Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[mr grieves]

Attributing re-signing Bozak to Carlyle's coaching isn't something that holds any water, neither is signing Clarkson.  Those we decisions made to address specific roster needs, and neither has worked out particularly well. 

You're arguing that the management tailor made a roster to suit a coach, and the coach then didn't produce the results.

I'm saying that I don't buy that, and I think that the management put together the best roster of talented hockey players they could, and left it to the coach to coach them in a way that produced results.

Behold Dave's big day.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn73DGgUlrs[/youtube]

Make of it what you will. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether Nonis thought he was building the best team anyone could or building Randy's ideal team (I hear more evidence for the latter in the above). The fact is, the players they moved on from performed well elsewhere and are valuable contributors on playoff teams. The players they went with are albatross contracts on a capped out, bottom-five team, or traded for a guy who'll never play again in some insurance scam. Whatever good reasons you thought there were at the time for the moves they made, a mediocre team was turned into an abysmal one.

 

[Kin]

Make of it what you will. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether Nonis thought he was building the best team anyone could or building Randy's ideal team (I hear more evidence for the latter in the above). The fact is, the players they moved on from performed well elsewhere and are valuable contributors on playoff teams.

I don't agree that it doesn't matter what his goal was. He didn't have the authority to do what he should have done, which is take a wrecking ball to the organization and begin the process of cleaning house that is only now underway. Without that authority he had to make decisions that advanced that agenda and relevant factors included trying to keep the core together and the coach relatively happy.

 

[KW Sluggo]

I don't care much whether the team was built for the 2nd last coach who just happens to be "Coach of the Year" material based on what followed (just kidding, well a bit).

The question I would pose is: do we jump at Todd McL or do we wait to see if Babcock will take it?

If it is Babs then I would think he would insist on final say over player personnel decisions and may thus be the 3rd asst gm (although first in rank over Dubas and Hunter) as well as coach.

 

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't care much whether the team was built for the 2nd last coach who just happens to be "Coach of the Year" material based on what followed (just kidding, well a bit).

The question I would pose is: do we jump at Todd McL or do we wait to see if Babcock will take it?

If it is Babs then I would think he would insist on final say over player personnel decisions and may thus be the 3rd asst gm (although first in rank over Dubas and Hunter) as well as coach.

He can insist on what he wants, but he's not getting final say over player personnel decisions unless he's the full GM.

 

[mr grieves]

Make of it what you will. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether Nonis thought he was building the best team anyone could or building Randy's ideal team (I hear more evidence for the latter in the above). The fact is, the players they moved on from performed well elsewhere and are valuable contributors on playoff teams.

I don't agree that it doesn't matter what his goal was. He didn't have the authority to do what he should have done, which is take a wrecking ball to the organization and begin the process of cleaning house that is only now underway. Without that authority he had to make decisions that advanced that agenda and relevant factors included trying to keep the core together and the coach relatively happy.

I've maintained for a while now that he did a poor job advancing that agenda, as there were things that characterized Burke's tenure that Nonis did away with. Had he not capped himself out and committed to max-term deals on UFAs (things Burke did not do), then he would've been a better steward of that agenda.

But the end result -- not much coming of the short-cut core before its window closed -- is roughly the same, and I suppose we should be grateful to Dave Nonis for turning a flawed team into bad one, which seems to have got us to this place more quickly. Maybe they'll build him a statue someday.

 

[Kin]

I've maintained for a while now that he did a poor job advancing that agenda, as there were things that characterized Burke's tenure that Nonis did away with. Had he not capped himself out and committed to max-term deals on UFAs (things Burke did not do), then he would've been a better steward of that agenda.

