.
The fact Shanahan put that idea to the board tells us that at least some were thinking along those lines.
ZBBM
Well-known member
cw said:
People are accusing Shanahan of being unprofessional. But it was Shanahan who advised Dubas against doing a presser until the deal was done, but Dubas insisted. He then proceeded to share his personal issues in public ? a very questionable decision and, to many people, including me, an unprofessional one.
Again, I like many things about Dubas but he is by no means a fully polished manager. His set-to with the fans in Tampa was, as he himself admitted, probably foolish.
So I agree with cw here: there's blame to be had on both sides.
Nik said:
I do care if the GM of my team says he's not sure if he needs to take the year off to recalibrate or not, so it's not really about whether he gives non-answers or not, even if you don?t care.
As an aside, you can do the presser in a way that doesn't sew seeds of doubt into a large fraction of the fanbase and ownership and still be relatively honest. Like just saying "I'd like to be back and we're working towards that" or some such and leave it at that. How hard is that?
Kin
Active member
Bender said:
If it ends up that he does make that decision and he resigns, I'd care about that. But if he says he's "thinking" about something during a press conference during the off-season? No. I very much don't care about that. To me, as a fan, if he's genuinely thinking that I'd rather know it than not know it. How does it serve you, as a fan, to be less informed?
Regardless, even if that raises doubts in your mind about his commitment to the job, that's a very different thing than caring about his "professionalism" which is what I responded to.
Peter D.
Moderator
I'm still trying to figure out what types of deal(s) Shanahan would have stepped in on and prevented Dubas from making, and I'm still unsure how/why it is now that we are all of a sudden hearing about these extra layers of hierarchy when trying to get stuff done.
There was never a whisper before about Dubas not having autonomy, and his actions never seemed to suggest otherwise either.
There was never a whisper before about Dubas not having autonomy, and his actions never seemed to suggest otherwise either.
bustaheims
Well-known member
Peter D. said:
That's what makes it feel like a huge red herring to me. Stories like this often pop up when there's an unexpected change in management or an unusual path to get there. Usually, they're based on people not fully understanding the typical management structure of a professional sports team. Team presidents and ownership virtually always have to rubber stamp deals that involve more significant assets or money. Sometimes, they put the kibosh on them.
In certain fanbases - like the one we belong to - these stories get more traction because there has been some troubling instances of that in the past, but, ultimately, there's usually little to not actual meat to them.
bustaheims
Well-known member
L K said:
I might have been, but he also very easily could have just given non-answers to questions about his future instead of the answers he gave.
bustaheims said:
I find it incredibly bizarre that we can somewhat legitimately blame an off-the-cuff comment that Dubas made in a press conference for his demise as the Leafs GM... and potentially (key word: potentially) the demise of the Matthews/Leafs era.
By this logic it's actually Chris Johnston's fault for asking a follow up question. Frick that guy.
Kin
Active member
Peter D. said:
Yeah, so as Herman has already posted there were whispers that there was some disagreement as to decision making authority prior to the relationship dissolving (Post #182) so this isn't strictly speaking true.
But more to the point, I'm still not seeing where so many people are apparently seeing a bunch of people whose primary complaint here is the hierarchy of the club's decision making structure.
If a NHL club is going to have both a President and a GM, obviously that can lead to any number of actual set-ups in terms of who's making the call. The President could effectively have the job of what we think a GM does and be making all of the hockey decisions with the guy with the GM title effectively being an AGM and doing legwork and detail stuff or it could be one where the President is a go-between with ownership with the GM doing all the hockey stuff or it could be one where the President is focused on the numbers but still requires some sort of explanation of the GM's moves without meddling in them or it could be collaborative in some other way and on and on and on.
I still haven't seen anyone on this thread make a big deal about one of these things being inherently superior to the other depending on the people involved. Sure, as Leafs fans who either remember the Ballard years or the Pension Fund years where there was a general perception that rebuilds weren't allowed in order to maintain a certain level of competitiveness/profitability there's probably some reflexive distrust of even the hint of non-hockey people making hockey decisions but I don't think, generally speaking, that Shanahan is seen as a "Non-Hockey Person"
(Although I suppose it's worth mentioning that for all the talk of Dubas being relatively inexperienced he had more experience running a hockey team before coming to the Leafs than Shanahan had did)
So, again, it does strike me as a bit of a massive strawman for people to all of a sudden be like "Why are people upset that Dubas had to report to Shanahan" when, as far as I can see, nobody is really making that claim.
What I do see people saying is mainly A) that whatever the relationship was between Dubas/Shanahan in terms of running the club, Dubas wanted it to be changed to some degree going forward(which does not necessarily mean Dubas wanted to be able to sell all the players on the team for magic beans without a word from above) and that B) If there was a "power struggle" as mentioned in the post by Herman I mentioned above that they see more value in what Dubas has brought to the team than Shanahan, especially considering the considerable tasks facing whoever is running the Leafs in the short and medium terms.
With regards to A) as above, there's really nothing unusual or suspicious about this becoming a more pointed topic when the decision to bring Dubas had to be made because, for one, this would be when everyone had to show their hands and make their positions unmistakably clear and B) the Leafs had just again been knocked out of the playoffs again which could bring to a head what everyone's issues were with how the club was being run.
There's never been any suggestion that anyone should "pity" Dubas but by the same token whether it's for reasons of ego(with Dubas not wanting to be blamed for the Leafs' disappointing results if he doesn't feel he's ultimately the guy responsible for final roster decisions) or if it's just for competitive reasons(Dubas doesn't think he can build a winning team if he's prevented from constructing the roster he wants to within the parameters he's given) it's eminently reasonable for someone who is negotiating a new deal to want to re-define their role within an organization. Especially if, as seems to be the case with Dubas, they seem to have leverage by virtue of being generally perceived to be pretty good at their job and have options elsewhere.
Now, as to B), I'd admit there's something of a paradox here where if you think Dubas did a good job you have to then also be of the opinion that Shanahan did a good job Presidentin' by hiring him(although by that same token if you don't think Dubas did well here then combined with what Lamoriello did I think you'd be very hard pressed to make the case that Shanahan was worth keeping around) but just in general I think if Dubas was operating within the typical scope of what we think a GM's duties are and making most of the personnel decisions then it's understandable that Fans who think he was doing that well would be more inclined to see him stick around than someone in the role of "President" which I think is seen as being at least one step more removed from what fans actually care about in terms of on-ice results.
Kin
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Seriously. This is just such an overblown Only-In-Toronto sort of issue. Dubas, being interviewed after another very disappointing playoff exit, says something pretty mild about the effect the job is having on him and people are acting like he went out like Scarface in Half-Baked.