Burke Fired

[Zee]

argh, just click the link!

That's what the prince of nigeria wants me to do too.  If I won't do it for the prince, what makes you think I will do it for you?

LOL. I got over my fear and read the article.  If there's truth to it, and I don't see why Berger would be lying, just goes to show how Burke let the media get to him.  Emailing individual reporters after articles they've written?  Why?  Just get on with running the Leafs and leave all the distractions aside.  Seems like Burke was very concerned about his image and what was said about him in the media.

 

[Kin]

One of the things I've thought was pretty interesting about this whole thing is that in keeping an eye on the media and paying attention to numerous writers who've shown themselves to be pretty responsible journalists/relatively well sourced there still doesn't seem to be any sort of agreed upon blow by blow of exactly what happened, when it happened or why it happened.

The idea I put forth has some traction with some, although I phrased mine pretty vaguely, but I think it's clear that it wasn't quite as simple as "Burke didn't want to trade for Luongo, so he got fired" or something along those lines.

He didn't win much and, despite that, the team didn't have the rosiest picture going forward so he was on thin ice. Whatever it was that ultimately sank him strikes me as largely irrelevant.

 

[Zee]

One of the things I've thought was pretty interesting about this whole thing is that in keeping an eye on the media and paying attention to numerous writers who've shown themselves to be pretty responsible journalists/relatively well sourced there still doesn't seem to be any sort of agreed upon blow by blow of exactly what happened, when it happened or why it happened.

The idea I put forth has some traction with some, although I phrased mine pretty vaguely, but I think it's clear that it wasn't quite as simple as "Burke didn't want to trade for Luongo, so he got fired" or something along those lines.

He didn't win much and, despite that, the team didn't have the rosiest picture going forward so he was on thin ice. Whatever it was that ultimately sank him strikes me as largely irrelevant.

I'm starting to believe his personality did him in.  Many times on the board people posted how they were sick of hearing Burke talk, how it all became about him.  Then you look at the various issues with the media:

Don Cherry and Ron Maclean: claims Burke talked to CBC about them and wanted Cherry to tone down his comments
Feschuk: basically cut him off from the Leafs after the Reimer mother article
Simmons: hated him after the July 1 "with the troops" article

Then the other one that sticks out is the entire Ron Wilson contract extension, and letting Ron announce it on TWITTER of all places.  Very professional of them.  I'm sure there are other instances I'm forgetting, but all in all Burke seemed to have run ins/ bad judgement when dealing with the media in this city.  In a hockey market like Toronto where everything you do or say gets blown wide open, you would have thought he would know better coming in.  I thought Burke would have the personality to be able to handle the pressure of Toronto, I guess I was dead wrong.

 

[Kin]

I'm starting to believe his personality did him in.  Many times on the board people posted how they were sick of hearing Burke talk, how it all became about him.  Then you look at the various issues with the media:

I don't buy it. How he dealt with the media didn't help but ultimately it's still about wins and losses. Leaving aside that, I'm sure, some of his frustration with the media arose out of the team's struggles I don't think a bad relationship with the media is enough to doom anyone if they're winning consistently.

Did his dealings with the media help? No. But I don't buy for a second that was more important than the state the team's in.

 

[Zee]

I'm starting to believe his personality did him in.  Many times on the board people posted how they were sick of hearing Burke talk, how it all became about him.  Then you look at the various issues with the media:

I don't buy it. How he dealt with the media didn't help but ultimately it's still about wins and losses. Leaving aside that, I'm sure, some of his frustration with the media arose out of the team's struggles I don't think a bad relationship with the media is enough to doom anyone if they're winning consistently.

Did his dealings with the media help? No. But I don't buy for a second that was more important than the state the team's in.

Then why leave everyone else in place?

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I get the whole "win games, or your head will ultimately be on the chopping block" thing, but I find that seems to be all that matters. I struggle with it not being acceptable that Burke made a mistake with how quickly he could turn the Leafs team around and changed direction to be more patient with his building style half way through his tenure.