I don't agree. Leaving aside that there was no such thing as a max-term UFA when Burke was running the club he still pursued and signed a bunch of terrible UFA deals. He failed to sign people like Brad Richards, sure, and you might even argue that it was Burke's in-house limit on contract term that kiboshed it but I think a pretty reasonable reading of that by Burke's successor would have been that the fundamental tenet of what Burke was trying to do, win without a rebuild and heavily built on free agent signings, was unlikely in the best of circumstances but essentially impossible if you had a policy that essentially took you out of the running for the best free agents.

The Clarkson deal was a terrible one but it really wouldn't have been all that better if it had been a five year deal.

 

[mr grieves]

The Clarkson deal was a terrible one but it really wouldn't have been all that better if it had been a five year deal.

It wouldn't've been signed at five years, as Dave mentions in the UFA day presser. I always took that five-year rule not (only?) as statement of the ideal length for a UFA contract but (also?) as a fail safe to keep you from signing terrible UFA deals.

We also don't know whether Burke would've signed off on the new coach's assessment of the team he built as readily as Nonis did of the team his predecessor built. One thing I do know, however, is that the team was put on downward trajectory once Nonis got to work in the offseason.

 

[Kin]

It wouldn't've been signed at five years, as Dave mentions in the UFA day presser. I always took that five-year rule not (only?) as statement of the ideal length for a UFA contract but (also?) as a fail safe to keep you from signing terrible UFA deals.

Right, but it not being signed at 5 years is a decision of Clarkson's and the market. If Clarkson had been willing to sign for five years it would still be a terrible deal, just like the Komisarek deal was. Those two extra years aren't the dividing line between terrible and not terrible.

Holding fast to a five year limit might limit the worst of the worst free agent deals, sure, but it also would almost certainly cut you off from the best UFA's available and so long as the agenda is to build heavily through UFA's then declaring that you're only going to sort through the bargain bin isn't commendable. It's just admitting defeat.

 

[mr grieves]

Holding fast to a five year limit might limit the worst of the worst free agent deals, sure, but it also would almost certainly cut you off from the best UFA's available and so long as the agenda is to build heavily through UFA's then declaring that you're only going to sort through the bargain bin isn't commendable. It's just admitting defeat.

Ha! But did he say the agenda was to build through the UFA market exclusively? I thought Burke was counting on swinging some trades to build up a team too.

But, anyway, what "best UFAs available" did Burke miss out on? Would he have missed out on had in he held onto the Leafs job?

 

[Kin]

Ha! But did he say the agenda was to build through the UFA market exclusively? I thought Burke was counting on swinging some trades to build up a team too.

It's neat that "heavily" in my sentence became "exclusively" in yours. A more cynical person than me might think that was deliberate.

But, anyway, what "best UFAs available" did Burke miss out on? Would he have missed out on had in he held onto the Leafs job?

I'm not arguing for the validity of the strategy, just that if it's a strategy someone's going to follow that declaring you won't sign the biggest deals is ruling yourself out of the most sought after players. Saying "I'm going to add significant pieces through free agency but not sign max deals" isn't a strategy at all. It's essentially declaring that you have no plans for adding the talent you need. It's investment via lottery tickets.

 

[mr grieves]

Ha! But did he say the agenda was to build through the UFA market exclusively? I thought Burke was counting on swinging some trades to build up a team too.

It's neat that "heavily" in my sentence became "exclusively" in yours. A more cynical person than me might think that was deliberate.

Nope. Just sloppy. But I don't think Burke built through the UFA market even "heavily." He tried out Tim Connolly and committed to Komisarek, sure, but most of the team was built through trades, some a bit too bold (Kessel) but most pretty clever and opportunistic (Gardiner, Phaneuf, Franson, Lupul). The best pieces he found on the UFA market were from the bargain bin, as often seems to be case.

But, anyway, what "best UFAs available" did Burke miss out on? Would he have missed out on had in he held onto the Leafs job?

I'm not arguing for the validity of the strategy, just that if it's a strategy someone's going to follow that declaring you won't sign the biggest deals is ruling yourself out of the most sought after players. Saying "I'm going to add significant pieces through free agency but not sign max deals" isn't a strategy at all. It's essentially declaring that you have no plans for adding the talent you need. It's investment via lottery tickets.

