View Single Post
04-22-2013, 08:19 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,571
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
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.
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"?
It's also one you've created in your own mind. 2 teams spent 16 M less than the cap. There isn't a team in the league this year whose cap total was more than $12 M off the max cap of Burke's era and all but one year all are $7M and under, so saying they can't spend that money is no more than a figment of your imagination. At $64 M next year, only two teams cap from this year is greater than $10 M.

Your Montreal argument is equally bunk. Their roster is largely the same as last year. All of 5 different players brought in from outside, mostly bottom feeders. The thing that was changed that made the difference in Montreal is a big part of what made the difference in Toronto and it should be obvious to an Observer.

eyeball11 is offline