Ron Wilson and Brian Burke Not To Blame
November 20th, 2009 by SteveAlright, all of this chatter over Burke and Wilson being the problem is getting a bit ridiculous. Arguing the merits of Brian Burke trading Phil Kessel for a bucket full of picks is all well and good, but it really doesn’t have much to do with the current rendition of the Leafs.
The fact is, Burke brought in a proven scorer to supplement the Leafs soft attack, and frankly at the time (and to this exact day) nobody would argue that Phil Kessel is anything less than a superior offensive talent to every forward the Leafs have had on the club since Sundin’s departure.
Burke held on to Tomas Kaberle, the consensus pick for MVP on the team at the close of last season. Kaberle was considered to have the highest trade value on the club, and Burke decided NOT to pull the trigger on a deal to send him to Boston (in exchange for Kessel). In hindsight that might have been a mistake, but in reality, nobody can argue that the current edition of the Leafs would be better off WITHOUT Kaberle, who currently leads the team in scoring.
Brian Burke signed Jonas Gustavsson, who to date has been the best option in goal for the Leafs. His horrible showing in the shoot out against Carolina aside, Gustavsson’s paddle down style of butterfly has worked pretty well thus far. Sure he over commits, and then compensates by using his athleticism, but a lot of goalies do a pretty bang up job with that style of play. Burke also brought in a butterfly goaltending guru in Francois Allaire to take over the reins of the goaltending coaching with the Leafs, not a bad move from where I sit. Who better to train your new goalie of the future than the guy that developed the games of Patrick Roy, David Aebsicher, J.S. Giguere, Ilya Bryzgalov, and Jonas Hiller?
Burke also brought in Francois Beauchemin and Mike Komisarek, two of the most highly sought after D men on the free agent market this off season, and I sincerely doubt ANYONE in the hockey world, or any hockey observers would launch into a tirade about how adding one of the best shot blockers in the NHL from divsional rival Montreal, and one of the most consistent performers on the recent Stanley Cup winning Anaheim Ducks, was a bad move from a defensive standpoint. Sheltering the development of Luke Schenn seemed to make sense, and cutting down on the goals against seemed to make even more.
This was a Leafs team with the worst PK in the NHL last year, and spending more on defensive defenders seemed to be a logical way of addressing the issue. Thus Pavel Kubina was dealt to bring in a more physical D man in Garnet Exelby, and free up the cap space to make the free agent moves that were undertaken.
Burke also decided to try and toughen up the sad sack pack of wimps he observed at the tail end of last year, so to that end he brought in Colton Orr, and he worked hard to get Jay Rosehill a shot in the NHL. It’s worked to some extent, as the Leafs are now 2nd in the NHL in fighting majors, but they’re still not tough enough in their top 6. That’s a work in progress.
So how to make up for a lack of young prospects? Plumb the depths of the NCAA was the avenue Burke chose to take. He went out and nabbed two of the most highly sough free agent senior skaters in Tyler Bozak and Christian Hanson, he made sure to sign Leaf draft picks Viktor Stålberg, Carl Gunnarsson, and Juraj Mikus, and then he went out and added one of the top scorers and captain of the Swedish League champions in Rickard Wallin. He worked hard to add depth.
Problems with leadership and locker room presence? Go out and get one of the guys around the NHL that Ron Wilson is on good terms with who will be a solid guy in the dressing room. Wayne Primeau fit that bill pretty well. He also provided an opportunity for the Leafs to clear up some defensive space by moving Anton Stralman.
So let’s see, even if the Leafs DID screw up in dealing away picks for the future, it’s hard to argue that Burke didn’t make sincere attempts to address the issues he saw with this team. They were the same issues the majority of observers noticed, and entering this season, very few would have predicted the Leafs would have only 3 wins after the first 19 games of the season. To be perfectly honest, almost NOBODY did.
So does that mean this is all Ron Wilson’s fault? No, not really. The roster has under-performed, but he can’t help that the team lacks a true top line centre. He can’t control the crap goaltending he received at the beginning of the year. He can’t go out and do Luke Schenn’s job for him so he doesn’t collapse mentally in his own zone at important times during a game.
Wilson isn’t the guy shooting a zillion shots from the perimeter and scoring on zero of them. He can’t go out and score for the team at even strength, though I’m sure if he felt capable of doing so, he would.
Where does all of this lie then? On the players. Many of them have played horribly at times this year. Jason Blake and Matt Stajan are both in the “me first” category as far as I can tell from watching them celebrate their unimportant goals with fist pumps and mugging for the camera.
They’re playing their way out of a pay day, and a number of them are free agents after this season. If they want decent paying jobs in the coming year, they’d better start playing like they care.
Posted in Player Analysis
43 Responses to “Ron Wilson and Brian Burke Not To Blame”
By glgbill
on Nov 20, 2009
Agree with many of your points, as usual. Still, there are a couple related questions that come to mind:
Did Burke commit to a proper rebuild or decide to make a run for the playoffs this year?
Did Burke attempt to do too much too quick, sacrificing important pieces of the future in the process?
