Kyle Dubas not returning as GM

[Highlander]

There's no two ways about it, the odds of Matthews (and Nylander) extending their contracts this summer decreased with the Dubas firing.

I don't know how you can be so sure until we see who the replacement is.

I don't think its about the new hire, he/she will not receive autonomy either. The problem has and always be the corporate culture that has enveloped the Leafs since Conn croaked.  Dubas should have been given a two year deal with autonomy to see if he was the wonder kin he seemed to be. What a concept, I have completely reversed my opinion of Shanahan.  What a carnival sideshow.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/taj1944/status/1660702445499203584

 

[Highlander]

https://twitter.com/taj1944/status/1660702445499203584

Dubas plays Ned Stark

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/b1rky/status/1660723079075762177

 

[Jolly good show chaps]

The thing about the "Things must be really bad because Spezza resigned" seems overblown to me. He was appointed by Dubas as a special assistant to him, so of course he'd jump now out of loyalty.

Not saying this means all is actually ok, just is Spezza leaving really as bad as it at first seems?

 

[cw]

Anybody who is selling that they should have given full blown autonomy to a 32 year old wet behind the ears GM to control a billion dollar hockey team with no questions asked seems absolutely out of their effing mind. Any board of directors that would accept such a contract is insane and irresponsible to put it politely. This is not pee wee league. It is big business.

If this 32 year old kid trades Auston Matthews for a bag of pucks, he's potentially done tens of millions of dollars damage to the business. No checks and balances for that? That proposition is so far out there, it is orbiting Uranus. The media might want to get ratings spinning stuff like this but I'd encourage folks to avoid that rabbit hole and use your heads for a minute. Remember, Kyle Dubas signed the contract that outlined his constraints like it would for every every other GM in the league but probably and understandably tighter due to his inexperience. If he is whining about it to generate the media whispers, he should man up and remind them that that was the arrangement he signed up for.

Managing is getting people to do things for you. That does not apply only to those who report to the manager. It applies to managing those the manager reports to. If a manager wants to do something that crosses the line of his pre approved authority, he has to sell that to those above him/her. That is part of his job. If they turned him down, a hunk of the responsibility probably lies on the sales job or quality of what he wanted to do - trying to convince them to go along with him. That is the real world.

Many will recall: Cliff Fletcher wanted to get Gretzky and seemed to have a deal. Owner Steve Stavro said no - he couldn't afford it at the time (something like that). Fletcher did not have blank cheque autonomy to do the deal.

Pat Quinn did not have blank cheque autonomy either. For example, he had to get approval on big deals or contracts (ie Mats Sundin's 5 x $9 mil/yr deal).

Before you go there: stuff like that is all over the league - not limited to the Leafs. Some of it is implied. Some of it is in their contracts. If Ken Holland traded Connor McDavid for a bag of pucks, how long you you think he'd be employed? Anyone who thinks he'd trade McDavid without getting ownership approval is crazy. NHL GMs tend to have dollar limits where they need to go to ownership/the board to get approval over a certain dollar amount - like any GM or CEO of a business. NHL GMs have budgets they have to adhere to - like any GM/CEO. They have to go to ownership to exceed it.

That is the way it is. Anyone suggesting otherwise is full of crap.

So a 32 year old who was signing his first NHL GM contract had to get approved by ownership/the board. To get that approval, he would very likely have to have tighter constraints on his autonomy or they would not go along with it. He was a higher risk due to his inexperience so they reduced that risk with tighter controls. Nobody complained about that five years ago. How could they dispute the concept under the circumstances? It came about from a history of some crazy deals getting made by prior NHL GMs.

To absorb part of the risk, Shanahan took on the responsibility of oversight. I have little pity for Dubas. He signed that contract and agreed to those terms. To whine about it after is probably BS.

Lou Lamoriello. Remember him? As Leafs GM, he very likely had max autonomy. He still had to conform to a budget like all GMs. He probably had limits on the dollar size of his transactions - but higher than Dubas. For example, he probably had to get approval to use Robidas island over some dollar amount as it might affect corporate insurance or budgeted cashflow. And he reported to Shanahan - not the board - and would have to conform to some considerable extent to the Shanaplan - that Dubas was also signed up for. It was Shanahan's decision to dump Lou to give Kyle a chance (I'm sure with board approval).

Any grievance over the autonomy limits Dubas agreed to in his previous contract, I'd be inclined to have little sympathy for.

If he had issues with his level of autonomy and money going forward, he should have been upfront with Shanahan, who claims he spoke with his agent for about two months prior. Dubas is not innocent of the contract breakdown. Takes two parties.

I think this is a tragic, lousy development for the franchise. Shanahan may need to be held to account when the dust settles. No GM is going to get fully plugged in to the talent, agents, coaches and staff in 40 days. Dubas probably had a better chance to patch it up for another shot. But I wouldn't let him hold the franchise to ransom either.

