|
||||||
Brian Burke: Is You Is Or Is You Isn’t?As much as I hate the suits at MLSE with the white hot burning heat of a thousand suns, I can’t quarrel too much with their deliberate pace on this hiring decision to date. It’s a tough decision, and one that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of the organization. The reason that I despise the current board is, of course, its abject failure to avoid meddling with the affairs of the hockey team over the last few years, coupled with its failure to install a chief executive Step two of the hiring process was to find the right person to replace John Ferguson Jr. Apparently unable to locate a person with the right credentials on a permanent basis last spring, the club turned to Cliff Fletcher and asked him to act as steward of the club’s fortunes during the initial stages of the rebuilding process. In doing so, the Leafs successfully managed to put one foot in front of the other. (Again, yay!) Fletcher has, it must be said, acquitted himself quite well since his appointment: he made a deal on draft day that got the Leafs into position to pick up Luke Schenn; he signed Niklas Hagman and Jeff Finger; for every questionable acquisition (Ryan Hollweg), there has been a great pickup (I’m looking at you, Mikhail Grabovski); for every Jamal Mayers, a Mike Van Ryn. It is too early to say whether these players, and others (such as recently acquired Lee Stempniak ) constitute the necessary pieces of the puzzle, though it is unlikely that they form the core of a Cup winning team. To get there, some of these assets will have to be moved elsewhere, and fresh talent added to the basic building blocks at a later date. At this stage, as we’ve been told by team officials, it’s not about wins and losses: it’s about changing a culture of entitlement that had settled over the dressing room – a debilitating malaise that somehow begun interfering with the players’ performance. At step two, Cliff Fletcher earns the MLSE another passing grade. So much for sticking a warm body in the chair to answer the phones for the short term. What of step three, making the decision to hire the person who will be general manager of this team in the long term? It would appear that the organization’s focus has been on Brian Burke in that regard for some time; reports emerged yesterday that it’s essentially a done deal. So what of Brian Burke? Assuming the reports to be true, how did MLSE do at this final stage of the decision-making process? It seems to me that the answer to that question is inextricably linked to one’s assessment of the other candidates that were available for the job. The case for Burke, as ably put by Sean from Down Goes Brown, is basically as follows:
Sean also points out that the oft-repeated knock against Burke – that his one Cup win came with a team built by Bryan Murray – ignores the fact that Burke did add some significant pieces (Pronger, Niedermayer, Beauchemin) to that team, reminding us that success always has many fathers. Meanwhile, mf37 of Bitter Leaf Fan fame puts the case for the nays. That argument turns out to be more of a case for the “not quite yets.” He points out that Burke is far from infallible, having had what the British education system calls a “deferred success” (something you and I would recognize as a “failure”) at the draft table in his years with both the Canucks and Ducks. He also describes Burke’s struggles adapting to the salary cap constraints under which all NHL clubs now operate as follows:
He points out that there are other established hockey management professionals who will be available at the end of this season, including David Poile of the Predators, Darcy Regier of the Sabres, and Doug Wilson of the Sharks. These other options suggest to the naysayers that it would be best for the Leafs not to act hastily; to explore the possibility of hiring these others before hitching our wagon to Burke’s train. Essentially mf37’s argument, though cogent, is incomplete. It basically amounts to an assertion that the Leafs ought to wait because something better than a Burke-o-Matic™ may soon be available. What isn’t included in his argument, however, is any discussion of the relative merits of Burke’s supposed rivals for the job. So let’s take a look:
What of any other candidates? One name that came to my mind is Washington Capitals GM George McPhee; he’s been through a teardown/rebuild project once already in Washington, and with the help of a fellow by the name of Ovechkin, he seems to be moving in the right direction. I don’t know anything at all about his contract status. It struck me that McPhee has already been through some of the issues currently afflicting the Leafs, though not in anything like the media fishbowl that the Leafs operate within. Of course the Caps haven’t won a lot of playoff series in the recent past, and they do compete in the perenially undercompetitive Southeast Division, so any success they’ve had has come a bit easier than, say, that of the Sharks (see above). Another worry is the fact that he’d take the risks involved in the Alex Ovechkin deal, as James Mirtle has very capably pointed out. Are there any other alternatives? According to James Mirtle, the Leafs “tried” to talk to Ken Holland and Jim Rutherford too¹. That sounds to me like their attempts were rebuffed; in