Again, I agree with much of what you’ve written and a lot of what Burke has done. The investments in scouting and development were great and should pay dividends. But there are other decisions that I consider ego-driven and absolutely bone-headed:
1. Trashing Antropov in the media before dealing him for a 2nd. Is that anyway to maximize value?
2. Trashing Pogge in the media before dealing him for a conditional pick. Clearly, less value with Pogge than Antropov, but Burke’s job is maximize value at every turn.
3. And the killer - overpaying for Kessel by adding the 2011 first into the deal.
I’m less frustrated by the poor start than others, but more upset by the impatience to do things properly. Yes, Kessel is a wonderful addition and will help for years. Yes, we have some interesting overage prospects, plus Kadri, plus some remnants from the JFJ drafts. And yes, we should win more that 13 games this year. But is Burke doing the BEST job possible? I’m not so sure.
By BlueBuds
on Nov 20, 2009
I agree with you Steve, the players need to shape up and play the game they are being paid to play…but my question is why so many are under achieving? When its one two or three guys sure, you can point to them but when its most of the team you still have to wonder what’s up? The real shocker is that many are in a contract year, you play bad - you’ll sign for less if you get signed; you play great you’ll sucker in a GM to giving you $4M contract ala Blake.
I just help think that many know its the last time wearing the blue and white so who cares… not very professional but some of these athletes are just like that, me first.
By FishermansFriend
on Nov 20, 2009
“The fact is, Burke brought in a proven scorer to supplement the Leafs soft attack, and frankly at the time (and to this exact day) nobody would argue that Phil Kessel is anything less than a superior offensive talent to every forward the Leafs have had on the club since Sundin’s departure.”
No one has argued that Kessel isn’t a good player, they have argued that the Leafs gave up too much to get him.
Tyler Seguin (if you want to judge Kessel’s great start as a sign of things to come, you can also do the same with the Leafs standings), 1st, 2nd = Overpayment
By Mike Walton
on Nov 20, 2009
1. Burke came in to rebuild, but instead dumped two 1sts and a second for one player. No matter how good that player is, without a supporting cast (which is non existent, as was well known) they’re useless, as is now being seen. Without the picks, who’s going to play with him, more UFA’s? That’s not rebuilding, that’s BAD.
In order to improve the teams defense he shipped out Kubina for a player who rarely dresses, Exelby. How’s Kubina doing? 17GP, 9 Pts., +9. Yeah, obviously was the issue. This is BAD.
You think Burke is going to use the impending cap space wisely? Why? Based Upon his trades? His signings? He had money last season, spent it, made trades, and voila, the team is WORSE!
Leafs still have worst GA, and worst PK in the league.
But it isn’t Burke or Wilsons fault?
You must be a CEO.
By Mike Walton
on Nov 20, 2009
Oh, and Antropov? 18GP, 17 Pts., +9. That was worth a 2nd.
Again, obviously it’s the players fault the Leafs are terrible, not mangement…get real!
By Casey
on Nov 20, 2009
Can’t completely let Wilson off the hook for the poor start — it is a coach’s job to assemble the pieces into a cohesive group, and obviously, he has failed to do that so far.
You have to point to pre-season expectations before badmouthing the GM. Most fans, media outlets, and analysts predicted the Leafs to finish near the bottom playoff seed in the East. Slightly improved, but not a basement dweller or a contender.
Burke remodeled the team over the summer and made his moves, and no one was overly upset about it, in fact, there was a great deal of optimism surrounding the team. This is the point at which Burke should be judged, because if NOBODY saw the collapse coming, how can Burke be faulted for how his team performs after the season begins?
It is only fair to criticize him before the season (for his offseason moves), or during the season for the moves he makes (or doesn’t make) in response to team performance. The 90% of hockey observers who didn’t see the collapse coming should tell you that Burke did an okay job of re-tooling. What’s happening now can be attributed to many things (coaching, chemistry, expectations, complacency), but the blame shouldn’t be placed on Burke.
By LeafFan1989
on Nov 20, 2009
Mike, the leafs problem is both scoring and defence. however, you its harder to score 5 goals every night than it is to play solid D and prevent the other team from scoring. Kubina was not a defensive stud by any means and you ship him out and bring in a defensive specialist(komisarek) for a million dollar less, for this team its a pretty good deal. Exelby is a UFA at the end of the year so it frees up cap space at the end of the year.
Any GM in the league who had the cap space would have signed Komi and Beauchemin based on their previous performances. Its not Burkes fault that Beauchemin has underperformed. Komisarek had really picked up his game before getting injured. 26 teams were running for Gustavvson and Burke worked his ass off to get him and try to solve the biggest issue with the team.
No one could have predicted Schenn’s craptastic season so far and Toskalas continued ineptitude was not unexpected but everyone thought he would be better. Gustavvsson has shown flashes of brilliance in his brief career and under the tutelage of one of the best goalie coaches in the business he’s in good hands. As for Antropov, you keep whining about rebuilding, so Burke got the draft pick for an under performing player. No one was gonna give up a second rounder for him and besides the guy was a UFA, theres no guarantee he would have signed with T.O at seasons end. I’ll give you that the 2 first rounders seemes to be the overpayment at the moment but i think we should wait for a couple more years. If the two picks turn out to be first line players, then we can talk. But for now Kessel is better than any player playing in Junior.
