Nik? said:
cw said:
Only if one were to conclude that's ALL they wanted. Which again, is pure nonsense unless you can convince one of expectations they'd say something like "Darn it, we only meant to make the playoffs. We didn't want to win the whole damn thing!!"
No, the only thing you need to conclude to be able to make sense of it is the idea that those two desires, the one to make the playoffs every single year and the one to win a championship, are occasionally in conflict with each other. That the whole concept of the short cut is something that isn't good for long term success. That's not a tricky concept. It's not like anyone says "We need to do some prudent long term planning so first things first let's take a bunch of short cuts".
cw said:
Of course, they've wanted championships. Do you sincerely think Peddie & Tanenbaum enjoyed years of being ripped in the media because their clubs didn't win one?
I'm absolutely sure they want to win a Stanley Cup. Much in the same way I'm absolutely sure I want to be a millionaire despite the fact that I take almost no actions that would eventually lead to becoming a millionaire. The issue isn't whether or not I want something terrific yet extremely unlikely to happen because I absolutely do. It's that the actions I take make that improbable thing less likely. The issue, as I see it anyway, is not what they want. It's whether or not they're willing to make the hard decisions that give them the best chance of winning because those decisions don't come without their own set of risk.
link
And despite missing the playoffs each season since being named GM of the Leafs in 2008, Burke said he isn't ready to abandon his long-term plan for short-term success -- even if it costs him his job.
"People say if you don't make the playoffs you are gone," said Burke. "That's fine. I am not going to do anything short term to make the playoffs and keep my job.
"I want a parade. I'm not interested in making the playoffs -- I want to win another championship.
"If that means we go with what we have because the price doesn't make sense, I'm perfectly willing to do that. I've gotten fired before."
Now you may not like Burke's long term plan. Or you're welcome to fantasize it doesn't exist. But I think many would feel you're wrong. Several in the management team have made reference to it during Burke's tenure. Tanenbaum & Peddie have made reference to it and not just on Burke's watch - going back many years. Habitually, the Leafs GMs have presented short term and long term plans to the MLSE board each year and update them on that as their time in the role goes on.
Those plans have been geared towards winning a Cup. As few teams go from the bottom of the league to winning a Cup, the playoffs have been an interim result to measure progress towards that objective along the way.
Name a Leafs GM who presented a long term plan to MLSE that was merely "make the playoffs and that's it - no intent to win a Cup" and provide a link to that claim. You can't because it didn't happen.
MLSE have provided
- a very good building and spent millions since upgrading the ice quality, etc
- many well paid managers to assist the GM
- spared no expense on good qualified coaches
- one of the biggest scouting departments in the league
- moved their AHL team to Toronto - which was not a big money maker for them
- one of the first clubs with a computerized scouting database on the net
- built top notch practice and training facilities
- had some first rate training and medical staff
- top payrolls year after year going back to before the lockout
- high payrolls for their AHL team to buy depth
-etc
= pretty much as good a set of assets for a GM to work with aside from talent collected as any team in the league.
Now maybe we assume that's all to be expected. If one thinks that, then they should look at the bankruptcy docs of the small market teams.
MLSE got short and long term plans from their GMs geared towards winning a Cup. And they spent on the above, beyond payroll, to give those GMs every possible edge. It basically came down to whether that GM could collect the talent.
Burke presented short and long term plans. He tried to short circuit the building process. He believed that he could pull it off. He won a Cup doing just that in Anaheim. The fact that he's fallen short has nothing to do with MLSE's desire to win a Cup. They paid a lot of money to bring in a Cup winning GM, gave him autonomy, he presented his plan and they let him go about the hockey business he has the expertise to do to try to achieve that plan. Now they may have said "We've missed the playoffs a lot. Can you give our fans something soon?" And he felt he could while still building a Cup winner. But it was Burke who ultimately chose the harder road - not MLSE because if you've listened to him, he philosophically wouldn't accept sucking at the bottom of the league for five years like Edmonton has.
Pat Quinn told a very similar story about MLSE as Burke has. The only thing missing on Quinn's resume is a Cup. Do you really think after all the years Pat has been in hockey that he'd hang around a team as long as he did in Toronto that had no sincere interest in winning a Cup? According to both GMs, MLSE have never turned either GM down for stuff they wanted to do to build a winner. Both GMs understood that if they don't deliver, they're fired. That's what will happen to Brian Burke if he doesn't show improvement soon. Again, that's not a case for complacency - otherwise, why bother firing them?
So we can look to all the actions, testimony, facts and character of the GMs involved over of the last decade or two or ignore all of that for some half-baked birther-like conspiracy theory.