any event, I have to assume that if Holland were realistically available, he would have the job already. How could he not? As much as it pains me to say, the Red Wings have been a model organization since the late 80s; their stick-boys are probably eminently qualified to teach a class on responsible hockey management. As for Jim Rutherford, as much as the childhood Spitfire fan in me would love to give Jimmy a shot at running the show, as has been pointed out by Sean, the Leafs have already been down the road of one-shot wonders from Carolina (hmmm…Paul Maurice had a Spitfire connection too, come to think of it). That’s it, I think, for proven hockey folk. The only other option for the Leafs, it seems to me – and it’s a choice that I haven’t seen discussed very much, if at all – is to go off the board entirely and hire a proven general manager from another sport: someone who has experience negotiating contracts and dealing with a salary cap and the marketing/promotional end of the business, but who would delegate hockey decisions to an underling. That option likely isn’t politically very viable – there would be a real risk of a riot at 40 Bay, I’d say, if a non-hockey type took over the post – and ultimately begs the question anyway: who’s going to make the hockey decisions? Conclusion: At the end of the day, then, the decision to hire Brian Burke comes down to this: a judgement by MLSE that he is likely better than David Poile or Darcy Regier, two guys who may be available at the end of the year. I would suggest that it says little about MLSE’s estimation of Doug Wilson or Ken Holland’s worth or suitability for the job, and much more about the practical reality that they are not candidates because they’re not available. As stated above, I don’t find Poile’s credentials that compelling, with all due respect to the man. Although Regier’s draft work in particular is interesting, I can’t say that MLSE is obviously wrong in making the choice that they have. Those are the facts, folks. It seems to me that – unless you disagree and feel that either Poile or Regier is a demonstrably superior choice, to the extent that would justify putting off the decision until after the trade deadline – then I think you’re forced to admit that this decision is the right one for the Toronto Maple Leafs. There are no guarantees that Burke will bring a Stanley Cup to Toronto. That doesn’t mean, though, that hiring him is the wrong decision. In fact, it has to be seen as the right one, for now. As an aside, I am hopeful as a fan of the team that Burke’s ego won’t prevent him from reaching out to fill out the hockey department at MLSE with some folks who can help him in those areas with which he has stuggled (cough the draft cough). It’s probably not realistic to think that he could manage to lure someone like Regier to jump on board in a subordinate role, but – if I were in charge – no expense would be spared to hire away folks from the Sabres’ (and Sharks’ and Wings’) scouting and talent evaluation system. In the new NHL, you can’t spend your way to success by putting more dollars into hockey players than the next guy, but you can spend more than him on all of the activities that help identify, select and train new talent (as well as on things designed to make the players you have in the organization healthier, more focussed and more productive). —————– ¹ Mirtle says that the Leafs “tried” to talk to Doug Wilson too; I take this as supportive of my conclusions about Wilson’s likely unavailability. 11 comments to Brian Burke: Is You Is Or Is You Isn’t? |
||||||
Copyright © 2018 Heroes in Rehab: the blog - All Rights Reserved |
Excellent analysis of the big names. But who provided them with the input they needed to get their reputation? I think it is ok to hire a big name exec who is decisive and well respected and who has made some good decisions in the past but to go forward you need to provide him with the right staff to provide the needed background info.
Sure – hire Burke but why not also raid the Sabres, Sharks, Wings, Devils (dare I say Hawks?) for the support staff that made the GM’s look so good?
Hockey is a team game on the ice and in the front office too!
Exactly why I’m saying that Burkie’s ego can’t get in the way and he needs to be raiding the Sabres, Sharks and Wings to get some help evaluating talent and running the draft.
Take a look at the Sabres’ roster, in particular – the number of homegrown players there is phenomenal; the Sharks too. Detroit gets a mention because they manage to find guys like Zetterberg WAY down deep in the draft.
Great post.
I think it comes down to this: even if you think there are better candidates than Burke, a 100% chance of landing Brian Burke right now beats out a 50/50 (or whatever else) chance at Poile or McPhee in six months.
@DGB:
Agreed. To forego Burkie now, you have to believe that the other candidate is demonstrably better and likely available. It’s kind of like the decision process my family went through when we first bought a home computer; true, the Commodore 64 wasn’t likely to be the be-all and end-all of personal computing technology, but waiting for the “best” machine to appear wasn’t an option – we’d still be waiting to this day. So there you have it Brian Burke = Commodore 64, adjusted for awesomeness inflation to 1983 levels.