By LeafFan1989
on Nov 20, 2009
And i think Wilson has to share a lot of blame because his team doesn’t seem to get motivated AT ALL to play. They come out flat or end flat and cant play defense for shit. Their only solid defense men are Kabs, Komi and white who burke didn’t trade last season. But either this group can never learn how to play D or wilson cant teach them.
By kenny
on Nov 21, 2009
“Did Burke commit to a proper rebuild or decide to make a run for the playoffs this year?”
I’m not sure what you feel a “proper” rebuild is, but I don’t believe Burke considers the terms ‘rebuild’ and ‘playoffs’ mutually exclusive.
About Wilson, though… I’m not looking to hang the man, but I do wonder whether there’s some communication breakdown between the coaching staff and the players. Based on the team’s performance last year (just missed the playoffs, plenty of goals, decent PP, crap PK, can’t hold a lead, brutal defence), I didn’t feel anything was that different from the Maurice seasons. We’re in last place, and we know this roster is better than that. Coaching can’t be let off the hook.
By Steve
on Nov 21, 2009
Again, half of you are fixated on the FUTURE state of the team, when my whole point with this posting is that Burke was trying to build a team to be competitive this year.
Obviously this team is failing in that regard, but going into this season, very few, if any people, could predict that things would pancake so suddenly THIS season.
Ignoring the ramifications of the deal for Kessel and the lost picks (because for my current point future draft picks are irrelevant), this team is playing poorly in such a fashion that Burke is beyond responsible for.
Nobody in their right mind would anticipate that this collection of players would have been THIS inept defensively. They added good defenders, and they improved their goaltending. How does it make logical sense that the team would be THIS much worse than last season, especially when you add in Kessel. It really doesn’t make ANY sense to blame Burke for the demise of half the club.
The players are playing worse many of them (i.e. Blake, Stajan, Mitchell) than people anticipated generally. I personally expected it of Stajan, but Blake has come in way under par, and Mitchell wasn’t supposed to be quite this crappy defensively.
As for Antropov’s stats with Atlanta - they have absolutely nothing to do with his 2nd rounder value at the trading deadline last year. The only stats of worth in that regard would be his stats with the Rangers at the close of last season. He left the Rangers as an unrestricted free agent and flew down to the Thrashers in Atlanta. THAT is exactly why he was only worth a 2nd round pick… because there was zero guarantee that the team that received him in the deal would hold on to him past the playoffs.
If you’re incapable of recognizing that fact you really shouldn’t bother commenting.
I also fail to see how your idiotically deprecating comments further this discussion in any way. Do you honestly hold yourself up as a wise judge of hockey talent - Is your name secretly Mike Milbury???
You could try backing you “points” up with some qualitative or quantitative suggestions that might actually address the REASONS you hold them responsible, rather than relying on pathetic efforts at Sarcasm.
Holding on to draft picks and NOT bringing in Kessel would only have left this team with little to no offensive options. Not trading Antropov for a 2nd round pick wouldn’t have kept him with the club, and they’d still not have the supposed 1st round pick you think he was worth on the team anyway… so again I fail to see how any of your opinions address the fact that THIS year’s rendition of the Leafs suck and everyone is calling for Burke’s head on a platter.
If you’re upset that Burke didn’t just let the team fall to pieces and tanked and tanked some more, then you should go cry yourself to sleep and stop spending time on the internet.
In regards to Ron Wilson’s ability to coach systems and teach players - he’s done so with a variety of clubs in the past. The expansion Mighty Ducks, the Washington Capitals, the San Jose Sharks… why would he suddenly be incapable of teaching or coaching when he gets to Toronto? Do we honestly think he’s suddenly incapable of communicating to young players, despite the fact that he did so in a regular and effective manner in other organizations?
Seriously… think about this… how many coaches have some of these players burned through without finding any success? Do you remember Matt Stajan ever being a superior top line centre? He was too young for the role with Quinn, and he obviously didn’t find that niche with Maurice. Now he’s doing the same crap he did before under Wilson, but somehow it’s still the coach’s fault?
Jason Blake has been a perimeter playing malcontent for his entire career. He skates well, and he can score goals when he wants to drive the net, but he shoots far too often, he’s a puck hog, and he doesn’t really get along well with a majority of his team mates. He’s amazingly finicky when it comes to who he plays with or gets motivated to play with, and that isn’t NEW information. But yeah, I guess it’s Ron Wilson’s fault that Blake isn’t scoring… he must not be able to “communicate” with him - especially after how he improved last year with Moore, and then fell off again this season.
Defensively the Leafs have looked good at times, and atrocious at others. A lot of that is attributable to the average age of the team, but some of these players just aren’t responding. It’s not a 1 way street, and I don’t see why it would be the coaches fault when very specific players are under performing.
By Casey
on Nov 21, 2009
Steve, do you think Penner’s turnaround has anything to do with Pat Quinn vs. Craig MacTavish?
By Steve
on Nov 21, 2009
I think it has to do with Dustin Penner. I don’t see Pat Quinn being the main reason. He is a good motivator, and he does give his players a lot of offensive freedom, but I think Penner’s made more of the change than anything.
