HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Report: It's down to two

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2005, 09:43 AM
  #26
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Of the two definetly Burke, he likes physical style of hockey and is outspoken.

Pepper is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 09:54 AM
  #27
Chilly Willy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Here and there...
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500
Is it even a hard decision?

Burke will make sure your team won't go and spend big bucks on a guy when they could have the same type of player for cheaper and still make your team strong.

Neil Smith will just throw all your money away and make NYR part 2.

Chilly Willy* is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 10:10 AM
  #28
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyWilly
Is it even a hard decision?

Burke will make sure your team won't go and spend big bucks on a guy when they could have the same type of player for cheaper and still make your team strong.

Neil Smith will just throw all your money away and make NYR part 2.
Neil Smith used his resources and won a cup. Burke inherited a great roster and couldn't take it to the next level.

 
Old
05-24-2005, 10:10 AM
  #29
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,448
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyWilly
Is it even a hard decision?

Burke will make sure your team won't go and spend big bucks on a guy when they could have the same type of player for cheaper and still make your team strong.

Neil Smith will just throw all your money away and make NYR part 2.
Burke will also turn a have not into a contender. he has alot of great pieces in place, and if the ownership is more willing to let him spend, then he will. Stop saying such stupid things about the guy.

This Burke bashing is getting too much. Makes me sick.

The guy did a hell of a job in Vancouver. Everyone in that organization will tell you, from Naslund, to Nonis.

Only Umberger would agree with you on this one... and Brooks, Strachan, Gallagher.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 10:17 AM
  #30
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kryoptix
are you sure that dudley is popular? ..
because yes I do like Burke ..
but Dudley is probably the GM I hate the most !!
I don't keep track

I know he was extremely popular for a long time, but right now, I wouldn't know. I have to give it to him, he is a great seller. He sells his PR better than any other GM. He is also, from every report I have seen, a very warm and nice individual who will share his thoughts.

But he's just completely clueless as far as hockey management is concerned.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 10:47 AM
  #31
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggest Canuck Fan
Burke will also turn a have not into a contender. he has alot of great pieces in place, and if the ownership is more willing to let him spend, then he will. Stop saying such stupid things about the guy.

This Burke bashing is getting too much. Makes me sick.

The guy did a hell of a job in Vancouver. Everyone in that organization will tell you, from Naslund, to Nonis.

Only Umberger would agree with you on this one... and Brooks, Strachan, Gallagher.
Yes. Burke's hands were tied EVERY season that he needed to address his goaltending situation. The Canucks PRIMARY weakness and MAJOR reason for PLAYOFF FAILURE.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 11:07 AM
  #32
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChillyWilly
Is it even a hard decision?

Burke will make sure your team won't go and spend big bucks on a guy when they could have the same type of player for cheaper and still make your team strong.
Burke's reputation as a fine manager is overblown. Brian Burke has few financial problems because his team, for the most part, is made of players with little leverage. It's an ordinary team with little pressure to overpay anyway.

When players have leverage, Burke seems to be 50-50. His worse blunder was the Bertuzzi contract. Horrible timing (re-opening contracts is always iffy, unless you are going to screw the player), horrible strategy (Not really smart to hurry up and create all that mess when a lockout is on the horizon), horrible management (extending negociations during the season was just inexcusably stupid. This obviously affected Bert's performances and as a consequence, the team) and horrible number (In the end, he paid Bertuzzi MORE than he was scheduled to make, got LESS out of him, and if you break down the numbers, this isn't a bargain. This isn't even average. The number was too high for the NHL climate prevailing).

This is exactly what I was talking about above. Burke likes to whine loudly about how he has to make tough decisions and how he is an absolute badass who can perform miracles on a budget (he doesn't use those terms, he just makes sure the clueless take the bait and jump to that conclusion) but the reality is different. At the end of his tenure, the Canucks were in the upper middle of salary scale in the NHL.

That year, the Canucks, as usual, were stinking up the joint and accomplished nothing with an early exit in round 1. Of the four teams that made it to round 3, three of them had lower payrolls.

