Do you believe Burke would draft Rielly first overall?

[Redleaf]

Whats the time allowance supposed to be though? We saw some pretty decent picks by JFJ not come to light until well after he had moved on.

Well, like I said, a fan's reading of how the GM is doing is not going to be limited to the draft.

Of course not, but I don't think anybody can come up with a true overall performance grade for Burke as Leaf GM until at least his 2nd or 3rd year of draft picks have matured enough to rate them hits or misses. Can we? Can we even put his 1st year of draft picks in Toronto on that dartboard yet?

 

[Kin]

Of course not, but I don't think anybody can come up with a true overall performance grade for Burke as Leaf GM until at least his 2nd or 3rd year of draft picks have matured enough to rate them hits or misses. Can we?

Well, I think it's fair to get a performance grade for everything else Burke has done as Leafs GM and then let that perception inform how you feel about his job in total.

 

[Redleaf]

Of course not, but I don't think anybody can come up with a true overall performance grade for Burke as Leaf GM until at least his 2nd or 3rd year of draft picks have matured enough to rate them hits or misses. Can we?

Well, I think it's fair to get a performance grade for everything else Burke has done as Leafs GM and then let that perception inform how you feel about his job in total.

That would certainly be the inconclusive perception.

 

[Kin]

That would certainly be the inconclusive perception.

Maybe but I don't think the Leafs needed to see how JFJ's drafts turned out to see he was over his head.

 

[gunnar36]

I heard that he would have taken Finn 2nd overall

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I heard that he would have taken Finn 2nd overall

Okay, that made me laugh.

 

[LeafsInSeven]

If Morgan Rielly plays 1 game or more...

Say he plays a game, what do you think that proves?

Talk about taking something completely out of context. Yikes.

What's out of context? I'm asking what you hope to prove with that bet, nothing more.

I think you should ask yourself why my position upsets you so much that you need to get confrontational over it, especially the thought that I might win a bet over it. I thought we were supposed to be having fun here.

 

[caver]

I heard that he would have taken Finn 2nd overall

Okay, that made me laugh.

At least he didn't mention that he would do the Kessel deal again today. (Sorry)  :-\

 

[jonlleafs]

Just like you're being dismissive about the fact that you were pissed this weekend, I think people here know your posting well enough to know when you are upset.

No, I'd just flat out dispute that as a "fact". I didn't like the decisions that were made and the way this team is being mismanaged frustrates me but the fact that I was cracking jokes throughout is a good sign that I wasn't "pissed" or angry.

I felt confident knowing that the Leafs were going to get a good player either way.

I think that's a sign of just how low a bar you've set for Burke. Short of letting the pick be made with by a monkey with a dartboard there's no way to have the #5 pick in a draft and not walk away with a prospect that people will say nice things about.

First off, I think the Rielly pick was a good pick.  Saw some YouTube videos of his play and he seems like a smart kid with some skills and speed.

So with regards to your complaints.  Tell me, who could do better than Burke right now?  Who could have come in here and done things differently and done better?  I think Burke has done some great things and hit some homeruns.  He's human and he's not going to win them all.  He's going to make mistakes like Komisarek, Beauchemin (which he rectified very nicely), Connolly.  At the time of the signings, who were better that he could have signed?  Do you really think he could have signed Richards?  And what if Richards bombed and we were stuck with that albatross of a contract?  He's genuinely trying his best to not sell our future for a quick fix today and I applaud that.  He picked who he and his scouts thought was the best player at #5 at the draft.  That's all I can ask.  He has a history of drafting really good players.  Bobby Ryan, the Sedin Sisters, Kesler, Gardiner, Schultz to name a few highly regarded players that are fresh in our heads.  So, I will trust his judgement for now.  The only GM who I would view that could be better than Burke right now is Ken Holland.  But even still, he had some nice luck with their draft picks.  So, I don't get all of the complaining and being so critical of Burke.

 

[Kin]

The only GM who I would view that could be better than Burke right now is Ken Holland.

When Ken Holland was hired by the Red Wings, how many people knew that he was going to do down in history as one of the five best executives of all time?

 

[jonlleafs]

The only GM who I would view that could be better than Burke right now is Ken Holland.

When Ken Holland was hired by the Red Wings, how many people knew that he was going to do down in history as one of the five best executives in history?