Yeah, I get the point in the abstract. You state it elegantly. I'm just not sure that I see it as being a problem that exists in the real world. The guys you'd want to break those rules for don't often move (Chara? Suter and Parise?), and the "best UFAs available" are guys like Brooks Orpik and David Clarkson. Realistically, the needs the team actually had after their playoff appearance that could've been filled on the UFA market (i.e. not a Norris calibre defenseman or top center, because they're not there) were (1) a reliable top-four defenseman, (2) more center depth, and (3) a decent winger who could've moved up and down the line-up. You can do that with Burke's rule. Junking that rule to pursue a "top UFA" (David Clarkson) left the team without the cap space to pursue those actual needs, and the team was a lot worse for it.

 

[Kin]

Nope. Just sloppy. But I don't think Burke built through the UFA market even "heavily." He tried out Tim Connolly and committed to Komisarek, sure, but most of the team was built through trades, some a bit too bold (Kessel) but most pretty clever and opportunistic (Gardiner, Phaneuf, Franson, Lupul). The best pieces he found on the UFA market were from the bargain bin, as often seems to be case.

Come on. You know I didn't say he did. I said he planned to. He wanted to. That it was the agenda but that because of his stance on long contracts it rendered him unable to actually land the sort of player we're talking about. Brad Richards, the Sedins...Burke's agenda had them adding those kinds of players, he just wasn't able to do it in part because he wasn't making competitive offers.

Trading for those players wasn't realistic either because as we saw with Kessel and Phaneuf, trades tend to be zero sum games even when you think you've stumbled onto a bargain.

Yeah, I get the point in the abstract. You state it elegantly. I'm just not sure that I see it as being a problem that exists in the real world. The guys you'd want to break those rules for don't often move (Chara? Suter and Parise?), and the "best UFAs available" are guys like Brooks Orpik and David Clarkson. Realistically, the needs the team actually had after their playoff appearance that could've been filled on the UFA market (i.e. not a Norris calibre defenseman or top center, because they're not there) were (1) a reliable top-four defenseman, (2) more center depth, and (3) a decent winger who could've moved up and down the line-up. You can do that with Burke's rule. Junking that rule to pursue a "top UFA" (David Clarkson) left the team without the cap space to pursue those actual needs, and the team was a lot worse for it.

Well, it is a problem that exists in the real world because the fundamental question of how the Leafs were ever going to add those pieces was/is by far more of a pressing issue than just "Was David Clarkson a bad signing". In the larger picture, the Clarkson signing is mainly irrelevant because unless you plan on actually having someone top tier to spend that money on...who cares if you're capped out? What elite player did the Clarkson contract make the Leafs miss out on? How much better could they have realistically been this year if they'd signed someone else at a more reasonable term? 

It's easy enough to hold up the failure of Clarkson here as evidence that Burke's policy was a good one but I'm not arguing that Clarkson's contract was a good one. I'm saying that Nonis either had to abandon the policy or come up with a wildly different way of adding the talent that the Leafs needed to become a contender and that the only real one, a rebuild, wasn't really an option he had.

 

[mr grieves]

Well, it is a problem that exists in the real world because the fundamental question of how the Leafs were ever going to add those pieces was/is by far more of a pressing issue than just "Was David Clarkson a bad signing". In the larger picture, the Clarkson signing is mainly irrelevant because unless you plan on actually having someone top tier to spend that money on...who cares if you're capped out? What elite player did the Clarkson contract make the Leafs miss out on? How much better could they have realistically been this year if they'd signed someone else at a more reasonable term? 

It's easy enough to hold up the failure of Clarkson here as evidence that Burke's policy was a good one but I'm not arguing that Clarkson's contract was a good one. I'm saying that Nonis either had to abandon the policy or come up with a wildly different way of adding the talent that the Leafs needed to become a contender and that the only real one, a rebuild, wasn't really an option he had.