By glgbill
on Nov 21, 2009
Steve, you wrote:
“As for Antropov’s stats with Atlanta - they have absolutely nothing to do with his 2nd rounder value at the trading deadline last year. The only stats of worth in that regard would be his stats with the Rangers at the close of last season. He left the Rangers as an unrestricted free agent and flew down to the Thrashers in Atlanta. THAT is exactly why he was only worth a 2nd round pick… because there was zero guarantee that the team that received him in the deal would hold on to him past the playoffs.
If you’re incapable of recognizing that fact you really shouldn’t bother commenting.”
Not sure you’re directing this at me, but you ignored the fact that Burke trashed Antropov in the media for weeks before making the trade with New York. Again, I repeat…is THAT any way to maximize a player’s value? Could you please answer that question?
You also wrote:
“Holding on to draft picks and NOT bringing in Kessel would only have left this team with little to no offensive options.”
Again, the point is that Burke overpaid to get Kessel, not that Kessel was a bad acquisition. The extra first in 2011 wasn’t necessary to get the deal done, yet Burke (in his haste) made a bad deal anyway. Instead of defending Kessel as a top player, could you please address the question of price? Did Burke throw away a FIRST ROUND PICK unnecessarily? I’m 100% convinced that he did.
Again, I will repeat my original questions:
“Did Burke commit to a proper rebuild or decide to make a run for the playoffs this year?”
By your response, I’m guessing that you would say, yes, Burke attempted to make a run for the playoffs this year - and by all evidence, he miscalculated badly. Which leaves us with the second question.
“Did Burke attempt to do too much too quick, sacrificing important pieces of the future in the process?”
What say you?
By kenny
on Nov 21, 2009
I never said Wilson’s “suddenly incapable of teaching or coaching” or that Stajan was ever destined to be a “superior top-line centre” (I suppose his best chance is becoming one of those inferior top-line centres).
It’s a team game. To absolve the coaching staff of even a sliver of responsibility of the current record (three wins in 20 games…) undervalues their role. It’s not a one-way street.
By kenny
on Nov 21, 2009
glgbill, Burke has *explicitly* stated that he wants this team to be in the playoffs. Rebuilding and making the playoffs are not mutually exclusive goals — at least, Burke doesn’t think so (and neither do I).
By Steve
on Nov 21, 2009
glgbill - you weren’t discussing his stats in Atlanta, Mike was.
I agree that trashing him in the media might have had a negative impact, but I sincerely doubt Burke did anything other than take the best deal on the table when the deadline rolled around. Burke saying Antropov’s a great guy wouldn’t likely have increased his value all that much to be honest.
As for sacrificing too much too quick, obviously this is an example of hindsight being 20/20, except we’re not even to the quarter pole of the season yet, and people are already writing off the whole year.
They won’t make the playoffs but considering things a complete write off at this point strikes me as a bit premature.
By Down Goes Brown
on Nov 21, 2009
“Again, half of you are fixated on the FUTURE state of the team, when my whole point with this posting is that Burke was trying to build a team to be competitive this year.”
But isn’t that the whole point? Instead of building for the future, Burke decided the team was good enough to make a push this year. That was the basis for his two biggest decisions — trading picks for Kessel, and not trading Kaberle.
You can’t separate present and future. Everything revolved around Burke’s evaluation of the current team’s chances, and he turned out to be disastrously wrong about that.
By mf37
on Nov 21, 2009
It takes a joint effort for team to perform this badly.
That said, Burke was clearly wrong when he looked at this line-up and said “playoffs.”
Wilson, by any measure, has been a disappointment.
By Dave
on Nov 21, 2009
glgbill, why are you 100% convinced Boston would have traded Kessel to Toronto for 1 1st and a 2nd as opposed to 2 1sts and a 2nd? How do you know some other team didn’t offer more than that? Have you spoken to Peter Chiarelli about it? How else would one know such a thing other than by speaking to the GM in charge of pulling the trigger?
By Dave
on Nov 21, 2009
The deal I’m disappointed by is the Kubina deal. Kubina was given away for nothing (minor leaguer + Exelby was more or less a salary dump) when he is a pretty consistent top 10-20 scoring defensemen in the league, and, more importantly, *there were no other offensive defensemen on the UFA market that compared to him*. So I don’t understand why Toronto couldn’t have extracted a pick or two in any trade involving Kubina.
I’m neutral on the Kessel deal. It’s going to be emotionally devastating for me if we give Boston a top-2 pick this year, but, as Steve said, *no one* and I mean *no one* predicted the leafs would be so much worse this year than last. So, in my mind, if we wind up giving up that top-2 pick, it’s really just bad luck.
On the good side, I think Burke has done a some things few other GMs could have pulled off: signing Gusto, Bozak & Hanson and signing Beauchemin & Komisarek at relatively low cost.
Overall, the list of good things outweighs the list of bad things.
By Mike Walton
on Nov 21, 2009
“Ron Wilson and Brian Burke Not To Blame”
“Again, half of you are fixated on the FUTURE state of the team, when my whole point with this posting is that Burke was trying to build a team to be competitive this year.”
