OT: Burke
j.b...@comcast.net
contract with other (*cough* Toronto *cough*) teams.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=255628&lid=headline&lpos=topStory_main
Smart move by the Ducks. You can't have a GM who's about to become an
"unrestricted free agent," because a big part of a GM's job is looking
after the future of the team. How could you trust Burke to make a
deal that involves a draft pick or prospect, or taking on a long-term
contract, when he knows he's not going to be around to deal with the
downside?
I don't blame Burke, either. He was under no obligation to sign an
extension with the Ducks, and if he wants to go to Toronto for family,
sentimental, or just plain mercenary reasons, that's his business.
Jim
Gerry
doing a little too well, so it's good to expect that some of the old
craziness will come back in to sidetrack things there again. :)
l8r,
Gerry
Chuck
Who cares about the Leafs anyways. So what if they sign him. What can
he do to help them... may pot a hat trick or two. Just kidding, but if
he did join them as GM now, are there any moves he could do that
Fletcher could not? Other then giving Toronto media someone more
interesting to interview. Or once he is in Toronto, set up a "Steel
Cage" match between him and Al Strachan, sell it as a PPV to help pay
the bloated salary Toronto will pay him to be GM.
j.b...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, pissing off Strachan would be reason enough for the Leafs to
hire him.
I don't think Burke is God's gift to GMing, but I'd say he's one of
the best ten GMs in the game. The Leafs could do a lot worse (and I
rather hope they will).
Jim
Chuck
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Leafs would be better off leaving Fletcher as GM and invest the
money that they would have to overpay Burke in giving their
management team some depth ie Director of player pers, Director of
scouting etc. Allow the best they hire to rise through their system to
become GM, while Fletcher fades into the background. There is still no
evidence Burke can sustain success. He seems to come in fill some
holes, get some quick success, then bail before he has to rebuild a
team, or be effective at making moves to keep a team at the top. The
Ducks were good before he was GM. Vancouver is still recovering.
j.b...@comcast.net
> The Leafs would be better off leaving Fletcher as GM and invest the
> money that they would have to overpay Burke in giving their
> management team some depth ie Director of player pers, Director of
> scouting etc. Allow the best they hire to rise through their system to
> become GM, while Fletcher fades into the background.
That assumes that the Leafs have a fixed budget, such that spending
more on a GM means there's less available in other areas. Perhaps
that's the case; I don't really know. But if ownership would allow
it, the Leafs could probably afford to operate like the Yankees of the
NHL, spending whatever it takes.
>There is still no
> evidence Burke can sustain success. He seems to come in fill some
> holes, get some quick success, then bail before he has to rebuild a
> team, or be effective at making moves to keep a team at the top. The
> Ducks were good before he was GM. Vancouver is still recovering.
The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it can lead you to the
conclusion that there are only two or three good GMs in hockey,
especially when you add in the qualifier that so many critics do, that
you have to win a Cup to "prove" your GM credentials. (Indeed, that
was the knock on Burke until he got one with Anaheim.)
Here's the current list of NHL GMs, sorted by category, applying a
hyper-critical standard:
Long-term mediocrities:
Atlanta Thrashers Don Waddell 1998
-- can barely get his team to the playoffs, perennially assumed to be
on the verge of getting fired
Washington Capitals George McPhee 1997
-- team hasn't won a playoff round since his first year
Minnesota Wild Doug Risebrough 1999
Nashville Predators David Poile 1997
St. Louis Blues Larry Pleau 1997
Unknown quantites:
Boston Bruins Peter Chiarelli 2006
Florida Panthers Jacques Martin 2006
New York Islanders Garth Snow 2006
Philadelphia Flyers Paul Holmgren 2006
Tampa Bay Lightning Brian Lawton 2008
-- all too new, no real track record so far
Pittsburgh Penguins Ray Shero 2006
-- how much credit can you give a guy who inherited a stacked team?
And no Cup yet, either
Anaheim Ducks Bob Murray 2008
Chicago Blackhawks Dale Tallon 2005
Colorado Avalanche Francois Giguere 2006
Columbus Blue Jackets Scott Howson 2007
Dallas Stars Brett Hull and Les Jackson 2007
Edmonton Oilers Steve Tambellini 2008
Phoenix Coyotes Don Maloney 2007
Los Angeles Kings Dean Lombardi 2006
Vancouver Canucks Mike Gillis 2008
Modestly successful:
Buffalo Sabres Darcy Regier 1997
San Jose Sharks Doug Wilson 2003
-- some success, but no Cup
Ottawa Senators Bryan Murray 2007
-- actually has a pretty good track record, but no Cup as a GM
Calgary Flames Darryl Sutter 2003
-- probably being a little generous here
Won a Cup, but can't "sustain success":
Carolina Hurricanes Jim Rutherford 1994
"What have you done for me lately?":
Montreal Canadiens Bob Gainey 2003
-- that Cup in Dallas was a long time ago
New York Rangers Glen Sather 2000
-- the guy who used to brag that he'd win every game if he had the
Rangers' budget and then kind of ... didn't
Toronto Maple Leafs Cliff Fletcher 2008
-- no Cup since 1989; didn't accomplish much in Phoenix (though he
wasn't technically GM there)
Unimpeachable:
New Jersey Devils Lou Lamoriello 1987
Detroit Red Wings Ken Holland 1997
-- one could be really petty and claim Holland inherited a good team,
but 11 years is a long time
So that's pretty much it. Two GMs who you can't really question as
being good. And it's not like that list would really expand if you
considered guys who aren't currently GMs. Burke we've already
discussed. Maybe Pierre Lacroix? The only other GM not yet mentioned
who's won a Cup since 1994 is Jay Feaster, and he'd have to go on the
"can't sustain success" list. Heck, even Scottie Bowman was arguably
not a very successful _GM_.