And when JFJ was hired, who knew he was going to be one of the worst?  So what's your point?  We weren't going to go with a rookie GM or someone unproven again.  We wanted someone with a high pedigree.  Someone who had won it all before.  I don't recall anyone else with the same stature at the time.  And even now, the list would be VERY short as to who I would install as GM of the Leafs.  Holland would be one and maybe Dale Tallon because I think he has done some wonders as GM.  I give him a lot of credit for Chicago winning the Cup even though he didn't get to enjoy it when they did.  Other than that, who else is there really that has the experience and respect to run the Leafs?

 

[Kin]

And when JFJ was hired, who knew he was going to be one of the worst?  So what's your point?  We weren't going to go with a rookie GM or someone unproven again.  We wanted someone with a high pedigree.

Ok, well, leaving aside the fact that using "we" doesn't really make a ton of sense there but it makes the point. "We" wouldn't have hired Ken Hollland in 1997. Which makes "us" sound pretty dumb. But, more to the point, the fact that unproven Ken Holland took over the Red Wings and did the job should tell us that asking who might have done a better job than Brian Burke is a fool's errand and largely immaterial.

All we can really do is trade in what we know, not make large scale suppositions that don't really shed light on the facts of the matter. "We" can evaluate the job Brian Burke has done and come to conclusions on it. "We" can, if we feel this way, say he hasn't done a very good job. "We" would have a lot of ground to stand on if that were the case. "We" would then be justified in not putting a lot of faith in Brian Burke's decisions.

 

[jonlleafs]

And when JFJ was hired, who knew he was going to be one of the worst?  So what's your point?  We weren't going to go with a rookie GM or someone unproven again.  We wanted someone with a high pedigree.

Ok, well, leaving aside the fact that using "we" doesn't really make a ton of sense there but it makes the point. "We" wouldn't have hired Ken Hollland in 1997. Which makes "us" sound pretty dumb. But, more to the point, the fact that unproven Ken Holland took over the Red Wings and did the job should tell us that asking who might have done a better job than Brian Burke is a fool's errand and largely immaterial.

All we can really do is trade in what we know, not make large scale suppositions that don't really shed light on the facts of the matter. "We" can evaluate the job Brian Burke has done and come to conclusions on it. "We" can, if we feel this way, say he hasn't done a very good job. "We" would have a lot of ground to stand on if that were the case. "We" would then be justified in not putting a lot of faith in Brian Burke's decisions.

Yes we can evaluate all bad things he's done since working for the Leafs all we want.  Hindsight is 20/20.  But what about all of the good things he's done?  What about the lack of talent he inherited from JFJ?  Ken Holland inherited a team full of good to great players.  Yzerman, Federov, Shanahan, Lidstrom, and Larry Murphy come to mind as the most prominent.  If you can't be competitive right away with that group, then you definitely shouldn't be in hockey.  So what did Burke have to start with and then let's look at all the good things he's done.  This is why I don't feel he's done a bad job.  Could he have done better?  Yes, but all GMs could do better one way or another.

 

[Kin]

Yes we can evaluate all bad things he's done since working for the Leafs all we want.  Hindsight is 20/20.  But what about all of the good things he's done?  What about the lack of talent he inherited from JFJ?  Ken Holland inherited a team full of good to great players.  Yzerman, Federov, Shanahan, Lidstrom, and Larry Murphy come to mind as the most prominent.  If you can't be competitive right away with that group, then you definitely shouldn't be in hockey.  So what did Burke have to start with and then let's look at all the good things he's done.  This is why I don't feel he's done a bad job.  Could he have done better?  Yes, but all GMs could do better one way or another.

Hey, Ken Holland was your example of someone who would have done a better job than Burke. Ken Holland was my example of saying that there's no way of knowing who might do a better job in the hypothetical so it's pointless to argue about.

I think that, after nearly four seasons of Burke's stewardship, the team has very little to show for it. Not on the pro club and nothing particularly special in the system.

 

[jonlleafs]

Yes we can evaluate all bad things he's done since working for the Leafs all we want.  Hindsight is 20/20.  But what about all of the good things he's done?  What about the lack of talent he inherited from JFJ?  Ken Holland inherited a team full of good to great players.  Yzerman, Federov, Shanahan, Lidstrom, and Larry Murphy come to mind as the most prominent.  If you can't be competitive right away with that group, then you definitely shouldn't be in hockey.  So what did Burke have to start with and then let's look at all the good things he's done.  This is why I don't feel he's done a bad job.  Could he have done better?  Yes, but all GMs could do better one way or another.

