The Brian Burke Thread

[Kin]

And maybe they get lucky and pull off one of the few trades that involve a top 5 pick without a top 10 pick. From 1985 until now, there have been 6 instances of a known top 5 pick being moved without a top 10 pick being part of the package going the other way - and one was compensation for a head coach, which, as we both know, is no longer allowed.

Sure. Or it would take a series of trades where you move up in bite sized amounts. Either way, I don't think it's a question of luck.

 

[bustaheims]

Sure. Or it would take a series of trades where you move up in bite sized amounts. Either way, I don't think it's a question of luck.

Maybe not, but involves an awful lot of variables and other teams, making it an extremely unlikely event - and certainly not something that should be included in any sort of plan.

 

[Bender]

It was obvious in Burke?s deadline postmortem presser that he was operating in a buyers market, and his best trade options, value for value, involved selling off pieces and hurting the playoff goal this season (per Dreger, he could?ve collected firsts in return for MacArthur, Grabovski, Kulemin, and Schenn).

From the Brownscombe article.

This is just frustrating.  A first for Mac and he didn't bite?  For Kulemin?  Those seem like no-brainers to me -- unless you are trying to protect your buddy the coach who you gave an undeserved extension to.

If Dreger's correct Burke put loyalty to an underachieving coach ahead of the long-term good of the team.

I`m all for trading Kulemin, but how does this not fly in the face of keeping players who are still developing... He`s a hell of a lot closer to a 30 goal scorer since he`s shown he can do it over a 25th overall pick.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Sure. Or it would take a series of trades where you move up in bite sized amounts. Either way, I don't think it's a question of luck.

Maybe not, but involves an awful lot of variables and other teams, making it an extremely unlikely event - and certainly not something that should be included in any sort of plan.

But it worked when we wanted that Tavares guy.... oh wait. Never mind.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

I'm saying that you can extend that logic to anything can happen at any point in time.  It doesn't require the magic of the playoffs.  There are teams that make the playoffs every year that weren't picked to do so.  This year Ottawa looks like one of those teams.  So I guess I don't get the point of making the distinction between the two, treating the regular season as if it's ruled by the iron fist of probability and then the playoffs as a complete crapshoot. 

Well, in what's becoming a delightful pattern with you, you're tripping your logical feet over your own hyperbole. If I'd said that the Playoffs were entirely random and the regular season had no elements of random chance then you'd be right, it'd be a logical gap. Being as I didn't say either of those things, however, I'm relatively good on that front.

All hockey games have an element of the random there. It doesn't take a math major to know that the element of unpredictability has it's greatest impact in small sample sizes. The things that aren't random are more likely to win out over the course of an 82 game season than they are in a race to 16 wins(or, more to the point, a series of 4 races to 4 wins).

But even then, so long as you acknowledge that things aren't entirely random, you still address the things that are in your control. I'd never advocate that a coach in the playoffs stop trying to make adjustments because it's all random.

It's not actually hyperbole in this case, instead i'm trying to suss out just where you actually are on this subject by placing things in a more binary state.  You appeared to me to be arguing two opposing views at once.  This is a medium where the other person's point isn't always immediately clear. 

So, and i hate to assume here but i feel i must, you do think there was a deal out there today that would have given the team a statistically significant boost to not only make the playoffs but also make it father than the first round?  at least something to the degree that it would be the kind of scenario that might win out in one out of every twenty years or less?  I'm aware that's hardly scientific, more just an attempt to get a feeling of where you're at. 

 

[Kin]

Maybe not, but involves an awful lot of variables and other teams, making it an extremely unlikely event - and certainly not something that should be included in any sort of plan.

Well, maybe. But I don't think you can just look to the past to get a handle on these things. cw's post where he mentions dealing into the top 5 talks about trading three #1's for a top 5 pick. Do you really have any insight on the likelihood of that being accepted? How often had teams even had three #1's to offer?

I wouldn't plan on it necessarily but I'm not sure there's a track record either way here.

 

[Kin]

It's not actually hyperbole in this case, instead i'm trying to suss out just where you actually are on this subject by placing things in a more binary state.

Please. I never said anything vaguely resembling the playoffs being entirely random or there being no elements of randomness in the regular season.

So, and i hate to assume here but i feel i must, you do think there was a deal out there today that would have given the team a statistically significant boost to not only make the playoffs but also make it father than the first round?

Again, your intense desire to put words in my mouth is not serving you here. I didn't say either thing.

