Interview Dave Feschuk talks about his last article in the Star. Burke wants credit
View Single Post
04-22-2013, 07:59 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Originally Posted by
Whether too low or unattainably high, my expectations are governed by an ability to consider circumstances in their entirety, rather than some revised, irrational sense of believing that salary equates to a GMs ability to control the performance of his players and the players of other teams.
The only financial advantage Toronto has, namely in it's potential to construct a superior administrative structure, was administered. Toronto's other financial advantage is measured in it's ability to subsidize it's competition. Whatever the application, there is no reasonable criticism you can invent that merits the label of irresponsible spending, if you're even remotely concerned with actual circumstances.
Within those circumstances would be the rejection of players Burke targeted (Sedins, Kesler, etc...) for other clubs. That had nothing to do with almost four years of Burke's service or perceived braggadocio, seasons after their availablilty in his first year here, and everything to do with the nature of the business that doesn't serve as Toronto's singular one-stop shop.
"You seem to think that 5 seasons minus 2 months was spectacular."
I might seem to think that in your mind, but if you're concerned how and what I think, you'd have directly responded to the numerous inconsistencies I've pointed out previously in your posts rather than participate in the conversation you wish I was engaged in.
I think, that with a season to consider what moves could and should be made excluded, that the yield Burke's actions ultimately produced are exemplary. If you think his participation is based on two factors: The Kessel trade and four seasons of missed playoffs, while excluding...JVR for Schenn, Lupul and Gardiner for Beauchemin, drafting Kadri, Phaneuf for Stajan, Hagman and White (Sweet Fancy Moses), Franson for Lebda, bringing in Carlyle and Nonis, then you are doing so in spite of reality.
"So, under that line of reasoning, would you be saying that Burke did a "pretty good job" if it took him 9 years to make the playoffs?"
Why not 29 years for increased dramatic effect? Either instance is a distortion of how I think and what I've presented. The FACT of the matter is, you cannot point to a single facet of this team's success, without citing an origin point of Brian Burke. Not one. And you cannot wish away, that in -- as is oft repeated to you -- three years and ten months, with two Burke principals steering Burke acquired assets that are amongst the best in the league, Toronto is assured of playoff hockey. Something consistently present in Burke's resume prior to coming to this once decimated club.
He rebuilt it ground up, top to bottom, and not for the short run, which is what I've asserted over and over and over again. Why? Because Burke repeated, he was not interested in short term moves that compromised the long-term integrity of the club. THAT sort of franchise building effort, I thought, was indicative of a GM who really regarded this club as hockey's most storied. As such, he was attempting to create a contending club...not for one season, but a foundation for all seasons. And it's looking, given the age of our top players, that he did exactly that.
"Would you be saying the same things as you are now? "Given the poor players he inherited, Burke still did a pretty good job."
I don't have to speculate in order to render a sound conclusion precisely because of those factors that completely undermine your hyperfocused, irrational assessment.
Are the Leafs coached by a Burke hire who previously won a Cup on a Burke club?
Are the Leafs managed by a Burke hire who has been characterized as "Burke's protoge"?
In the last two seasons, are the three players who have been at time or another, in the top ten in scoring, Burke acquisitions?
In this last season, are the two defencemen who have been in the top five in NHL scoring, Burke acquisitions?
Is it unreasonable to characterize four seasons, one less than stated as necessary to rebuild an entire franchise as a perrenial contender, an unreasonable amount of time to do so?
Can you name one other club that presently has two top scoring defencemen, and three forwards who in the last two season have placed in the top ten as young as Toronto heading into the playoffs?
And one could go on and on...You seem particularly silent on Wilson's absence, what he did or didn't contribute to the club, and Burke's contributions.
I regard the club's present situtation as being an amalgamation of a number of efforts finally pressing through the proverbial wall...But who knows, maybe we clinched because we only had to play half a season, and got lucky that it was the right half played.
Too bad, Burke wasn't as lucky this time around.
If I addressed every one of your arguments point by point, it would take 28 pages and 5 hours.
I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I think Burke's financial advantage is much more substantial than you do.
I think having rich ownership that allows him to spend $10-16 million more on players than a substantial amount of the competition is a HUGE advantage.
You downplay that advantage simply because you "like" Burke, and feel the need to make excuses for him.
I compare the highest paid GM with the most financial advantages to the best of the best GM's, and say "he did a poor job".
People like you compare the highest paid GM with the most financial advantages to the worst of the worst GM's and say "Well, he did better than them... he's great".
I think that that is frighteningly low expectations.
Always comparing to pathetically poor teams like the Islanders and Panthers.
Let's compare a rebuild to another rich team big boy.
Last season, Montreal finished 3rd last in the nhl. The leaf team Burke inherited had just finished 7th last.
Montreal's forwards lacked elite talent (best player last year had like 65 points.)
The leafs best forwards lacked elite talent (forward on the leaf team Burke inherited had around 65 points.)
Montreals prospects last season were ranked lower than the prospects Burke inherited (according to both HF and the Hockey News)
Montreal had even WORSE albatross contracts to deal with (uh... Gomez?) than what Burke had to deal with.
Yet their GM turned the team around in 1 season.
ONE ****ING SEASON!!!!
If it ended up taking 5 nhl seasons (minus 2 months), Montreal fans like YOU would have said "Well, based on the team Bergevin inherited, taking 5 years was a GREAT JOB!!!! He had albatross contracts to deal with, pathetic prospects, and no elite 1st line talent!!!!" (Sound familiar?)
But it only took one year.
It's performances like THAT that I compare the highest paid GM in the league with the most financial advantages.
I'm sure you'll make a whole bunch of lame excuses as to why it was easier for Bergevin than for Burke...
but such arguments are a slippery slope.
At what point are you just saying "We can't compare burke to any other GM's because the teams were in different situations".
At what point is THAT argument just saying "I think Burke did a good job, regardless of any comparisons/facts that you bring up"?
View Public Profile
Disgruntled Observer*'s albums
Find More Posts by Disgruntled Observer*