Hey, Ken Holland was your example of someone who would have done a better job than Burke. Ken Holland was my example of saying that there's no way of knowing who might do a better job in the hypothetical so it's pointless to argue about.

I think that, after nearly four seasons of Burke's stewardship, the team has very little to show for it. Not on the pro club and nothing particularly special in the system.

You were implying that we should have hired some unknown commodity such as a rookie GM like when Ken Holland first came in.  What I'm implying is that only a seasoned guy like Ken Holland (after his 4 Stanley Cups) would fit the bill for the demanding fans of the Leafs especially having endured a rookie GM prior who messed up the talent pool severely.

Well, I disagree with your assessment of having nothing to show for it.  I see a lot of useable parts moving forward.  We are really missing 2 pieces right now that would get us into the playoffs.  Goaltending and #1 center.  I think the goaltending, at the moment, is easier to attain and that alone might be enough to get us into the playoffs.  We played really well for 1/2 to 2/3 of the season before the goaltending imploded last season so I don't think we're that far off.

 

[Kin]

You were implying that we should have hired some unknown commodity such as a rookie GM like when Ken Holland first came in.  What I'm implying is that only a seasoned guy like Ken Holland (after his 4 Stanley Cups) would fit the bill for the demanding fans of the Leafs especially having endured a rookie GM prior who messed up the talent pool severely.

Um, no. For starters you're flat out saying that about Holland explicitly. As for me, I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm saying explicitly that there's no way to say who might have done better than Burke so I'm not inclined to argue about it as I don't see that it's terribly relevant to begin with.

MLSE has always had a wide latitude to run the team however they see fit and that wasn't really different after they fired JFJ.

(and, also, I'll point out for the billionth time that Fletcher probably did nearly as much damage to the team as JFJ did)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of having nothing to show for it.

That's fine and dandy but there's absolutely concrete that establishes that. I'm far more comfortable with my position after the Leafs haven't been able to make the playoffs and with the farm system they have.

I'm not at all impressed with saying that, after 3 and a half years, the Leafs are only two major pieces away from the ridiculously pedestrian achievement of "making the playoffs". I'm even less impressed with the fact that the team seems to be taking no real steps towards adding those pieces.

 

[jonlleafs]

You were implying that we should have hired some unknown commodity such as a rookie GM like when Ken Holland first came in.  What I'm implying is that only a seasoned guy like Ken Holland (after his 4 Stanley Cups) would fit the bill for the demanding fans of the Leafs especially having endured a rookie GM prior who messed up the talent pool severely.

Um, no. For starters you're flat out saying that about Holland explicitly. As for me, I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm saying explicitly that there's no way to say who might have done better than Burke so I'm not inclined to argue about it as I don't see that it's terribly relevant to begin with.

MLSE has always had a wide latitude to run the team however they see fit and that wasn't really different after they fired JFJ.

(and, also, I'll point out for the billionth time that Fletcher probably did nearly as much damage to the team as JFJ did)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of having nothing to show for it.

That's fine and dandy but there's absolutely concrete that establishes that. I'm far more comfortable with my position after the Leafs haven't been able to make the playoffs and with the farm system they have.

I'm not at all impressed with saying that, after 3 and a half years, the Leafs are only two major pieces away from the ridiculously pedestrian achievement of "making the playoffs". I'm even less impressed with the fact that the team seems to be taking no real steps towards adding those pieces.

Well, I guess we will agree to disagree.  However, please suggest how we can attain those 2 pieces with what we have right now?  How could you do better?

 

[princedpw]

I'm saying explicitly that there's no way to say who might have done better than Burke so I'm not inclined to argue about it ...

Do you believe that is generally true?

In general, do you believe that there is no way to say (in a probabilistic sense) whether or not one GM would have done better than another for a given team over a given time period?

 

[Kin]

How could you do better?

I don't need to know how to build a car to know if the engine is on fire.

 

[Kin]

Do you believe that is generally true?

In general, do you believe that there is no way to say (in a probabilistic sense) whether or not one GM would have done better than another for a given team over a given time period?

Sort of. I mean, I think it's generally fair to say something like "JFJ or Doug Maclean would probably not be a good GM as they've had an opportunity to be one and failed"(although they wouldn't be the first guys to have a lot of success in their second cracks at something) but if you also have to include all of the prospective GM candidates without track records? No, I don't think you could say anything about how the scores of them would have done with any sort of probability.