I don't disagree with the basic point you're making. But I think it's basically just repeating where we've disagreed before.

Yes, what a contending team needs is pretty obvious, and what the Leafs need to build a contender can only be got through a full rebuild. If Burke ever seriously believed he could get those players in this UFA market, he was wrong (they don't really move). If he thought he could get them without offering contracts longer than 5 years, he was foolish (when they do, they are expensive). But I'm less troubled by the foolishness, because there was a bigger, erroneous assumption preceding it.

All I've ever said was this core -- that is, one without those contender pieces -- could've been a lot more competitive than it was had Nonis not been so dumb on the margins. It's not Clarkson vs. an elite UFA (who I don't recall being on the market in the last two years), but Clarkson vs. the complementary players that the Leafs needed for that core.

You've called settling for second pairing defensemen, middling two-way centers, and scrap-heap scoring depth admitting defeat, maybe consigning the Leafs to the fate of the Columbus Blue Jackets. I'd call that carrying out the Burke agenda -- that is, moving forward with this core -- as best as it could be done. Since that was all Nonis was authorized to do, I've been willing to evaluate him along those lines: did he make the 2012-2015 core as competitive as it could've been?

There was no Cup at the end of that road. And there was no obvious way to move from that core to a contending one (unless you sign on to the full rebuild, and seasons like this get you to that). All the Burke plan really had to offer was a few years of competitive teams that'd fall short in (hopefully) not too embarrassing ways.

 

[Kin]

You've called settling for second pairing defensemen, middling two-way centers, and scrap-heap scoring depth admitting defeat, maybe consigning the Leafs to the fate of the Columbus Blue Jackets. I'd call that carrying out the Burke agenda -- that is, moving forward with this core -- as best as it could be done. Since that was all Nonis was authorized to do, I've been willing to evaluate him along those lines: did he make the 2012-2015 core as competitive as it could've been?

Well, again, I'd disagree that "The Burke Agenda" was going forward with this core. I don't think Burke was satisfied with the core he had. I think he wanted to be a player on any elite free agent that might have come up and I think, to one extent or another, if Burke hadn't been fired he'd at some point have addressed the fact that his policies essentially ruled them out of ever significantly adding to the core.

As to the general point you're making I'm fine with evaluating Nonis on that basis but I think then you have to have realistic benchmarks for evaluating the free agency market. Clarkson was obviously a terrible signing, sure, but Ken Holland made a terrible free agent signing there too. Vincent Lecavalier, who was the guy you were pushing the Leafs to make an effort for(and in fact said they should have signed by virtue of going over what Philly offered him), also turned out to be a signing that looks pretty bad in retrospect.

So judge him on that basis but keep in mind that A) he didn't have the authority to fire Carlyle or tell him who should play where and B) even someone as smart as you was advocating for a bad free agent signing of your own.

All the Burke plan really had to offer was a few years of competitive teams that'd fall short in (hopefully) not too embarrassing ways.

Well, if what Nonis did avoided that nonsense and delaying where we are now for another few years than quite frankly he should have a statue built.

 

[mr grieves]

Well, again, I'd disagree that "The Burke Agenda" was going forward with this core. I don't think Burke was satisfied with the core he had. I think he wanted to be a player on any elite free agent that might have come up and I think, to one extent or another, if Burke hadn't been fired he'd at some point have addressed the fact that his policies essentially ruled them out of ever significantly adding to the core.

Except in his time with the Leafs, he never wanted to be a player so badly that he spent big on the elite talent that made it to the UFA market. And, given how far from elite that talent was, I had no complaints.

So judge him on that basis but keep in mind that A) he didn't have the authority to fire Carlyle or tell him who should play where and B) even someone as smart as you was advocating for a bad free agent signing of your own.