 

[Jalili]

Not sure why it's so unfathomable that the Leafs could move into the top 5 if they play their cards right. They have a pick that right now is located in the 10-12 range and is unlikely to fall below 15th, and it could very well find itself in the top 10 when all is said and done.

In addition they could have had at least one additional 1st to use as a chip to move up, so there is really no way of saying whether or not they could feasibly move into the top 5 range or not, had they chosen to take that route.

Because, historically, it doesn't tend to happen with the assets the Leafs are likely to have available to them. It's really that simple.

The Islanders moved down from 5th to 9th in 08. SJ moved up from 13th to 9th in 07. Draft day trade ups happen. If the Leafs didn't have a pick or were one of the better teams in the league, then sure, the chances would be too remote to waste any thought on.

But considering the position they're in now, tied for 10th worst, and then factor in that they could have added additional 1sts today, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have some opportunity to move into the top 5 range.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Total speculation, but on the Canucks HF Board it was mentioned that Dreger said a GM in the East was ticked off that Hodgson ended up in Buffalo as they thought they had a deal in place.

They then went on to speculate that it was the Leafs. Anybody else hear anything about this?

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

It's not actually hyperbole in this case, instead i'm trying to suss out just where you actually are on this subject by placing things in a more binary state.

Please. I never said anything vaguely resembling the playoffs being entirely random or there being no elements of randomness in the regular season.

So, and i hate to assume here but i feel i must, you do think there was a deal out there today that would have given the team a statistically significant boost to not only make the playoffs but also make it father than the first round?

Again, your intense desire to put words in my mouth is not serving you here. I didn't say either thing.

then feel free to put your own words in ..this is why these are questions ...you seem to be quite critical of burke's lack of effectiveness today, is that an unfair assessment?  so I'd like to know simply if you feel that, and i appreciate that you can't know, there was a deal out there today that burke could have done that could have significantly changed the leafs fortunes this year ..in this case success being defined as a long playoff run

 

[Deebo]

Total speculation, but on the Canucks HF Board it was mentioned that Dreger said a GM in the East was ticked off that Hodgson ended up in Buffalo as they thought they had a deal in place.

They then went on to speculate that it was the Leafs. Anybody else hear anything about this?

The only thing I heard Dreger say was that another GM inquired about hodgson and was told he that wasn't available.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Total speculation, but on the Canucks HF Board it was mentioned that Dreger said a GM in the East was ticked off that Hodgson ended up in Buffalo as they thought they had a deal in place.

They then went on to speculate that it was the Leafs. Anybody else hear anything about this?

No, but I had thought that it was the Leafs, then I remembered that it was Gillis and thought nahhh, it couldn't be. Plus as somebody else mentioned, the Leafs didn't have the sort of player that Vancouver was looking for, unless Colby was in play. I'm sure the Leafs would have had to add a couple pieces though.

 

[Kin]

then feel free to put your own words in ..this is why these are questions ...you seem to be quite critical of burke's lack of effectiveness today, is that an unfair assessment?

I'd say it's more fair to say that I'm not a fan of how Burke has run the team from the end of last year to now. I'm saying I don't like how he's run the race, not just how he crossed the line.

  so I'd like to know simply if you feel that, and i appreciate that you can't know, there was a deal out there today that burke could have done that could have significantly changed the leafs fortunes this year ..in this case success being defined as a long playoff run

Like I said, I think there are things Burke could have done to make this a better team this year. I mean, the easy answer to your question here is yes because he could have fired Wilson today. I absolutely think a shake-up could have resulted in better chances to make the playoffs which increases their chances at a deep playoff run infinitely.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, maybe. But I don't think you can just look to the past to get a handle on these things. cw's post where he mentions dealing into the top 5 talks about trading three #1's for a top 5 pick. Do you really have any insight on the likelihood of that being accepted? How often had teams even had three #1's to offer?

I wouldn't plan on it necessarily but I'm not sure there's a track record either way here.

I'm not saying it's an absolute impossibility, but, to me, that's no reason to trade established, contributing NHL players. The overwhelming likelihood is that you come out of the trades with drafts picks that become players that aren't as good as the players you traded away - and, since we're not exactly talking about moving grizzled vets here (all the guys mentioned are 28 or younger, all but Grabovski under team control past July 1st), it doesn't necessarily put the team ahead in the long-term.

 

[Bender]

Well I probably wouldn't have stopped at MacArthur. The top end of this draft is supposed to be pretty good. If the Leafs get #15-20 from their finish and padded that with #22 and #25 to get a top 5 pick, that might get them a good shot at an elite prospect - for example.

