OldTimeHockey said:
They spent the cash(were always top 3 or 4 in the league before the cap), they just did a really sh*tty job of hiring.
Well, just straight away, that just flat out isn't true. In the last year without a cap the Leafs payroll ranked 6th. The Leafs were outspent by the Rangers, Red Wings, Flyers, Avalanche and Stars. The year before? 6th. This time behind the same teams minus the Avs and replaced by the Blues. The year before that? 6th.
And it's not like it's by an insignificant amount either. Over that three year period the Leafs were outspent by as much as 20% as some of the other teams. At a glimpse it looks like they spent less on payroll than did the St. Louis Blues. The argument was always that the Maple Leafs revenues didn't really translate into payroll. Do you think the Blues took in more money in those years?
Then came the lockout and with it a CBA that would be very profitable for the Leafs but that would also take away the team's biggest competitive advantage and...they voted for it.
But not to worry, like you guys say, they never skimped out on their Hires at least. They always hired top guys to...no? They hired a first timer with no track record of success from an organization that had never won a Stanley Cup? They refused, apparently, to hire someone who would engage in the sort of full-scale rebuilding process that the team desperately needed in favor of a guy who would "build while competing" or, as we know it now, set fire to the franchise.
But not to worry, they fired him. Then they did go out and spend money on a GM absolutely. Who came in and...didn't want to follow that stupid Pittsburgh plan. Read the Brian Burke thread. See how many people defend his initial failures by saying that the Board wouldn't let their GM's knock things down and build anew.
The idea that spending to the cap, even when it's ill-advised, is a sign of wanting to win is nonsense. The same goes with running a downtrodden Hockey Executive employment program in the front office. Post-lockout the team has refused to rebuild, favouring ill-advised spending.
So the idea that the team under the OTPP didn't really care about winning? It can be boiled down to a couple of fairly inarguable points:
1. Despite being the highest grossing team in the NHL, was never in the top 5 of payroll pre-lockout.
2. Voted for a CBA that kneecapped them competitively
3. Did not exclusively hire high-priced front office talent with a proven track record
4. Seem deadset opposed to rebuilding a team properly.