Kyle Dubas not returning as GM

[herman]

Like I've been saying, the Shanahan and MLSE board interference in deal making is likely a red herring. It may be an inefficient process, which could have caused some issues, but I have my doubts that there was any real meddling.

PPP has a good take on this
https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/dont-trust-the-process-kyle-dubas-mlse-autonomy-and-control/

Somewhere in the broken telephone between pro-Dubas source --> Insider --> Assumption Filter --> tweet/podcast --> audience bias filter, you get meddling. I think the lack of Board spokesperson is probably where the process had some impact since trust seemed to be fractured between Dubas/Shanahan at some point this offseason.

 

[dappleganger]

Only thing I've read was Knies + Mrazek for Hagel + Fluery was either kiboshed or not approved fast enough by Shanahan. Take that however you will.

 

[bustaheims]

Only thing I've read was Knies + Mrazek for Hagel + Fluery was either kiboshed or not approved fast enough by Shanahan. Take that however you will.

I saw that, too, though when that was made public last season, I got the impression that Dubas wasn't so much on board with that deal either and wanted to pull the plug once the proposed deal leaked.

 

[herman]

I seem to recall Dubas indicating that it was an early draft of the Chicago proposal that was leaked

 

[dappleganger]

Shanahan leaked it so Dubas wouldn't do the deal.

 

[mr grieves]

As for Shanahan, I'm not too thrilled with him either. He needed to establish a date they needed a GM decision by so they had time to go through a hiring process. That date was somewhere close to shortly after the trade deadline. "We need a finalized contract with you, Kyle, by the middle of March. If not, we have to move on." Shanahan messed up too.

That?s where I am with it. Once it gets so late, given all that?s facing the Leafs this off-season, it?s hard to replace the GM without disrupting that work and risking real damage to the franchise. That?s an enormous amount of leverage to give a GM. That?s on Shanahan, as president, I think.

 

[Omallley]

All the personnel decisions ended two months ago - at the deadline. Whatever thoughts he might have had on autonomy or the decision approval process should have been pretty well developed.  And Dubas couldn't figure that out until last Monday? Really?

This is just a hypothetical... but let's say there was a trade that Dubas felt would make the Leafs a better team at the deadline or before and one way or another it got blocked. Either through Shanahan directly saying no or due to time running out on a deal because of Toronto's current chain of command when it comes to big deals (Dubas -> Shanahan -> board -> back to Shanahan - > back to Dubas). Let's say Dubas is watching the Florida series and the entire time thinking "man, if I was able to acquire so and so he could have made a drastic difference in winning this series and potentially winning the Cup".

Would it not be at least somewhat reasonable for Dubas to think he's justified in attempting to re-open the "autonomy" conversation one last time post-elimination?

This is a pretty extreme hypothetical obviously but I do think it's not completely unreasonable for Dubas' thoughts on what his next contract should and should not include would change over the course of a playoff run. Just like it would be possible for the Leafs to have ignored their post-deadline contract talks with Dubas and just fired him if the Leafs got swept 4-0 in the first round. Nothing was set in stone at that point.

Dubas was paid millions of dollars for nearly five years as General Manager after being paid well to serve about four years as assistant GM. The part I'm having trouble with on the autonomy/decision making process complaint/concern (if accurate) is: "Why did you, Dubas, wait 4+5 years to raise the grievance?" If he answered "I was just following my contract", I'd fire him on the spot. No company has perfect procedures, job descriptions and employment contracts. The General Manager has the responsibility to sort out those issues and not wait 4+5 years to resolve them when his contract comes up. If that is what went down, I'd have zero sympathy for Dubas as it is a pretty clear cut dereliction of his duty.

If they had been in discussions for two months as Shanahan maintained and Dubas lobbed a 50% increase in pay last Thursday, I'd be put off by that too. Should have come much sooner.

As for Shanahan, I'm not too thrilled with him either. He needed to establish a date they needed a GM decision by so they had time to go through a hiring process. That date was somewhere close to shortly after the trade deadline. "We need a finalized contract with you, Kyle, by the middle of March. If not, we have to move on." Shanahan messed up too.

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

 

[rdowdall]

All the personnel decisions ended two months ago - at the deadline. Whatever thoughts he might have had on autonomy or the decision approval process should have been pretty well developed.  And Dubas couldn't figure that out until last Monday? Really?