My point is just that pretty much every NHL team has to settle for a
GM with some "question marks" under the standards people are applying
to Burke.
Jim
foamy
@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Chuck <barberphoto411
@gmail.com> wrote:
The
>Ducks were good before he was GM. Vancouver is still recovering.
Sorry, but this characterization is nonsense.
Jim
DaveHX
Chuck
>
> Unimpeachable:
> New Jersey Devils Lou Lamoriello 1987
> Detroit Red Wings Ken Holland 1997
> -- one could be really petty and claim Holland inherited a good team,
> but 11 years is a long time
Quoted from Wikipedia
"Lamoriello was appointed as president of the Devils by then-owner
John McMullen in April 1987. Lamoriello named himself general manager
just before the start of the next season--a move that surprised many
NHL observers. He had never played, coached or managed in the NHL, and
was virtually unknown outside the American college hockey community"
and
"Prior to joining the Devils, Lou Lamoriello was a math teacher at
Johnston (R.I.) High School for several years ending in the early
1970s"
or
"After his playing career was over, Holland took a job with the Red
Wings as a scout in Western Canada. He subsequently served seven years
as Director of Amateur Scouting and three as Assistant General
Manager. On July 18, 1997, he was promoted to his current position of
General Manager, Executive Vice President and Alternate Governor of
the Detroit Red Wings. The 2007–2008 season was his 11th as General
Manager (GM) and his 25th year overall with the Red Wings
organization. He has won the Stanley Cup four times with Detroit: the
first in 1997 as Assistant General Manager and Goaltending Coach, and
the latter three as GM in 1998, 2002 and 2008."
Success can come from people who do not have lengthy resumes of being
hired and fired by other teams.
Chuck
> not a very successful _GM_.
> Jim
I never thought Bowman had the patience to be a good GM, with all the
player moves he made in Buffalo. Gainey is at the other extreme, he
has made few if any early season player moves or few trades that were
not driven by either getting rid of someone (Ribiero/Theodore etc) or
contract expiration dates (Huet / Rivet) - GM of Montreal
j.b...@comcast.net
> Success can come from people who do not have lengthy resumes of being
> hired and fired by other teams
Certainly. But you are taking a risk by doing so, just as surely as
you do when you hire a GM who hasn't won a Cup/shown sustained success/
etc. There are no sure things.
Jim
foamy
DaveHX <splo...@gmail.comma> wrote:
>foamy wrote:
>> In article <5d39acd1-6ab7-4844-96d6-42c86e6d074b
>> @w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Chuck <barberphoto411
>> @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The
>>> Ducks were good before he was GM. Vancouver is still recovering.
>>
>> Sorry, but this characterization is nonsense.
>yet accurate. burke is highly overrated
Nonsense. The Ducks were not good before Burke joined them. They finished
out of the playoffs with 76 pts. Burke brought in Carlyle to coach, added guys
like Selanne, Nieds, Beauchemin, Marchant, Sean O’Donnell, and got rid of
others like Fedorov.
They finished the regular season with club records in wins (43), points (98)
and goals scored (251), finishing sixth in the Western Conference. Defeated
Calgary in seven games in the first round, swept the Colorado Avalanche in the
second round and eventually fell to the Edmonton Oilers in the Western
Conference Finals.
The following year he got Pronger, made some other tinkers, and as you know,
won the cup. The ducks went from 76 pts pre Burke, to seasons of 98, 110 and
a 102 pts.
As for the Canucks, Burke saved the franchise. The Canucks were at a low point
in their history with less than 10,000 season tickets and crowds often in the
12K range.
He took that state of affairs and turned it around completely. Put an exciting
run and gun team on the ice and filled the building finishing his tenure here
with 100 and something consecutive sellouts.The team went from losing
20 or 30 million per, to making a like amount. The Canucks became one of
the top road draws in the league.
He recorded consecutive 100+ point seasons and the 2004 Northwest
Division title. Under his leadership, the team increased its point total
4 consecutive years from 1999-2003. With 104 and 101 points respectively in
2002-2003 & 2003-2004, the Canucks joined only Detroit, Ottawa and
Philadelphia to record consecutive seasons with at least 100 points. The
2003-2004 Canucks finished with a record of 43-24-10-5 for 101 points,
winning the Northwest Division. Burke’s 2001-2002 Canucks led the league
with 254 goals.
There are many great things Burke did in the community and with the Canuck
alumni, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Vancouver who wouldn't
have wished he was still here as we went through Nonis and boring stinking
trap hockey.
One thing Burke brings to the job, is his belief it's all about entertainment
first, and he'd shoot himself before he'd play trap hockey.
So as I said, nonsense. You can believe or not he's overrated, that's purely
subjective, but facts are facts, and his accomplishments are well documented.
Jim