I’m just trying to set the rules for evaluation of this decision now, to make it tougher for the revisionists to carp and moan later if, Wendel forbid, the Cup doesn’t come home on BB’s watch.
Nice write-up and thanks for the links.
I should clarify that I only included the other GM names in my posts and not a more thorough analysis as I knew if I didn’t name names I would get 16 comments saying nothing more than: “who would you hire, then?”
As for your write-ups, Regier deserves far more credit for his drafting and development record:(Vanek, Pommenville, Afinogenov, Campbell, Tallinder, Paetsch, Stafford, Roy, Gaustad, Miller, Kotalik, Peters, Kalinin – compared to Burke and JFJ it’s freakin’ sparkling).
It should also be acknowledged that if weren’t for horrific injuries on the back end the Sabres likely would have been in the Cup finals against Edmonton. (They were so banged up, I think Jim Schonfield was their 7th defenceman in the final game of the series against the Canes). That would be two cup finals in 10 years for Mr. Regier. Not bad for a team that went bankrupt, had its owner indicted and has had to deal with some pretty heavy budget restraints.
In the end, I agree with DGB – a 100% shot at Burke is better than a 50% shot at another GM; however, it must be noted that Burke has had one, maybe two good drafts in over a decade and, to me, that’s a very troubling very disturbing trend, especially as the Leafs try to re-tool into a serious contender.
@mf37:
I know your post wasn’t intended to include an analysis of the other candidates’ names, and I 100% agree with your assessment of Regier’s draft/development record. Outstanding.
As for Burkie’s record in the draft, I agree this is a major area of concern. One possibility that occurred to me this morning is hiring dudes from Hockey Canada; Burke and the Leafs should actively recruit some of the folk whose job it has been to scout the juniors and fill out our World Juniors and Under-18 squads. That’s exactly the talent we need to assess, and right now. There’s a guy named Al Murray (ex-Kings scout) who signed a two-year deal with them in August ’07 to become Hockey Canada’s Head Amateur Scout. We need to either sign that guy up or get a burlap bag of oh, say “man” size and work up our appetites for mischief…
That’s a great point and this is where I wish the media and insiders would leverage their access and provide more insight into the scouts, scouting departments and the scouting processs.
Gare Joyce’s book (Future Greats..) was an amazing read and it’s such a shame there isn’t more of that insight out there.
If the Hockey News is ever going to be relevant again, this is a vein that they should be mining.
Agreed. It’s easier to write the stories about an individual. A story centred around the concept “JFJ is a jerk” is going to sell way more papers than a careful study of the reasons for a particular organization’s continued success (or failure) at identifying fresh new talent, because the latter story – while more insightful – is going to read like a treatise on organizational theory. Although the latter story would actually help the average guy sitting in a bar bitching about his favourite team over a couple of bowls of loudmouth soup understand, it isn’t going to give him any glib ad hominems to toss around the barroom.
I will confess to succumbing to that temptation by times, but I’m not a professional writer.
I’d just like to point out that Burke’s drafting record isn’t really relevant, since Fletcher has traded away all our picks in the next few drafts.
With Burke allegedly being announced as the next GM on Saturday, I foresee Fletcher trading the 2009 and 2010 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks for a pile of 26 year old impending UFAs. Leaving Burke with just the 6th and 7th round picks in 2009 and 2010 to play with.
@mf37: Yeah, then Fletch turns to Burkie, dusting his palms-like, and says, “There. Fix that, Mr. Smartypants” and wanders off in search of the 4:30 earlybird dinner special.
@DGB:
…Burke’s drafting record isn’t really relevant, since Fletcher has traded away all our picks..
True, provided you assume that assets like Kaberle, Toskala and Antropov are all going to finish up the season here in T.O. I always kind of assumed that at least some of these names (and I’m really hoping NOT Kaberle) get converted into draft picks at the deadline. Because these trades are more likely to involve playoff teams, they’re not likely to be lottery-region picks. These could be tough selections, especially since this year’s draft class is not thought to be especially deep (at least as compared to last year’s). All the more reason to have someone around who knows the talent pool intimately, when it comes time to pick.