This is just a hypothetical... but let's say there was a trade that Dubas felt would make the Leafs a better team at the deadline or before and one way or another it got blocked. Either through Shanahan directly saying no or due to time running out on a deal because of Toronto's current chain of command when it comes to big deals (Dubas -> Shanahan -> board -> back to Shanahan - > back to Dubas). Let's say Dubas is watching the Florida series and the entire time thinking "man, if I was able to acquire so and so he could have made a drastic difference in winning this series and potentially winning the Cup".

Would it not be at least somewhat reasonable for Dubas to think he's justified in attempting to re-open the "autonomy" conversation one last time post-elimination?

This is a pretty extreme hypothetical obviously but I do think it's not completely unreasonable for Dubas' thoughts on what his next contract should and should not include would change over the course of a playoff run. Just like it would be possible for the Leafs to have ignored their post-deadline contract talks with Dubas and just fired him if the Leafs got swept 4-0 in the first round. Nothing was set in stone at that point.

Dubas was paid millions of dollars for nearly five years as General Manager after being paid well to serve about four years as assistant GM. The part I'm having trouble with on the autonomy/decision making process complaint/concern (if accurate) is: "Why did you, Dubas, wait 4+5 years to raise the grievance?" If he answered "I was just following my contract", I'd fire him on the spot. No company has perfect procedures, job descriptions and employment contracts. The General Manager has the responsibility to sort out those issues and not wait 4+5 years to resolve them when his contract comes up. If that is what went down, I'd have zero sympathy for Dubas as it is a pretty clear cut dereliction of his duty.

If they had been in discussions for two months as Shanahan maintained and Dubas lobbed a 50% increase in pay last Thursday, I'd be put off by that too. Should have come much sooner.

As for Shanahan, I'm not too thrilled with him either. He needed to establish a date they needed a GM decision by so they had time to go through a hiring process. That date was somewhere close to shortly after the trade deadline. "We need a finalized contract with you, Kyle, by the middle of March. If not, we have to move on." Shanahan messed up too.

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

While this situation wasn't handled properly, I don't know if I would go as far as to call Shanahan incompetent.  He handled the transition from Lou to Dubas well in that he stood by what his original intentions were.  We all knew the intention was that Lou would mentor Dubas and then Dubas would take over.  Just because there were those that wanted the job that Dubas got, Shanahan still stood by his initial plan.

I think this got personal somewhere and that caused Shanahan and Dubas to act out of character.  Shanahan looks worse right now because he aired the dirty laundry and Dubas took more of a high road.

At the end of the day this was a mistake, but assuming that this organization is just going to keep on making mistakes because of this might be a bit premature.

 

[Arn]

At the end of the day this was a mistake, but assuming that this organization is just going to keep on making mistakes because of this might be a bit premature.

Good news is, this isn?t an organisation with a long, storied history of making self defeating mistakes

 

[bustaheims]

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

Is this really all that different from any team firing their GM, other than the fact the Leafs were hoping to bring Dubas back? I have to imagine they approached this from a similar fashion as they would hiring a new GM - identify their top choices and go from there. Dubas was their top choice, but, obviously, that didn't work out, so they need to move on to the rest of the list. The only real difference here is that they have to conduct interviews after missing out on their top choice instead of conducting them all before making a decision - but, that's par for the course when you're hoping to extend an existing employee.

I can't imagine a scenario where Shanahan and the board didn't have a backup plan in place. They were clearly hoping they wouldn't have to execute it, but I'm confident it was there.

Honestly, I don't get the handwringing about all of this. Yes, things haven't played out how many of us would have liked them to, but the jump to suddenly the team doesn't have competent leadership feels like a huge stretch and a surface level media narrative. Anyone who has been around the league (or any business) long enough would have contingency plans in place, and I'm sure Shanahan and MLSE do.

 

[Redleaf]

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

Is this really all that different from any team firing their GM, other than the fact the Leafs were hoping to bring Dubas back? I have to imagine they approached this from a similar fashion as they would hiring a new GM - identify their top choices and go from there. Dubas was their top choice, but, obviously, that didn't work out, so they need to move on to the rest of the list. The only real difference here is that they have to conduct interviews after missing out on their top choice instead of conducting them all before making a decision - but, that's par for the course when you're hoping to extend an existing employee.

I can't imagine a scenario where Shanahan and the board didn't have a backup plan in place. They were clearly hoping they wouldn't have to execute it, but I'm confident it was there.

Honestly, I don't get the handwringing about all of this. Yes, things haven't played out how many of us would have liked them to, but the jump to suddenly the team doesn't have competent leadership feels like a huge stretch and a surface level media narrative. Anyone who has been around the league (or any business) long enough would have contingency plans in place, and I'm sure Shanahan and MLSE do.