I feel some got to wound up with Burke's bluster and words, rather than looking at what was going on with the team and how things changed. I mean, building a hockey team is never an exact science and changes in approach happen, but in Toronto, there never seems to be a loosening of the rope, it's deliver what you say, or you will be on notice.

I do feel badly for Burke, but I guess ultimately, he did dig his own hole and didn't deliver what he said, nor did he win enough games, which I guess was his demise. I just can't shake the feeling that this was the wrong move in this situation. I thought the slower building and development style that came to be, should have been given a more patient acceptance from fans and owners. Nonis basically comes out and says that that is what he is doing and it's okay.

It must be Brian Burke's personality that rubs people the wrong way and not his hockey decisions, for the most part. It just doesn't sit right with me...

 

[Kin]

Then why leave everyone else in place?

Well, first of all, because the team's failings can't be equally attributed to everyone. No matter how much input Nonis may have had it was still Burke pulling the trigger on the Kessel deal or deciding who the coach was or who to draft or who to sign. Burke, by virtue of the autonomy he had running the club, is the guy ultimately responsible for the state the club is in. Unless you know specifically how he delegated, and none of us do, there's no reason to believe that any assistant GM is responsible for anything in particular.

Additionally, there's really no other option. The timing of Burke's firing necessitated someone taking over and there wasn't time to do a full search and even if there was not many candidates are available. A lot of people may want to ascribe meaning to Nonis not being given the interim tag but truth is he can still be replaced just as easily.

 

[Kin]

It must be Brian Burke's personality that rubs people the wrong way and not his hockey decisions, for the most part. It just doesn't sit right with me...

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

I'm sure lots of people have a different perspective than I do. Explain to me how Burke could have gotten better results. By drafting different players with the picks we had? By trading a bunch of pieces out of town? By rushing players that he has been patient with?

I believe he couldn't do what he set out to do, mostly because of the market, which I believe was out of his control.

I don't understand what you mean, when we haven't even had the time to see what his picks and development produce.

 

[rdowdall]

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

I'm sure lots of people have a different perspective than I do. Explain to me how Burke could have gotten better results. By drafting different players with the picks we had? By trading a bunch of pieces out of town? By rushing players that he has been patient with?

I believe he couldn't do what he set out to do, mostly because of the market, which I believe was out of his control.

I don't understand what you mean, when we haven't even had the time to see what his picks and development produce.

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

In the end, I look at a place like Buffalo, which is right down the road. They have a GM that is given all sorts of time, but they haven't won much either, while still giving their management/ coaching team a whole lot of space to do their jobs. Why not in Toronto?

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I don't subscribe to the tank theory of hockey team building. Remember, he changed gears when the market didn't bare out what he wanted to do. That was long after the Kessel deal.

 

[Kin]

I don't understand what you mean, when we haven't even had the time to see what his picks and development produce.

The team hasn't been very good under Burke, that's indisputable. So any argument for him has to boil down to what's in the system. Obviously any final analysis on that can only be made after a few years but, at the very least, I don't think the popular consensus is that the Leafs have one of the best stocked farm systems in the league. Add those two together and there's really not much to base a defense of Burke's hockey record on.

 

[Kin]

In the end, I look at a place like Buffalo, which is right down the road. They have a GM that is given all sorts of time, but they haven't won much either, while still giving their management/ coaching team a whole lot of space to do their jobs. Why not in Toronto?

1) By "haven't won much" you're speaking of a club that, under the current GM, has made three conference finals and one Stanley Cup finals, which is essentially the equal to the heights of Maple Leafs playoff achievements over the whole of the last 45 years.

2) For most GM's around the league, they're going to be judged as much on how they do financially as how they do on ice. That's not the case in Toronto. I don't know how Regier has done to that effect.

3) Connected to #2 above, Regier has had less resources to work with in Buffalo and his team's worst records correspond to the club being in bankruptcy.

 

[Zee]

It must be Brian Burke's personality that rubs people the wrong way and not his hockey decisions, for the most part. It just doesn't sit right with me...

