Sarge said:
I'd have assumed the new board would have already given Burke carte blanche.
He probably has as much autonomy as any GM in hockey and that autonomy probably got rubber stamped by the new group but these guys always seem to have limits. An extreme example would be Lamoriello signing Kovalchuk - no way he did that without getting approval from the Devils ownership.
They have budgets and freedom to operate within those budgets as a method of preauthorization. But they nearly always have (based upon years upon years of media reports/interviews/PCs) some limits on transactions where the owners want involvement or maybe approval for trading 1st rounders/franchise assets and certainly face of the franchise type players.
Burke makes reference to some of the approvals OTPP made in this recent interview/PC on the sale:
http://podcast.tsn.ca/tsnradio/Burke%2012-9.mp3
He mentions that the OTPP approved spending to the cap every year but they also blessed spending more outside of the cap on more management & scouts for example. A bunch of those approvals would have been given when he presented his plan for the following season at year end. But whenever a circumstance comes up where he wants to deviate materially or substantially from that plan during the season or big bucks are involved, he's very probably got to run it past them.
Peddie talked about some of the planning they do including the sports clubs in this interview:
http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20111209_170929_10844
He stressed that not only do they plan for the following season but unlike a number of sports teams, they expect a planned vision for a few years down the road - a rolling forecast if you will.
In year end reviews, then the GM must account for why things this year didn't go according to his vision of three years ago for example. If the GMs explanation for falling short isn't any good, it's clear to all parties from the GMs own words from three years ago that he must move on. He's held accountable as he should be like any other manager who falls short.
Pat Quinn talked about OTPP and Stavro as well saying, like Burke, he'd never been turned down. Even when some deals may fall within a pre-authorized mandate, as a professional courtesy or when there are shades of grey in a transaction with respect to that mandate, both men would run it past their owners. They've said or hinted as much when they've spoken about transactions.
When Rick Dudley wanted to trade LeCavalier from Tampa Bay, his owner stopped him. How many times have we heard Flyers GMs over the years thank Ed Snider for his approval of more excess spending and on specific deals - even into the cap years?
If Burke wanted to trade Phil Kessel for a 1st, 2nd & 3rd round pick, I'm very confident Burke would have to run it past his owners because not only would the current face of the franchise be heading out the door but that would constitute a significant deviation from the 'retooling' plan closer to a rebuilding plan - even though it didn't result in spending bags of money.
An obvious key issue the CBA addressed was overspending on payroll. But a significant side benefit of Levitt's model that hasn't been talked about was that all teams wound up with an accounting structure of revenues and expenses. That provided a league wide framework for better financial management of the clubs and the owners with better controls (day to day, month to month and year to year) over the management (pre CBA mismanagement).
So in my opinion, there's nothing sinister going on here. It's pretty normal and solid business practice.