I don't have an answer for this but how likely is it to trade up into the top 5 like that?

Also, given that plan, Burke would be sort of in no man's land at this point, not making that choice back when he traded for Kessel.

When I look at Edmonton now a lot of things still have to go right even with consecutive top picks.

The Sens in the 90s went that route, got to a Cup final and fell short. There are plenty of examples where a team taking that approach won't make it. Washington is flirting with that outcome now. So there's no guarantee - and there never was or will be.

But this franchise has spent that last 40 plus years avoiding that approach and they don't have a Cup final to show for it.

If Edmonton stays the course, they will eventually be something to talk about in term of a true contender about the time we're looking for a new GM.

How about the Bruins though. It looks like they are due for a repeat but some of their best players were brought in, or developed but weren`t in the top 10 in their draft. Lucic, Krejci and Bergeron were all taken in the 2nd round. Marchand in the 3rd round. Chara and Horton are also clearly not drafted from Boston. They`ve grown their talent from what they had and a few blossomed into the players they needed to win. I don`t view this as a whole lot different with the way Burke is trying to win the Cup, albeit he took on players Toronto didn`t draft in Colborne and Gardiner to help that process along.

 

[bustaheims]

The Islanders moved down from 5th to 9th in 08. SJ moved up from 13th to 9th in 07. Draft day trade ups happen. If the Leafs didn't have a pick or were one of the better teams in the league, then sure, the chances would be too remote to waste any thought on.

But considering the position they're in now, tied for 10th worst, and then factor in that they could have added additional 1sts today, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have some opportunity to move into the top 5 range.

Yes, it happens, but, history has shown that teams outside the top 10 have an incredibly difficult time moving into the top 5 - it's happened all of 6 times since the 1985 draft. Even teams inside the top 10 don't do so all that frequently. On top of that, to get the type of players people are looking at drafting, you really need to get into the top 3, which becomes even more difficult - teams outside the top 5 have managed to get into the top 3 twice since 1994, and one of those deals involved Mike Milbury trading away a 2nd overall pick.

Could it happen? Sure, but, planning for it to happen is setting yourself up for failure.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

then feel free to put your own words in ..this is why these are questions ...you seem to be quite critical of burke's lack of effectiveness today, is that an unfair assessment?

I'd say it's more fair to say that I'm not a fan of how Burke has run the team from the end of last year to now. I'm saying I don't like how he's run the race, not just how he crossed the line.

  so I'd like to know simply if you feel that, and i appreciate that you can't know, there was a deal out there today that burke could have done that could have significantly changed the leafs fortunes this year ..in this case success being defined as a long playoff run

Like I said, I think there are things Burke could have done to make this a better team this year. I mean, the easy answer to your question here is yes because he could have fired Wilson today. I absolutely think a shake-up could have resulted in better chances to make the playoffs which increases their chances at a deep playoff run infinitely.

ahh well then you're in luck..he can still fire wilson after the trade deadline

 

[Kin]

I'm not saying it's an absolute impossibility, but, to me, that's no reason to trade established, contributing NHL players. The overwhelming likelihood is that you come out of the trades with drafts picks that become players that aren't as good as the players you traded away - and, since we're not exactly talking about moving grizzled vets here (all the guys mentioned are 28 or younger, all but Grabovski under team control past July 1st), it doesn't necessarily put the team ahead in the long-term.

But the flip side there is that the guys you're trading are "contributing" in only the most literal of senses, don't really figure into the long-term plans anyway and have little to no chance to become the elite contributors you're ultimately looking for then I think you can argue that it's still the smart move long term. I mean, I use the analogy a lot but it's like a scratch off lottery ticket. It's a terrible investment unless you need 25,000 dollars tomorrow, in which case it's the best investment.

 

[Kin]

ahh well then you're in luck..he can still fire wilson after the trade deadline

According to him, he's not even contemplating it and, I mean, if he hasn't by now...

 

[bustaheims]

But the flip side there is that the guys you're trading are "contributing" in only the most literal of senses, don't really figure into the long-term plans anyway and have little to no chance to become the elite contributors you're ultimately looking for then I think you can argue that it's still the smart move long term. I mean, I use the analogy a lot but it's like a scratch off lottery ticket. It's a terrible investment unless you need 25,000 dollars tomorrow, in which case it's the best investment.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, because, I think, philosophically, we're pretty much diametrically opposed.