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

You may be fine with Burke's personality but it's clear ownership wasn't.  You can point to the Leafs record, but I think even ownership knows that it would take more than 3.5 years to turn the Leafs around from where Burke started.  I think it was truly more about hockey results than his personality, they would have fired Burke and Nonis and everyone else back in the fall.  That would give them the lockout to put a new GM in place.  The team was allowed to keep making front office decisions, the lockout didn't change that.  I think this is more about Burke being Burke then a truly hockey decision.  Something must have come to a head recently with the board for the decision to happen when it did.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Add those two together and there's really not much to base a defense of Burke's hockey record on.

It's not a full blown defense anyway, I was merely posing questions and wondering why it went down the way it did. I did say that ultimately, he fell on the sword, because of his record, but it still feels a bit knee-jerk to me. Thus, making the personality stuff more plausible. Rather than consensus about our farm system, shouldn't he be judged after the development stage? Nonis said that himself I believe.

 

[rdowdall]

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I don't subscribe to the tank theory of hockey team building. Remember, he changed gears when the market didn't bare out what he wanted to do. That was long after the Kessel deal.

He changed gears after he already gave up two of the assets that would have good to have when he changed gears.

 

[Kin]

I don't subscribe to the tank theory of hockey team building. Remember, he changed gears when the market didn't bare out what he wanted to do. That was long after the Kessel deal.

I know it's just a metaphor but I think it's a revealing one. Changing gears isn't the same as changing direction. Burke's approach since he apparently had this great big change of heart wasn't to demolish the lousy team he'd put together. It was to make minor deals and still essentially putter towards the same place. People are still looking for who on the team or in the system can be the #1 Centre or Defenseman or Goalie. I think Down Goes Brown addressed this particular metaphor really well in his column on the matter:

Rebuilding from scratch takes at least five years, the conventional wisdom goes, and a check of the calendar shows Burke didn?t get that. If it takes you five hours to drive to your in-laws? house and your spouse starts asking ?are we there yet?? after four, you?re going to get cranky.

But Burke?s problem was that he was four hours into the trip and hadn?t made it out of the driveway yet. Or, to torture the metaphor even further, he?d made a wrong turn getting onto the highway and was speeding off determinedly in the wrong direction. Knowing exactly where you want go doesn't mean much if everyone else can see that you?re not going to make it before time runs out.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

1) By "haven't won much" you're speaking of a club that, under the current GM, has made three conference finals and one Stanley Cup finals, which is essentially the equal to the heights of Maple Leafs playoff achievements over the whole of the last 45 years.

2) For most GM's around the league, they're going to be judged as much on how they do financially as how they do on ice. That's not the case in Toronto. I don't know how Regier has done to that effect.

3) Connected to #2 above, Regier has had less resources to work with in Buffalo and his team's worst records correspond to the club being in bankruptcy.

And Ryan Miller.

 

[Redleaf]

It must be Brian Burke's personality that rubs people the wrong way and not his hockey decisions, for the most part. It just doesn't sit right with me...

Or people just have a different perspective on his hockey decisions than you do. I'm absolutely A-1 fine with Burke's personality and think he's a great guy but even the "slower building and development" style doesn't strike me as having yielded a particularly bright future for the club. For all the talk about Burke changing direction all he really did was pull back on the throttle. Going slower isn't the same as going backwards.

You may be fine with Burke's personality but it's clear ownership wasn't.  You can point to the Leafs record, but I think even ownership knows that it would take more than 3.5 years to turn the Leafs around from where Burke started.  I think it was truly more about hockey results than his personality, they would have fired Burke and Nonis and everyone else back in the fall.  That would give them the lockout to put a new GM in place.  The team was allowed to keep making front office decisions, the lockout didn't change that.  I think this is more about Burke being Burke then a truly hockey decision.  Something must have come to a head recently with the board for the decision to happen when it did.

Agreed. This is why the Luongo deal (non-deal) talk actually make sense. It "appears" there was an argument/disagreement about "some" issue the day prior to Burke's firing. What else explains the timing really?