A) I don't recall that Nonis didn't have the authority to fire his coach. As I understand it, the optics -- since the team had just made the playoffs -- would've been bad, but, more importantly, he was duly impressed with Carlyle's performance, what he got out of the team. He didn't want to fire the coach. In fact, as you noted above, he liked what he saw so much that he got the coach players who would excel in his system.

B) Yeah, I thought LeCavalier for as long as and at slightly more than Bozak would've been an upgrade on their top-6 C, which I was hoping they'd do once they bought out Grabovski. I was optimistic that they'd try something to upgrade at center, and LeCavalier's falling off a cliff was surprising. But I'm pretty sure most of what I said back then was that the preferred path forward was to hold Grabovski, promote Kadri, dump Bozak, re-sign MacArthur, and use what cap space is left to add to the defense and center depth.

All the Burke plan really had to offer was a few years of competitive teams that'd fall short in (hopefully) not too embarrassing ways.

Well, if what Nonis did avoided that nonsense and delaying where we are now for another few years than quite frankly he should have a statue built.

Well, I agree that starting the rebuild ASAP is in the best long-term interests of the team. I think the remaining $6m he's being paid not to GM is fair expression of a nation's gratitude -- he could even build himself a statue or two.

But, yeah. Sooner the better. Hopefully they get more for late-20s Kessel and early-30s Phaneuf than they would if they'd waited until this core's window inevitably closed and they were looking to grade those guys 5 years from now.

 

[Kin]

Except in his time with the Leafs, he never wanted to be a player so badly that he spent big on the elite talent that made it to the UFA market. And, given how far from elite that talent was, I had no complaints.

Sure but despite whatever criticisms I may have had for Burke and the way he ran the team I don't believe for one second he'd have advocated or been complacent with the sort of mediocrity that his policy ultimately would have consigned the team to in the long run. Something would have changed, one way or the other.

I don't recall that Nonis didn't have the authority to fire his coach. As I understand it, the optics -- since the team had just made the playoffs -- would've been bad, but, more importantly, he was duly impressed with Carlyle's performance, what he got out of the team. He didn't want to fire the coach. In fact, as you noted above, he liked what he saw so much that he got the coach players who would excel in his system.

Saying he didn't have that authority may be supposition on my part but I think it's pretty reasonable considering that Nonis didn't get extended, and therefore confirmed as the full-time GM, until after that July rush was over. That month was basically a full-time audition for the job and I don't think it's crazy to suggest that the board wouldn't have been crazy with someone who they hadn't even confirmed would be running the team going forward making the sort of significant changes you're talking about.

Which, to be frank, is why I sort of have to dismiss the rest of what you say here as fairly meaningless. The team wasn't going to come out and say Nonis didn't have that authority just like if Nonis didn't have that authority he wasn't going to come out and say "I don't like having Carlyle as the coach but what can I do?". He had to work within the parameters of the situation he was in.

Yeah, I thought LeCavalier for as long as and at slightly more than Bozak would've been an upgrade on their top-6 C, which I was hoping they'd do once they bought out Grabovski. I was optimistic that they'd try something to upgrade at center, and LeCavalier's falling off a cliff was surprising. But I'm pretty sure most of what I said back then was that the preferred path forward was to hold Grabovski, promote Kadri, dump Bozak, re-sign MacArthur, and use what cap space is left to add to the defense and center depth.

See, I'm sure you look back at all that and think there's a certain amount of "I told you so there". Thing is, given how mediocre that team you're talking about would have been I feel like I'm the one in that position. Both options would have been terrible, so I'm not going to bury someone for going with what might arguably be the more terrible road.

But, and this is largely a side note, I do agree that Lecavalier falling off a cliff is a surprise and, to be fair, my disagreement with you there was more that I didn't think the Leafs ever had a realistic chance of signing him.