The two finalists aso had lower payrolls. And obviously, so were the Cup winners.

This is just a guy who was given a tight budget, and whined about it continuously to make himself some sort of hero by condemning the actions of other teams. He did well under the circumstances but nothing outrageous. The team performances were ordinary. I bet you the payroll would have taken a leap had he had a second line for most of his stay and someone in goal able to stop a beachball.

Why is he considered a fiscal wizkid?

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 11:45 AM
  #33
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Why is he considered a fiscal wizkid?
You can get a long way with bluster.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 12:07 PM
  #34
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
Apparently being the GM of a Stanley Cup Championship Team has value. Go figure.

Obviously, that's a more decorated record than your 'heartbeat' choice. Let alone Burke ever being the executive of a team that was even in the SC Finals.
I could have assembled a cup winning team if I had the budget that N.Smith had...

monster_bertuzzi is online now  
Old
05-24-2005, 12:12 PM
  #35
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
I could have assembled a cup winning team if I had the budget that N.Smith had...
Glen Sather said the same.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 01:02 PM
  #36
Steveorama
Registered User
 
Steveorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,669
vCash: 500
Man, how short is some people's memory?
When Burke took over the Canucks, they had just completed a season where they finished with the lowest point total in the Western Conference, and 3rd lowest in the league. Attendance was a disaster, and the organization was losing money hand over fist, and in danger of being moved to a US market. The team's biggest star was crying to get out of the city. The team was a joke.
Burke got rid of the players with bad attitudes and started rebuilding. He resisted plenty of trade offers for Naslund, Bertuzzi and Ohlund, choosing to build his team around those players, even though the media was screaming bloody murder because he would not trade them.
Two years later, the Canucks were back in the playoffs. Every year after the first, they improved their regular season points. In his last year, they actually "fell back" to 101 points, still pretty impressive (3 points less than the previous season), considering they won the division over Colorado, Calgary, et al, in spite of the Bertuzzi incident.
The team now turns a profit, sells out every night and is a winner.
Isn't that what a GM's job is?
If anyone wants to answer "he hasn't won a cup", well, what you are saying that we need to fire 29 GM's every year, right?
Neil Smith took over a perennial playoff team with a virtually unlimited budget.
While they did win a cup in '94, they also missed the playoffs four times under his tenure in spite of one of the largest (usually the largest) payroll in the league. In his final three seasons, they did not make the playoffs or finish higher than 4th in their division.
Which record do you honestly think is more impressive?

Steveorama is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 01:14 PM
  #37
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
I could have assembled a cup winning team if I had the budget that N.Smith had...
Apparently the 'small market man' Sather said the same. It appears that him, much like you, have realized it takes MORE than just a budget to win the SC.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 01:24 PM
  #38
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveorama
Man, how short is some people's memory?
The team now turns a profit, sells out every night and is a winner.
Isn't that what a GM's job is?
If anyone wants to answer "he hasn't won a cup", well, what you are saying that we need to fire 29 GM's every year, right?
Which record do you honestly think is more impressive?
Obviously, the executive that WON the SC - Isn't THAT what a GM is supposed to do? Please inform me if his ultimate goal is anything but.

Burke does deserve credit for helping turn around a downtrodden team. HOWEVER, for a team that made a 'profit' he never made the deals to put the team over the top. Smith did. Again, who raised the Cup?

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 01:30 PM
  #39
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Is Lombardi currently employed by the Flyers, BTW?

I look at all those names, and there isn't a single one that jumps at me. There is one I don't know about, Gilmore. You probably can tell me more.
Gilmore is the Kings assistant GM and GM of their AHL team in Manchester as well as VP of Hockey Operations. He's a lawyer and does most of the contract negotiations for LA since Taylor doesn't have the legal background. Here's his bio from the Monarchs site http://www.monarchshockey.com/moreinfo.php?id=39

danaluvsthekings is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 01:39 PM
  #40
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveorama
Neil Smith took over a perennial playoff team with a virtually unlimited budget.
While they did win a cup in '94, they also missed the playoffs four times under his tenure in spite of one of the largest (usually the largest) payroll in the league. In his final three seasons, they did not make the playoffs or finish higher than 4th in their division.
Let's not make those mid-late 80s Ranger teams into more than they were. Smith took the reins in 1989. In the previous 5 years, the Rangers made the playoffs 4 times in a league where 16 out of 21 teams make the playoffs, but they advanced past the first round only once. Their average point total over those 5 years was 76. They were hardly a powerhouse team when he took over.