3W-17L
EPIC FAIL…but it’s not their faults.
You honestly think that holds ANY water?
Spin, sputter, and cough, but not so much as a shred of reality.
Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
By Mike Walton
on Nov 21, 2009
“They won’t make the playoffs but considering things a complete write off at this point strikes me as a bit premature.”
This point is after 20 games, and even you, one of the most cool-aid drunk fans already concede the play-offs are out of reach, but the season isn’t a complete write off?
What, with all due respect, would you consider a write off, a plane crash on route to game 1?
Yeah, you’re objective!
The again, maybe you’re right, 62 games of vitual irrlevance is not a complete write off, it’s a fucking smoking hole in the ground!
By BCapp
on Nov 21, 2009
Mike,
I am not necessarily agreeing with Steve that Burke/Wilson are blameless, but are you trying to say the players are? (I could just be misunderstanding you…)
I look at that team and I can count on one hand who is living up to my expectaitons/excelling:
Kabby, White, Kessel…Rosehill (just b/c I didn’t have expectations for him), Finger, and Hagman (who I think both would be loved in Leaf-land if they were each paid a million less).
Okay so its just over a hand…
By BCapp
on Nov 21, 2009
Oh and as an aside:
I like all of the non players moves Burke’s made and I think they will help the team in teh long run.
Significantly beefing up our scouting, signing Allaire (arguable the best goalie coach), and Dallas Eakins for the Marlies (admittedly I don’t know much about him but I have heard good things)…
By Mike
on Nov 21, 2009
I believe Burkes plan was for this team to be somewhere around 7-9 spot come trade deadline day. Then with the pending UFA Stempniak,Poni,Stajan and getting Kaberle to waive his no trade he could stock pile picks. Meanwhile the 5 months with the marlies would have Stalberg,Bozek,Hanson, and Gunnerson ready for the NHL with no drop off in the Leafs chances at a playoff spot.Instead the team is underachieving and throwing the plan in the toilet. The Players are to blame. I think Burkes plan is a good one.
The one thing I wish that Burke had done out of camp was waive one of the vets ( ya Blake) with all the competition in camp it was important that one of the vets lose his job so the rest can lose there sense of I’m great because Howard Berger wants to know what I think ( stajan) The camp competition wasn’t real because nobody lost there job save maybe Tlusty and Frogren
By glgbill
on Nov 21, 2009
@Dave
Fair questions, all.
Brian Burke announced his intentions to go after Kessel and reacquired the picks necessary to sign him to an offer sheet, if that became necessary. Compensation to the Bruins (or any team holding Kessel’s rights) would have been Toronto’s a 1st, 2nd, 3rd in 2010. As the weeks unfolded, it became clear that Kessel wanted to be a Leaf and wouldn’t sign with Boston. I’m sure we all remember these media reports. Furthermore, if Boston were to sign him, they could not trade him for at least a year (per the labor agreement), eliminating any sign-and-trade option. So Boston had a real decision to make: Did they want to invest in Phil Kessel as a part of their future or did the combination of factors (salary demands, questions of ‘popularity’ in the room, desire to leave/be a Maple Leaf, cap room for other signings) mean that it was time to go in different direction.
As it became clear that Kessel was unlikely to remain in Boston, other teams began expressing interest, notably the Rangers and the Predators (again, via media reports). However, because they could only acquire the rights to Kessel — and Boston could not do a sign-and-trade per labor rules — no team could offer up a package worth more than Toronto’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in 2010. If they did, they risked Burke simply signing Kessel to an offer sheet, forcing them to either match at a higher salary than they might like or accept Toronto’s picks as compensation.
This was the hammer that Toronto held. This part of the deal was expertly played by Burke.
In addition to needing to move Kessel, Boston also needed salary relief as they have a number of players to lock up in the next year or two (Krejci, Wheeler, Lucic, etc). Chuck Kobasew was the most obvious example - a third liner in Boston being paid second line money. Before the trade I posted on Hockey’s Future (and maybe here too, but maybe not) that Kobasew made the most sense as ’salary coming back’, if Burke wanted to work a deal that didn’t involve the offer sheet, which Burke likely wanted to avoid as well, in case anyone raised questions about the Penner deal a few years back. In the weeks after the Kessel trade Boston dealt Kobasew in a salary dump, so we now know he was available.
All of that said, my 100% conviction is the Burke could have worked a deal that involved our 1st, 2nd, 3rd going to Boston, plus salary coming back, adding in minor considerations on either side to balance things appropriately — and avoided dealing the 2011 first as well. Instead, Burke overpaid to get the deal done.
I’m not the only person to articulate this scenario and criticize Burke. It’s been posted and discussed in other places as well. I’m just emphasizing it in this conversation right now. And I’m not accusing you (in any way) of being a member of ‘Burke Nation’, but there are a lot of people who blindly subscribe to the “In Burke We Trust” motto and remain unwilling to hold him accountable for his decisions. That’s all.
Again, I’m absolutely convinced, by the way the Kessel trade unfolded, that Burke could have found a better deal for Toronto. But he didn’t and I feel it’s appropriate to criticize him for this failure.