That said, I do think you need to acknowledge that what happened with Clarkson is also, to some extent or another, also a surprise. I never loved the Clarkson signing but let's be real about it. He was categorized by the people who get paid to do these things as the most desirable free agent out there. The market for him wasn't just set by the Leafs and Oilers. He was never going to be a consistent 30+ goal scorer, no, but the fact that he responded with a couple of seasons where it genuinely looked like he had no business being in the NHL was not something anyone could have reasonable seen as a likely outcome. 

Well, I agree that starting the rebuild ASAP is in the best long-term interests of the team. I think the remaining $6m he's being paid not to GM is fair expression of a nation's gratitude -- he could even build himself a statue or two.

Except I'm not paying him a red cent. All I'm saying for him is that given the two options, between meekly acquiescing with the terrible "re-tool" concept and stepping on the gas and taking it to it's logical and ultimately doomed to failure conclusion by throwing wild haymakers on the UFA market, I'll take the second. I think the second makes more sense if the ultimate goal was ever to be a competitor of any consequence. I agree that what you advocated was less likely to end in what we saw this year but it was also less likely to end up with anything truly positive.

Even if Nonis got us here unintentionally, I'd rather be here than watching us get knocked out by the Rangers in 5.

 

[Peter D.]

Interesting tidbit I heard on the radio today: Mike Futa has an out-clause for only one team in the entire league -- the Leafs.

 

[mr grieves]

I don't recall that Nonis didn't have the authority to fire his coach. As I understand it, the optics -- since the team had just made the playoffs -- would've been bad, but, more importantly, he was duly impressed with Carlyle's performance, what he got out of the team. He didn't want to fire the coach. In fact, as you noted above, he liked what he saw so much that he got the coach players who would excel in his system.

Saying he didn't have that authority may be supposition on my part but I think it's pretty reasonable considering that Nonis didn't get extended, and therefore confirmed as the full-time GM, until after that July rush was over. That month was basically a full-time audition for the job and I don't think it's crazy to suggest that the board wouldn't have been crazy with someone who they hadn't even confirmed would be running the team going forward making the sort of significant changes you're talking about.

The significant sort of changes I was talking about were continuing with good parts of the roster, releasing the worst parts of it, and adding a few depth parts. There's nothing "significant" in that -- unless Carlyle was in the ownership group and that group was particularly meddling, or unless it's never happened that a GM's given a coach players the coach didn't particularly like.

Which, to be frank, is why I sort of have to dismiss the rest of what you say here as fairly meaningless. The team wasn't going to come out and say Nonis didn't have that authority just like if Nonis didn't have that authority he wasn't going to come out and say "I don't like having Carlyle as the coach but what can I do?". He had to work within the parameters of the situation he was in.

At the risk of talking in circles, you pointed out above that Nonis did more than quietly work within the parameters given him -- he made longterm commitments to players who (it turns out) couldn't play in another coach's system; he got rid of players who have succeeded in other coaches' systems. Nonis obviously did not want to make a change from Carlyle or push the coach out of his comfort zone.

See, I'm sure you look back at all that and think there's a certain amount of "I told you so there". Thing is, given how mediocre that team you're talking about would have been I feel like I'm the one in that position. Both options would have been terrible, so I'm not going to bury someone for going with what might arguably be the more terrible road.

Of course there's an "I told you so" there. I said it looks like they're letting the good parts of a second line go for negative assets to make room for Bozak and Clarkson, and if they do that, they'll be worse and won't make the playoffs.

Your argument, that between my (or the PPP's Potato GM's) roster and Nonis's is a distinction with no difference, since neither roster was Chicago's, is true enough, but I never said it was, so I'm not sure that that matters here. All I've ever said is Nonis took the roster he got and made it worse, that he made a series of poor decisions that would make it even more difficult to improve that team. That it's presently being blown up -- some years before the inherent limitations of that core left the team cuppless and over the hill -- would seem to confirm that.