I'd say that Burke and Smith have done essentially the same thing. They took control of a team and took them up a couple of levels. Burke took a poor team and turned them into a good team, but not a great team. Smith took a middling team and turned them into a Cup winner. It's much harder to build a Cup winner than it is to build a good team. Guys like Clarke and Quinn have been at it for years with no success.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 02:35 PM
  #41
Steveorama
Registered User
 
Steveorama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,669
vCash: 500
I understand that it is nice and simple to say that winning a cup is the guage of success, but in a 30 team league, I have a difficult time saying that 29 GM's sucked last season.
Burke's number one priority was to make the team financially successful, which is usually a product of on-ice success.
He did that.
No cup, but his team took the eventual finalists to OT of the seventh game, while they were missing their #1 goalie and their #1 RW.
Burke took a loser team and made them contenders, without creating an unsustainable payroll. He deserves to hear accolades, not this silly, misguided carping.
People don't like him because he speaks his mind; fair enough, but I admire an executive with the gonads to defend his players in the media.

Steveorama is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 03:28 PM
  #42
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveorama
I understand that it is nice and simple to say that winning a cup is the guage of success, but in a 30 team league, I have a difficult time saying that 29 GM's sucked last season.
Burke's number one priority was to make the team financially successful, which is usually a product of on-ice success.
He did that.
No cup, but his team took the eventual finalists to OT of the seventh game, while they were missing their #1 goalie and their #1 RW.
Burke took a loser team and made them contenders, without creating an unsustainable payroll. He deserves to hear accolades, not this silly, misguided carping.
People don't like him because he speaks his mind; fair enough, but I admire an executive with the gonads to defend his players in the media.
No. It's 29 other teams did not fulfill their ultimate goal. And it will be that way every year a season is played.

If your team is a CONTENDER as so many Canucks fans like to consider them, then does a GM who knows what his teams weaknesses are, NOT turn them into strenghts? How does a team that was supposedly profitable, NOT dip into the well to reach the next level?

Amazing how Burke has the "it's ok i never brought my team to the next level, did not plug in the holes, etc. because I was budget conscious" defense. Burke had 3+ seasons from the time the team exited the doldrums to supposed 'contender.' That's more than ample time to separate the two and evaluate EACH.

Did Colorado not make the move to get Roy? Dallas for Belfour? Red Wings for Hasek (rd. 1)? because the GM addressed the WEAKNESS?

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 03:45 PM
  #43
cj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Burke's reputation as a fine manager is overblown. Brian Burke has few financial problems because his team, for the most part, is made of players with little leverage.

*snip*

Why is he considered a fiscal wizkid?
The Bertuzzi contract is what happens when Burke takes over negotiations instead of leaving it up to Nonis who has always done a fine job in that respect. Burke gets too much credit for the fiscal side of things. That was usually Nonis' job. I have a feeling that when all is said and done, the student (Nonis) is going to surpass the teacher (Burke).

I think Burke is an average GM. His greatest accomplishment in Vancouver was not the team's success on the ice but the work he did in getting the Canucks out into the community and getting Vancouver back into hockey again. It's easy to forget that a few years ago, the Canucks were not much better off in terms of corporate support, fan support and financial security than the Ducks are right now. That could be why Burke is a finalist for the GM job in Anaheim. They already have the pieces there for a contending team. What they need is for someone to sell it. Burke can do that.

cj is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 08:49 PM
  #44
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
How much of the Canuck's success was attributable to Burke is frankly irrelevant.