 

[Kin]

The thing about the "Things must be really bad because Spezza resigned" seems overblown to me. He was appointed by Dubas as a special assistant to him, so of course he'd jump now out of loyalty.

Is anyone really saying that things are bad because Spezza resigned? Or are people saying Spezza resigning is a sign that things are bad and the decision to move on from Dubas will probably have deeper consequences for the club then just whether or not he's the best talent evaluator or whatever.

 

[Kin]

Anybody who is selling that they should have given full blown autonomy to a 32 year old wet behind the ears GM to control a billion dollar hockey team with no questions asked seems absolutely out of their effing mind.

Is anyone saying that?

 

[bustaheims]

Anybody who is selling that they should have given full blown autonomy to a 32 year old wet behind the ears GM to control a billion dollar hockey team with no questions asked seems absolutely out of their effing mind.

Is anyone saying that?

There are definitely people who seemed surprised Dubas had to get Shanahan to sign off on moving a first round pick and suggest the fact that Shanny rejected some deals while pushing for others would be seen as detrimental rather than the typical management structure. Lots seem to be making more of the situation than what it is.

 

[bustaheims]

The thing about the "Things must be really bad because Spezza resigned" seems overblown to me. He was appointed by Dubas as a special assistant to him, so of course he'd jump now out of loyalty.

Is anyone really saying that things are bad because Spezza resigned? Or are people saying Spezza resigning is a sign that things are bad and the decision to move on from Dubas will probably have deeper consequences for the club then just whether or not he's the best talent evaluator or whatever.

Yes. In this very thread.

 

[Kin]

Anybody who is selling that they should have given full blown autonomy to a 32 year old wet behind the ears GM to control a billion dollar hockey team with no questions asked seems absolutely out of their effing mind.

Is anyone saying that?

There are definitely people who seemed surprised Dubas had to get Shanahan to sign off on moving a first round pick and suggest the fact that Shanny rejected some deals while pushing for others would be seen as detrimental rather than the typical management structure. Lots seem to be making more of the situation than what it is.

That strikes me as being slightly more realistic and managed than the suggestion that there were people who were saying Dubas should have been able to do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted without any budget from day 1 on the job, up to and including trading Matthews for nothing. That just seems like a pretty reasonable discussion about who is actually making the hockey decisions on the club.

Yes. In this very thread.

Ah, well, I can't claim to remember every post in the thread but I don't think I'd seen anything suggesting things were A-OK right up until Spezza's resignation. I will defer to you on that one though.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Interesting read....

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-maple-leafs-parting-with-kyle-dubas-rings-alarm-bells

 

[herman]

The thing about the "Things must be really bad because Spezza resigned" seems overblown to me. He was appointed by Dubas as a special assistant to him, so of course he'd jump now out of loyalty.

Is anyone really saying that things are bad because Spezza resigned? Or are people saying Spezza resigning is a sign that things are bad and the decision to move on from Dubas will probably have deeper consequences for the club then just whether or not he's the best talent evaluator or whatever.

Yes. In this very thread.

No to the former, yes to the latter.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Interesting read....

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-maple-leafs-parting-with-kyle-dubas-rings-alarm-bells

Seems like a whole bunch of "what if's and buts"

 

[bustaheims]

Interesting read....

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-maple-leafs-parting-with-kyle-dubas-rings-alarm-bells

Seems like a whole bunch of "what if's and buts"

It?s definitely passing off a lot of correlations as potential causes, without much evidence beyond the initial correlation.

 

[mr grieves]

I think this is a tragic, lousy development for the franchise. Shanahan may need to be held to account when the dust settles. No GM is going to get fully plugged in to the talent, agents, coaches and staff in 40 days. Dubas probably had a better chance to patch it up for another shot. But I wouldn't let him hold the franchise to ransom either.

Lots of great points, but I?m not sure about the last line. MLSE let the GM situation go until 5 weeks before massive player decisions need to be made. If no plausible replacement can get up to speed to do those player deals by the time they need to happen, is that Kyle Dubas holding the franchise ransom? On the contrary, it would seem a lot like Shanahan and the board blind-folded and zip-tied themselves here. Lowered themselves into the basement pit. Applied the lotion. Etc. it?s hard not to blame the organization for giving Dubas an advantage like that to press ? if he had it, of course! We?ll see around July 1

 

[Bill33]

This is a chance for a lot of media outlets to attract a lot of eyeballs. Not all of takes are going to be good, or fair, or even based on much more than supposition.

I'm disappointed in the way Shanahan handled this - I think it was deeply unprofessional, but it's over, and I'm personally not too interested in anything but the on-ice product.

 

[IJustLurkHere]

Interesting read....

https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-maple-leafs-parting-with-kyle-dubas-rings-alarm-bells

Seems like a whole bunch of "what if's and buts"

It?s definitely passing off a lot of correlations as potential causes, without much evidence beyond the initial correlation.