By glgbill
on Nov 21, 2009
@Steve…you wrote:
“As for sacrificing too much too quick, obviously this is an example of hindsight being 20/20, except we’re not even to the quarter pole of the season yet, and people are already writing off the whole year.”
Well, we can respectfully disagree on this point. My criticism of Burke dates back to the Antropov trade - which I feel he totally mismanaged. Burke has developed a TERRIBLE habit of announcing his intentions to the world — Antropov sucks, Pogge sucks (but I’ll be a great guy and find him a new home), I’m going to deliver Phil Kessel — and then making lesser deals than could be had if he’d only worked the process quietly. Quite simply, Burke mismanaged assets in each of these trades, and it was readily apparent at the time, not just in hindsight.
As for writing off the year…well, we’re not going to make the playoffs. Since Burke decided that rebuilding and making the playoffs were compatible, Burke has already failed at one of his two stated goals. And it’s only November. However, I fully agree that it’s way too early to fully assess his rebuilding effort.
You’ve definitely noted in many articles that we have some nice building blocks - the overage prospects, our developing draft picks, the investments in scouting and development, etc. The cupboard is certainly not bare. But overpaying in trades and dumping existing players below value is no way to manage assets long term, and that’s the concern with Burke I’m trying to express.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see how Burke paints from the corner he now finds himself in. Will his decisions further the rebuild or sacrifice futures to reach the playoffs? As someone noted, these don’t have to be mutually exclusive options, but in practice it’s a very difficult thing to balance. GMs under pressure to win tend to make shortsighted decisions. We all know that. But Burke has a very long leash. It will be interesting, and potentially painful, to see how he balances these competing goals going forward (along with his ego, as he’s forced to watch an underperforming/bad hockey team that bears many of his fingerprints).
So, no, this is not simply hindsight or knee-jerk frustration to a poor start. It’s recognition that despite Burke’s initial popularity with many (but not all) Leaf fans, he’s arguably placing too high a priority on winning now and not enough of building for the future. In short, I believe he’s doing too many of the same things that produced mediocrity in the past, and based on his early returns, suggests mediocrity going forward.
Clearly, the Leafs are not as bad as they’ve played. We do have prospects that will reach the NHL and a few should have nice pro careers. And, eventually, we’ll return to the playoffs. These things are all acknowledged. Fully. But are we any closer to a championship caliber team? Are we going in the right direction? Again, I’m not so sure.
Regardless, however, of how people may feel about some of these issues, they certainly represent legitimate questions about Burke’s management so far. And that’s the beauty of conversation.
By DaveDaytona
on Nov 22, 2009
Take last year’s team.
Subtract the departed–Kubina, Antropov, Odds & Ends.
Add the arrived–Beauchemin, Komisarek, Gustavsson, Kessel, Odds & Ends.
On paper this year’s team should be head and shoulders above its predecessor. Instead it’s knee high to a grasshopper.
These players may not be anyone’s fantasy pool, but they are better than their record.
It is the coach’s job to get the most out of his players. By that standard, so far this year, Ron Wilson is a failure.
By Dan
on Nov 23, 2009
Wow, did this column ever get some excitement going. Wish, I’d checked back in here earlier and cracked some skulls
haha. On the Kessel trade.
according to nhlscap.com - restricted free agent sign - return value….
$863,156 or less - None
$863,156 - $1,307,812 - 3rd round pick
$1,307,812 - $2,615,625 - 2nd round pick
$2,615,623 - $3,923,437 - 1st and 3rd round pick
$3,923,437 - $5,231,249 - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick
$5,231,249 - $6,539,062 - Two 1st’s, one 2nd, one 3rd round pick
$6,539,062 or more - Four 1st round picks
Burke would have had to pay the two 1sts, one 2nd and one 3rd. for what he paid Kessel. So, I’m not sure how he over paid, when he paid what he would have had to if he just used the offer sheet. Plus he had to force Charielli’s hand. If all Chairelli is getting back is a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, he’s keeping Kessel. Burke had to sweeten the pot. He did. Kessel’s pretty awesome and there are no garranties on first rounders. Leafs are proof of that, aren’t they?
Kessel’s a game breaker and he’s young. I’ll give you three Tlusty’s for Kessel. Also, as you know, no one predicted the Leafs to finish bottom 5. Hindsight is 20/20. And crystal balls are pretty hard to come by.
By glgbill
on Nov 24, 2009
@Dan
Okay, so I’m guessing we’ve now dismissed the ‘Burke had to give the extra first or someone else would have dealt for Kessel’ argument. Thankfully.
Let’s move on…
People speculating at the time suggested an offer in the $4.5-5.0 million range would have forced Charielli to walk, given Boston’s cap situation. Quite simply, Boston was stuck attempting to sign Kessel, Krecji, Wheeler, Savard and Lucic at roughly the same time, and Kessel was deemed most expendable — in large part because he didn’t want to be there anymore, at least not for what Boston was offering. Kessel wanted to be paid like an elite player and Boston wanted to keep its core together. The two sides were at an impasse.