While, I?d have to agree with you on the way the media has handled the story. I?d also have to believe that any, and all contingency plans would?ve been placed so far back on the back burner (and with hardly enough consideration to be of any real benefit ) given Dubas coming back was almost a forgone conclusion.

 

[Kin]

Dubas taking stock is well and good. Most people looking for a new contract would be going through that process - especially in the wake of a renewal last summer being turned down.

But it is not unfair to expect a bunch of that stock got taken during the nearly five years he was on the job. There should have been considerable reflection before last week when he didn't get a renewal last summer.

I'm sure Dubas had many different thoughts about the Job and the organization throughout his years on the job and that it too informed how he went about his side of the negotiations. But it's also reasonable to think that two key things happened that would greatly affect how Dubas might have approached the final stage of things. One the way this particular season ended and how it may have brought some issues he'd had to a head and Two, if after the board was lukewarm or even hostile to bringing him back over the summer but now were making official concrete offers indicating they wanted him back(Which, again, might only have been the result of how the season ended) he might have seen his leverage shifting in what he could ask for. 

All the personnel decisions ended two months ago - at the deadline. Whatever thoughts he might have had on autonomy or the decision approval process should have been pretty well developed.  And Dubas couldn't figure that out until last Monday? Really?

His feelings might have been developed on those subjects but there's having feelings about a situation and having a particular example to point to as to why the issues he was having were yielding bad results.

But also, he was probably busy running the club and not spending a great deal of time thinking about what he wanted out of his next contract. I think, generally speaking, fans of the team would probably not see that as a terribly negative indictment on his character.

 

[Kin]

Honestly, I don't get the handwringing about all of this. Yes, things haven't played out how many of us would have liked them to, but the jump to suddenly the team doesn't have competent leadership feels like a huge stretch and a surface level media narrative. Anyone who has been around the league (or any business) long enough would have contingency plans in place, and I'm sure Shanahan and MLSE do.

I think the "handwringing" about this boils down to three key points:

1. After yet another tough beat in the playoffs this can read, the Leafs not getting their #1 choice to run the club, like another moral defeat.

2. There are people with concerns, as yet unfounded but with a fair argument behind them, that this could be detrimental for bringing guys like Matthews back(which I think we all agree is more important than whoever the GM might be)

3. The way in which it happened reveals both perhaps a less stable organization than some would like as well as suggests that there's no particular plan for improvement.

And for what it's worth when the subject of keeping Dubas came up I said pretty clearly I wasn't all that fussed either way. If, after the season, Shanahan had just come out and said "We weren't happy with where the team was so we're going to go in another direction" I may not have immediately been convinced that things were going to be improving but it would at least come off as stable and forthright decision making.

 

[Omallley]

Just to echo this - having a drop dead date, and planning for the worst are two things that seem like huge gaps here. It's management 101 regardless of your industry. Shanahan lost all control of the situation without those things in place - and unless there's way more to the story than we're being told in terms of how far down the road they are in a GM search, I'd have some serious concerns about Shanahan's "plan" if I were his boss.

As a fan, it feels like we're back in sideshow land without a competent person at the wheel.

Is this really all that different from any team firing their GM, other than the fact the Leafs were hoping to bring Dubas back? I have to imagine they approached this from a similar fashion as they would hiring a new GM - identify their top choices and go from there. Dubas was their top choice, but, obviously, that didn't work out, so they need to move on to the rest of the list. The only real difference here is that they have to conduct interviews after missing out on their top choice instead of conducting them all before making a decision - but, that's par for the course when you're hoping to extend an existing employee.

I can't imagine a scenario where Shanahan and the board didn't have a backup plan in place. They were clearly hoping they wouldn't have to execute it, but I'm confident it was there.

Honestly, I don't get the handwringing about all of this. Yes, things haven't played out how many of us would have liked them to, but the jump to suddenly the team doesn't have competent leadership feels like a huge stretch and a surface level media narrative. Anyone who has been around the league (or any business) long enough would have contingency plans in place, and I'm sure Shanahan and MLSE do.

Like I said - it's possible (and likley) the narrative is lacking a whole bunch of context, but I can't shake the "wow, that feels like a knee jerk reaction" for a decision that would have been ideally made quite a bit further upstream. If the goal is a cup, giving yourself a couple weeks to find the ideal candidate to be a GM for a pretty pivotal point for the club isn't ideal and doesn't scream competent management to me. I'm not saying Shanahan's incompetent, to be clear, but I don't feel like he's competently handled this situation - and it plants a seed of doubt going forward.