Do people think the idea of the board getting involved in Hockey Operations is a straw man? I'm old enough to remember Ballard, so I'm an easy mark for that kind of fear mongering. I don't generally pay attention to who is (or in this case isn't) sitting in the MLSE CEO chair.

The conclusion is easy to agree with... but only matters if Dubas' desire for control really was the deciding factor rather than the money.

[quote author=https://thehockeynews.com/news/opinion-maple-leafs-parting-with-kyle-dubas-rings-alarm-bells]
The MLSE board and Shanahan had reason to have reservations when Dubas? agent came back with a significantly different financial package. Anyone would. If that was the reason the parties decided to go their separate ways, MLSE has lost a bright young executive, and Dubas should fire his agent. However, if the crux of the issue was that Dubas wanted control of hockey operations, the department he oversaw, he should have been afforded that. Not a single Leafs fan would say they?d prefer the telecom executive making hockey decisions over Dubas and they?d be correct.
[/quote]

 

[IJustLurkHere]

Any grievance over the autonomy limits Dubas agreed to in his previous contract, I'd be inclined to have little sympathy for.

If he had issues with his level of autonomy and money going forward, he should have been upfront with Shanahan, who claims he spoke with his agent for about two months prior. Dubas is not innocent of the contract breakdown. Takes two parties.

So, I've been wrestling with this point in my head since the firing. The place I keep getting stuck is the idea that the contract demands changed in ways that were wildly surprising after months of negotiation to the point where Shanahan walks away from Dubas.

For the past year the narrative has been if the Leafs don't win a playoff round, Dubas is gone. Agree or disagree with that as a measure, that's been the story. The thing about taking that approach is that while the leverage was all with Shanahan up until the end of round 1... it shifted when they won a round. Now the reason to doubt your young GM has evaporated. Up until then, Shanahan would have been signing off on potential, once it's been done, Dubas can respond differently. The shift in leverage is not really surprising, certainty has a price in every business.

Dubas story seems to be that for the past 12 months, he's been forced to chase a particular goal without the autonomy to give himself the best chance to actually achieve it. That this has been draining on he and his family. So, the commitment he wants is the right level of autonomy (and i don't think that equates to trading Matthews for nothing or signing Gretzky) to avoid reliving that in future... and, now that he jumped through Shanahan's hoop, the price goes up too.

I'm curious (disappointed) that it played out as a "take it or leave it" - Dubas isn't blameless here - that kind of leverage negotiating tactic tends to leave a sour taste if it works. Particularly if Shanahan had gone as far as getting board signoff for a significantly different deal (which, per above, probably wasn't a wise move... but could that be the straw that broke the camels back?). That would make Shanahan look bad in front of his bosses.

I don't know how reasonable or otherwise Dubas' financial demands are for an NHL GM. I know there's no salary cap on Management. I'm not particularly worried about the control afforded under his last contract, I am disappointed it's a factor in this one. I'm sure that Dubas would have known exactly the position his changed asks left Shanahan in, but, I feel Shanahan should have anticipated that change.

It's been a while, but this feels like a self inflicted wound that shouldn't have been hard to avoid. 

 

[cw]

I think this is a tragic, lousy development for the franchise. Shanahan may need to be held to account when the dust settles. No GM is going to get fully plugged in to the talent, agents, coaches and staff in 40 days. Dubas probably had a better chance to patch it up for another shot. But I wouldn't let him hold the franchise to ransom either.

Lots of great points, but I?m not sure about the last line. MLSE let the GM situation go until 5 weeks before massive player decisions need to be made. If no plausible replacement can get up to speed to do those player deals by the time they need to happen, is that Kyle Dubas holding the franchise ransom? On the contrary, it would seem a lot like Shanahan and the board blind-folded and zip-tied themselves here. Lowered themselves into the basement pit. Applied the lotion. Etc. it?s hard not to blame the organization for giving Dubas an advantage like that to press ? if he had it, of course! We?ll see around July 1

No question that the reported decision by the board to decline an extension last summer helped light the wick on where we find ourselves today. In fairness or for some perspective, I would add that it is pretty tough to justify an extension with the talent and resources Dubas had to work with and an 0-4 playoff record as of last summer. Publicly, Dubas did not fault Shanahan or the board for that. So Dubas' failure to win a round in the playoffs four years running led to the decision to not offer him an extension last summer. Some might not agree with the decision but the board was not being a bunch of total jerks arriving at an unfounded decision - they had their reasons based upon his results vs the opportunity he was given as GM.

Shanahan and the board agreed to initiate discussions two and a half months ago which should have been plenty of time to get a deal done. After the trade deadline, GM duties were lighter. But Kyle passed it to his agent and did not want to get deeply into it until the end of the playoffs.

No question Shanahan and the board bear some responsibility for where we find ourselves today. However, a significant portion of the responsibility is also on Kyle Dubas.