Against this backdrop, Burke pursued a trade with one hand (the olive branch), while threatening the offer sheet with the other (the hammer). Excellently played by Burke.
Again, most capologists speculated that an offer in excess of $4.5 million would force Boston’s hand. If they matched, Charielli would lose one of the afore mentioned players, along with a good chunk of cap flexibility.
Yes, Burke gave Kessel a few extra dollars after the trade was complete, but that doesn’t imply anything regarding an offer sheet. Do you really think Kessel would have held out after the trade for a mere $169k? Please…
Burke didn’t have to “sweeten the pot” with Boston, but he did anyway. Kobasew’s salary (or someone else’s) could have come back the other way, giving Boston more of what it truly needed.
The 2011 first was absolutely unnecessary and a more patient GM would have found that deal. Burke overpaid.
By Steve
on Nov 24, 2009
glgbill - I think the weird thing about all of this is your position is the one that involves rampant speculation, without a shred of evidence.
We know what Burke signed Kessel for, and we know what he traded to Boston. Considering that an offer sheet of equal value to the final contract Kessel signed would have cost an identical amount to what Burke dealt for him, I see no distinction between the offer sheet and the trade whatsoever.
In which case, this is a lot of crying over spilt milk. If people are arguing they could have had Kessel for less, then they are also arguing that he is overpaid. So far I’m pretty certain that I don’t think Kessel is overpaid.
He’s producing in his pay scale at this point. If that levels off or drops off, then we’ll have a discussion, but until that happens, I’m not crying over it.
By glgbill
on Nov 24, 2009
@Steve
“Without a shred of evidence?” Please. You’re welcome to disagree, but at least acknowledge the rationale. Everything presented is based on published reports that chronicled the trade talks, Boston’s cap situation, the players they needed to sign, and Boston’s subsequent ‘dump’ of Kobasew. If I’ve missed anything in this, please be specific when you let me know.
Burke’s value on Kessel ($5.4 million) is definitely NOT the same price needed to force Charielli to walk away from the offer sheet. Not at all. Please remember, Burke had more cap room to play with, while Charielli was stuck with a lot of contracts coming due all at once. These situations were completely different and gave Burke tremendous leverage. If you equate those values, you ignore the cap situation in Boston entirely.
No one ever suggested that Kessel hasn’t earned his contract thus far. That said, I’m not sure why you’d wait for Kessel to underperform his contract before discussing the price paid to get him. A huge part of winning a trade is acquiring a player as cheaply as possible. Independent of future production (which a GM assumes will be worthy of making a deal), you STILL acquire the player as cheaply as possible. That’s the point in all of this! Given Boston’s cap problems, and the barrier to competition in the trade market, Burke simply did not maximize this trade.
Is this crying over spilt milk? I don’t know, but a bottom dwelling GM that deals away first round picks, as if we’re ready for a Cup run, raises questions. Was Kessel worth two firsts and a second? Maybe. But not if we could have gotten him for less. And that’s the point in all of this.
By Dave
on Nov 24, 2009
@glgbill
I’d agree that it’s possible Burke might have gotten a better deal (this is true of almost any deal), but where we disagree and where your argument is very weak is the “100% certain” part. You’ve mentioned that “People speculating at the time suggested an offer in the $4.5-5.0 million range would have forced Charielli to walk.” This suggests that Burke *might* have gotten Kessel for less if he had offer-sheeted him at 4.5million. However, it’s very, very far from 100% certain.
In fact, if I was Charielli, and Burke had offered-sheeted Kessel at 4.5 million/year for 5 years (and Kessel had accepted), I would have done everything possible to clear cap space because (1) I’d want to show other teams that offer-sheeting me will never work, no matter how dire the situation looks and (2) Kessel at 4.5million/year for 5 years seems like a great deal for a 22 year-old who scored at a point-per-game in the playoffs, led my team in playoff goal-scoring and scored 36 goals in just 70 games during the regular season.
If I was Charielli, how would I have cleared the cap space to keep a 4.5million/year Kessel? I would have traded Bergeron. How would I have done that? Maybe I would have offered the Islanders (desperately short of skilled forwards older than about 21) a 2nd and a 3rd round pick to take Bergeron. Maybe they would have gone for it. Do you really gave this scenario (which took me all of 5 seconds to come up with) 0% probability? And all other possible Bergeron trades 0% probability? And all other player trades that clear the necessary cap space (like, say trading Sturm and Morris) 0% probability?
Oh, and is there 100% probability that Kessel will accept a 4.5million offer? (I mean, it’s pretty surprising to me that Burke, after arranging the trade with Boston is just going to give away extra cash to Kessel that Kessel didn’t really ask for. Do you really think Burke is that dumb?)
By Dan
on Nov 24, 2009
@glgbill and @Dave
I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in between the two of your suggestions. Only Burke, Kessel and Chairelli will know for 100% sure. As to the fact that Burke could have signed Kessel to less than $5.4m, I agree, but after the trade came out to the two first rounders, my feeling is that he had to save face. If he signs Kessel for say 5.1 million, the media would have a field day with it. But I also agree with the fact that the Bruins weren’t going to let a 22 year old almost 40goal scorer walk for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. They’d be crazy to and could have easily moved the players that Dave suggested.