 

[Omallley]

And for what it's worth when the subject of keeping Dubas came up I said pretty clearly I wasn't all that fussed either way. If, after the season, Shanahan had just come out and said "We weren't happy with where the team was so we're going to go in another direction" I may not have immediately been convinced that things were going to be improving but it would at least come off as stable and forthright decision making.

That sums it up pretty well for me, TBH.

 

[L K]

Honestly, I don't get the handwringing about all of this. Yes, things haven't played out how many of us would have liked them to, but the jump to suddenly the team doesn't have competent leadership feels like a huge stretch and a surface level media narrative. Anyone who has been around the league (or any business) long enough would have contingency plans in place, and I'm sure Shanahan and MLSE do.

I think the "handwringing" about this boils down to three key points:

1. After yet another tough beat in the playoffs this can read, the Leafs not getting their #1 choice to run the club, like another moral defeat.

2. There are people with concerns, as yet unfounded but with a fair argument behind them, that this could be detrimental for bringing guys like Matthews back(which I think we all agree is more important than whoever the GM might be)

3. The way in which it happened reveals both perhaps a less stable organization than some would like as well as suggests that there's no particular plan for improvement.

And for what it's worth when the subject of keeping Dubas came up I said pretty clearly I wasn't all that fussed either way. If, after the season, Shanahan had just come out and said "We weren't happy with where the team was so we're going to go in another direction" I may not have immediately been convinced that things were going to be improving but it would at least come off as stable and forthright decision making.

Obviously everything is conjecture until we have a new GM announced but the names that are being floated aren't really the ones that make me excited.  I understand that the organization hasn't won with Dubas/Pridham at the helm but I like the general approach to things with an analytics/forward thinking organization.  Names like Treiliving don't make me feel like we are moving toward an improvement in management

 

[Kin]

Obviously everything is conjecture until we have a new GM announced but the names that are being floated aren't really the ones that make me excited.  I understand that the organization hasn't won with Dubas/Pridham at the helm but I like the general approach to things with an analytics/forward thinking organization.  Names like Treiliving don't make me feel like we are moving toward an improvement in management

Yeah, I think there's the instinct to think that if they want to move on from Dubas that means that they want someone who will do things significantly differently than Dubas which can strike a lot of people as not great if they generally think Dubas did a pretty good job here.

Now, of course, that's complicated by the apparent fact that they didn't want to move on from Dubas but decided to because either they didn't want to pay him what he wanted or because, I don't know, he didn't give the exact answer Shanahan wanted at a meaningless press conference but neither of those two things are probably going to make anyone feel any better.

 

[herman]

Only thing I've read was Knies + Mrazek for Hagel + Fluery was either kiboshed or not approved fast enough by Shanahan. Take that however you will.

I saw that, too, though when that was made public last season, I got the impression that Dubas wasn't so much on board with that deal either and wanted to pull the plug once the proposed deal leaked.

https://twitter.com/b1rky/status/1661411661083705355
from today's 32 Thoughts pod

That's how negotiations work, right? You ask something a bit crazy but maybe has the general shape of something useful, and you go back and forth a bit and whittle it into shape. Mrazek ended up traded to Chicago anyway without costing Knies.

 

[L K]

The Leafs had a bunch of trades come out of nowhere because Dubas did not have leaks.  That carried over from when Lou took over the organization.  That deal 100% was leaked by Chicago at the time and the report was always that it was a move offered by Chicago and that Dubas wasn't going to trade Knies.  I don't think that is a shocking revelation....although Hagel would have been a nice acquisition.

 

[herman]

https://theathletic.com/4549473/2023/05/25/maple-leafs-kyle-dubas-3/

Shanahan went from wanting to bring Dubas back to firing him in a matter of days. And then offered his version of events in a press conference that left people inside the organization confused and upset.

Jason Spezza resigned before that press conference even began. The popular former Leaf who retired into a role with the front office after the 2021-22 season has declined to address the matter any further than that. That was intentional. Spezza wanted his actions to do the talking.

[...]

After a 19-year playing career in the NHL, in which he earned an estimated $90 million, according to CapFriendly, Spezza could afford to walk away. Others who felt the same, who were inclined to follow their leader out the door, couldn?t given they lacked that same sense of financial security.

It?s security they have because of Dubas.

Though he wasn?t offered an extension himself, not until after the trade deadline, Dubas fought to extend staff members who entered last season with expiring contracts. He got them extended with one, two, and three-year deals.

At least one staff member was inclined to ride things out with Dubas for an uncertain year. Dubas insisted ? take the security, protect your family.

?Don?t worry about me,? he told his people. ?I?ll be OK.?