You have A) a guy who's used to working under harsh budgets and perfoming well, who has been active vs B) a guy who's known for spending big dollars to achieve his success, and hasn't had a GM job for *years*.

This decision will come down to the type of organisation that Anaheim wants to run, both men have decent track records.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 10:24 PM
  #45
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,919
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
In Which year were the Canucks even thought of as a contendor under Burke?

Don't guys usually have time to turn one of the crappiest teams into a SC challanger? Or are we all enamoured with the teams that make the finals and then do nothing for years?

Burke is certainly a blowhard, but it's sour grapes from fans who don't recognize how big the organization is now in BC. It's cheap and easy to say he had all the pieces, because most of the guys other than Ohlund were playing like crap.

Hindsite is great.

If Burke failed with a couple of more years, then I'd agree much more with alot of the negative stuff... but he got gassed last year by Bertuzzi, and Crawfords failure to figure out the Wild was the coach and the team, not Burke.

quat is offline  
Old
05-24-2005, 10:52 PM
  #46
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
The Bertuzzi contract is what happens when Burke takes over negotiations instead of leaving it up to Nonis who has always done a fine job in that respect. Burke gets too much credit for the fiscal side of things. That was usually Nonis' job. I have a feeling that when all is said and done, the student (Nonis) is going to surpass the teacher (Burke).

I think Burke is an average GM. His greatest accomplishment in Vancouver was not the team's success on the ice but the work he did in getting the Canucks out into the community and getting Vancouver back into hockey again. It's easy to forget that a few years ago, the Canucks were not much better off in terms of corporate support, fan support and financial security than the Ducks are right now. That could be why Burke is a finalist for the GM job in Anaheim. They already have the pieces there for a contending team. What they need is for someone to sell it. Burke can do that.
I agree a lot with all of this!

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 11:40 AM
  #47
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
If Burke failed with a couple of more years, then I'd agree much more with alot of the negative stuff... but he got gassed last year by Bertuzzi, and Crawfords failure to figure out the Wild was the coach and the team, not Burke.
A couple more years? How much more time does a GM need to address his weaknesses.

The absence of Bertuzzi in the playoffs is more credence that Burke failed to address weaknesses. The Canucks are more of a one-line team that apparently couldn't overcome the loss of their 2nd best player. That speaks volumes of how good the rest of the squad is in overcoming adversity. Apparently, Burke hasn't yet realized there is a difference in regular season performance vs. playoff performance.

Crawford's performance, or lack thereof, is under Burke's umbrella. Beyond regular season achievements, what has Crawford done for VAN during the playoffs? One can make a strong argument that Crawford's post season success was more attributable to the BETTER teams he had in COL than HIS performance as a coach.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 12:57 PM
  #48
Hawerchuk10
Registered User
 
Hawerchuk10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
I thought they were the Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim?
No, they are the Disney Ducks of Orange County!

Just kidding, I know they were sold. I just think the whole Disney and the NHL is a friggin joke!

Hawerchuk10 is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 01:57 PM
  #49
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,659
vCash: 500
So does this mean Burke is not in line to be the next commisioner?

I don't know how effective Burke's management style will be in Anahiem.

He took a page out of the book of many a dictator, formed a cult of personality around himself and blamed all the problems on an oppenent. Do the Ducks have a rivalry with Oceania or Eurasia?

Strange thing about our culture now, be you O'Reilly or Burke, if you say things loud enough you somehow get a rep as a "strait shooter" and a "stand up guy". Yet his hissy fits over the officiating in the series versus Detroit when the officials used to be his charge or about Kariya going to Colorado while admiting to being interested in Kariya himself, et al. indicates otherwise.

I really could stand him when he was GM of my team or in the league office for that matter.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:31 PM
  #50
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
So does this mean Burke is not in line to be the next commisioner?

.
Burke's tenure with the league office as league czar was average at best. He refused to dole out suspensions (or limited ones) for some serious incidents.

Campbell faced a lot of problems during his first 2-3 years implementing strict enforcement because of Burke's precedent of meager suspensions/enforcement.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.