So yes, I think Burke had to throw in the other first, otherwise, no deal.
By glgbill
on Nov 24, 2009
@Dave
Fair enough. Again, though, I only said that I’m 100% certain. And I am. I’m absolutely convinced Burke overpaid and I presented my rationale. You’re perfectly welcome to reach a different conclusion.
@Dan
I completely agree that face-saving played a big role in the deal — perhaps with Kessel’s salary, but definitely with Burke’s reluctance to use the offer sheet. After Penner, an offer sheet would have created a media frenzy. (Also, for the record, I suggested the 1st, 2nd, 3rd AND salary relief, not the picks alone. That’s the trade that I’m convinced would have save the 2011 first.)
Cheers, all.
By Dan
on Nov 24, 2009
@glgbill
No doubt in my mind that BB thinks he’s smarter than everyone out there and was all about saving face. You nailed it.
That said, I’m not sure that he over paid for Kessel. He may have been able to save the 2011 first rounder if he threw in a player and ate some more Boston salary, but there’s no way he was getting Kessel for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The additional player would have had to be a solid prospect. So in that case, just throwing a name out there, if the Bruins asked for Bozak or Stalberg, the 2011 first rounder is an unknown and many don’t pan out. Where Bozak and Stalberg have good chances to be impact players.
I’m not saying that Charielli asked for either of these players, but he definitely wanted more than the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, and if I was him, these are the two players I’d ask for in place of the first rounder. But it’s all speculation, which makes it fun.
Cheers!
By Steve
on Nov 24, 2009
“published reports” amounts to hearsay, which last I checked is pretty far from proof or evidence.
“So and so told me it MIGHT go down that way”
is somehow equivalent to
“Obviously because it MIGHT go down this way it COULD go down this way”
I don’t see the logical leap you’re making as all that reasonable. Sorry.
You’re arguing woulda, shoulda, coulda, in a situation where the idea that Burke would over pay is absolutely absurd. Why would he over pay Kessel on a contract AFTER he made the trade? What possible reason does he have at that point?
All of this is completely pointless speculation, and I don’t see what it gains you - or anyone else.
By glgbill
on Nov 24, 2009
Steve, we all get our information from published reports. None of us are in the room with GMs, on the conference calls, brainstorming with player agents. Spare me the sanctimony.
Are you also suggesting your “published” blog amounts to nothing more hearsay? Please advise. I’m curious to know how you categorize your work.
Finally, there are plenty of (face-saving) reasons Burke would overpay, you just don’t seem willing to acknowledge that possibility. But no worries. And I’m not really interested why either - we can simply disagree. It’s no biggie. This topic will likely reemerge again anyway, here or elsewhere, regardless of whether or not you deem it valid. So carry on. You provide a tremendous amount of rich and varied content that’s ALWAYS appreciated. It’s all good.
Cheers.
By BCapp
on Nov 24, 2009
glgbill:
I gotta say your politeness/respect for other bloggers/posters while disagreeing is refreshing.
Cheers
ps I still don’t agree with your contention that you 100% certain. I feel you have fallen trap to the justification bias, where you developed a hypothesis-which while reasonable, is not necessarily true-and now just interpret all information to prove that hypothesis, instead of analyzing it from the most objective viewpoint possible.
By Steve
on Nov 25, 2009
glgbill - I’m actually quite willing to admit that when it comes to trade and contract negotiations, virtually everything I report is hearsay. For that reason, I would like to avoid statements that imply I knew what could or could not be obtained by a given GM in a deal.
I have a hard enough time quoting Craig Button when he goes out and reports that the Leafs could have had Fabian Brunnstrom prior to the crazy hijinks of two years ago, but at least he was working as a scout for the team and was stating his memories of the situation.
Either way, as you say, agree to disagree, and for now we can leave it at that. Thanks for the readership, that too is ALWAYS appreciated.
By Dan
on Nov 27, 2009
Anton Stralman is on pace for 55 points this year with Columbus. Good for him. I’m glad he’s getting his chance. Too bad the Leafs didn’t get more for this guy.
By Steve
on Nov 27, 2009
Anton Stralman might be on pace for 55 points (56 actually), but he’s also a -8 on one of the worst defensive outfits in the NHL. Columbus has actually given up the exact same number of goals on the season as the Leafs.
Considering the Leafs concerns are likely of a more defensive nature, I’m not sure they miss Stralman as much as we might think.
Carl Gunnarsson is actually on pace to produce 43 points, and he’s a +3. Ian White is on pace to produce 46 points, and he’s a +5. I’m relatively certain their defensive capabilities are superior to those of Stralman, and despite the fact that I have argued in favour of retaining Stralman in the past, I’m not that worried over his departure.
If the Leafs had traded Kaberle, then they should have held on to Stralman, but in retaining him, I don’t see that much of a problem with moving him in exchange for a pick that was used to obtain Phil Kessel.
By Dan
on Nov 27, 2009
I’m not upset the Leafs didn’t keep Stralman, he’s too slow, just that they didn’t get more for him. But it couldn’t be helped. Calgary only got a 3rd for him.