That said, I do think you need to acknowledge that what happened with Clarkson is also, to some extent or another, also a surprise.

Granted. I thought that was a lot of money to pay for a player who might add a nice dimension to a second line but only produced like a third liner -- especially when we're buying out an overpaid third line center and balking at extending Kulemin at $4m/year. But I never thought he wouldn't be able to muster 15-20 goals, 30 points. I didn't think he'd actually ruin otherwise okay lines. Or that he wouldn't look like he even belonged in the league. 

Well, I agree that starting the rebuild ASAP is in the best long-term interests of the team. I think the remaining $6m he's being paid not to GM is fair expression of a nation's gratitude -- he could even build himself a statue or two.

Except I'm not paying him a red cent. All I'm saying for him is that given the two options, between meekly acquiescing with the terrible "re-tool" concept and stepping on the gas and taking it to it's logical and ultimately doomed to failure conclusion by throwing wild haymakers on the UFA market, I'll take the second. I think the second makes more sense if the ultimate goal was ever to be a competitor of any consequence. I agree that what you advocated was less likely to end in what we saw this year but it was also less likely to end up with anything truly positive.

And every time you've said that over the last year, I've agreed.

Even if Nonis got us here unintentionally, I'd rather be here than watching us get knocked out by the Rangers in 5.

And I'd even agree to this up to the point that I'm supposed to view Nonis's bumbling favorably. History is full of unintended consequences, and we can appreciate the world we're living in without making heroes of the bumblers.

 

[mr grieves]

Interesting tidbit I heard on the radio today: Mike Futa has an out-clause for only one team in the entire league -- the Leafs.

More on topic, that.

Does an out clause mean the Leafs wouldn't have to send a pick to LA? I've read (heard?) that they might delay adding anyone presently employed until after the draft in order to keep the pick.

 

[Kin]

The significant sort of changes I was talking about were continuing with good parts of the roster, releasing the worst parts of it, and adding a few depth parts. There's nothing "significant" in that -- unless Carlyle was in the ownership group and that group was particularly meddling, or unless it's never happened that a GM's given a coach players the coach didn't particularly like.

The significant change I'm referring to specifically there is firing Carlyle. I think you'd have to agree that firing a coach is a pretty big decision for any interim GM to make but especially when that coach has a Cup to his name and just broke a team's playoff drought in his first season there. 

At the risk of talking in circles, you pointed out above that Nonis did more than quietly work within the parameters given him -- he made longterm commitments to players who (it turns out) couldn't play in another coach's system; he got rid of players who have succeeded in other coaches' systems. Nonis obviously did not want to make a change from Carlyle or push the coach out of his comfort zone.

Well, without wanting to repeat myself I don't think that is obvious. I think Nonis couldn't get rid of Carlyle and so had to approach things at the very least from a collaborative rather than confrontational perspective.

Likewise, while some of those moves might be risky, none of those moves we're particularly major.

All I've ever said is Nonis took the roster he got and made it worse, that he made a series of poor decisions that would make it even more difficult to improve that team. That it's presently being blown up -- some years before the inherent limitations of that core left the team cuppless and over the hill -- would seem to confirm that.

Sure, and my defense of him has always been predicated on the idea that your argument misses the forest for the trees. That your preferred roster was always the equivalent of a baseball team bunting when they needed three runs on the basis that it would statistically increase the chances of scoring a meaningless run and losing by 2 instead of 3. Nonis was taking swings which, yes, increased the risk of striking out but was at least taking a shot at a desired result.

So it's not any of Nonis' specific actions I prefer, it's that he recognized that bolder action needed to be taken.

And I'd even agree to this up to the point that I'm supposed to view Nonis's bumbling favorably. History is full of unintended consequences, and we can appreciate the world we're living in without making heroes of the bumblers.

That may just have to be where we leave it then. I don't think the guy who prays for rain is doing much of use while the town is on fire but I'll take him over the guy with the fiddle.