Burke Fired

[Kin]

You may be fine with Burke's personality but it's clear ownership wasn't.  You can point to the Leafs record, but I think even ownership knows that it would take more than 3.5 years to turn the Leafs around from where Burke started.

I disagree. I think people know it would have taken more than 3.5 years to reach the ultimate destination but I don't think that it takes that much time, or much time at all, to put a team on the right track to that destination. I think Burke's firing is ultimately a point in saying that people didn't think Burke had done that. 

I think it was truly more about hockey results than his personality, they would have fired Burke and Nonis and everyone else back in the fall.  That would give them the lockout to put a new GM in place.

But the end of fall is basically the worst time to conduct a GM search. Teams aren't likely to let their Assistants go elsewhere any time other than the summer so the Leafs would be basically limiting themselves to people already unemployed.

Again, Nonis isn't responsible for Burke's failings and he's the best guy to take over the club in a transitional role. Nothing here disproves that. 

Something must have come to a head recently with the board for the decision to happen when it did.

As I said in my first post about my theory as to what happened, I don't doubt that there was some sort of catalyst that set this off and it very well may have had something to do with Burke's personality and how it clashed with someone higher up than him but A) I absolutely believe that it was something connected to the state of the hockey team and B) Burke's record wasn't good enough to protect him from the fallout. Ultimately, it's still the record that doomed him.

 

[Kin]

And Ryan Miller.

Right. Regier made good decisions like drafting Miller too.

 

[Zee]

You may be fine with Burke's personality but it's clear ownership wasn't.  You can point to the Leafs record, but I think even ownership knows that it would take more than 3.5 years to turn the Leafs around from where Burke started.

I disagree. I think people know it would have taken more than 3.5 years to reach the ultimate destination but I don't think that it takes that much time, or much time at all, to put a team on the right track to that destination. I think Burke's firing is ultimately a point in saying that people didn't think Burke had done that. 

I think it was truly more about hockey results than his personality, they would have fired Burke and Nonis and everyone else back in the fall.  That would give them the lockout to put a new GM in place.

But the end of fall is basically the worst time to conduct a GM search. Teams aren't likely to let their Assistants go elsewhere any time other than the summer so the Leafs would be basically limiting themselves to people already unemployed.

Again, Nonis isn't responsible for Burke's failings and he's the best guy to take over the club in a transitional role. Nothing here disproves that. 

Something must have come to a head recently with the board for the decision to happen when it did.

As I said in my first post about my theory as to what happened, I don't doubt that there was some sort of catalyst that set this off and it very well may have had something to do with Burke's personality and how it clashed with someone higher up than him but A) I absolutely believe that it was something connected to the state of the hockey team and B) Burke's record wasn't good enough to protect him from the fallout. Ultimately, it's still the record that doomed him.

That's all fine, and your opinion, but Anselmi never said it was about hockey results.  From his own words:

?Did the four years of missing the playoffs factor into the discussion with the shareholders? Sure it did . . . but at the end of the day it was really looking for a different voice.?

So the record was a factor, but not the deciding one.  Unless you think Anselmi is lying?  Why wouldn't ownership just say the weren't happy with the hockey results and ultimately Burke was responsible?  The fact that they mentioned "change of voice"..c'mon and read between the lines. 

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

As I said in my first post about my theory as to what happened, I don't doubt that there was some sort of catalyst that set this off and it very well may have had something to do with Burke's personality and how it clashed with someone higher up than him but A) I absolutely believe that it was something connected to the state of the hockey team and B) Burke's record wasn't good enough to protect him from the fallout. Ultimately, it's still the record that doomed him.

That's it in a nutshell for me also, as I think I stated near the front of this thread. Maybe the feeling about all this for me is more about MLSE's new owners, the way the BOG does their business and not Burke being fired per say.

 

[Kin]

That's all fine, and your opinion, but Anselmi never said it was about hockey results.  From his own words:

?Did the four years of missing the playoffs factor into the discussion with the shareholders? Sure it did . . . but at the end of the day it was really looking for a different voice.?

So the record was a factor, but not the deciding one.  Unless you think Anselmi is lying?  Why wouldn't ownership just say the weren't happy with the hockey results and ultimately Burke was responsible?  The fact that they mentioned "change of voice"..c'mon and read between the lines.

Well, first of all, let's remember that our little conversation here started because you seemed to be sayingthat it was Burke's relationship with the media that played a key role, not his relationship with the board.

But as to the general thrust of your point, I don't see the distinction you do. If someone on the board, or Anselmi, went to Brian Burke to talk about the state of the club and Burke told them to go screw or whatever then that very well may have been the catalyst but that still doesn't change that he'd be protected by a better record(if for no other reason than a better record probably discourages much in the way of discussions with the board about the state of the club) and that there's no arguing for retaining Burke based on his record if and when the first seeds of discontent spring up in the board room.

Remember, another thing Anselmi said is that this decision was the result of months of deliberation. I know we as sports fans are more used to the idea of people being fired in piques of dissatisfaction because the coach lost the big game or didn't make the playoffs but this was a decision that was in the making for some time. What ultimately set it off isn't as important as what prompted it in the first place.

It's like the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back" the point there isn't that straw is really heavy, it's that there's a ton of other baggage on the camel as well.

 

[Kin]

That's it in a nutshell for me also, as I think I stated near the front of this thread. Maybe the feeling about all this for me is more about MLSE's new owners, the way the BOG does their business and not Burke being fired per say.

For what it's worth, I'm warming up to the idea of the new ownership group. I like the idea of people owning the Leafs with their primary interest in the team being as content for other ventures and I do like what the Burke firing says about their interest in the club.

 

[Zee]

That's all fine, and your opinion, but Anselmi never said it was about hockey results.  From his own words:

?Did the four years of missing the playoffs factor into the discussion with the shareholders? Sure it did . . . but at the end of the day it was really looking for a different voice.?

So the record was a factor, but not the deciding one.  Unless you think Anselmi is lying?  Why wouldn't ownership just say the weren't happy with the hockey results and ultimately Burke was responsible?  The fact that they mentioned "change of voice"..c'mon and read between the lines.

Well, first of all, let's remember that our little conversation here started because you seemed to be sayingthat it was Burke's relationship with the media that played a key role, not his relationship with the board.

His relationship with the media is all part and parcel to his "voice" and the brand that he's putting forward.  The board would care about that, especially since they're both media conglomerates.

[quote author=Nik Pollock]
But as to the general thrust of your point, I don't see the distinction you do. If someone on the board, or Anselmi, went to Brian Burke to talk about the state of the club and Burke told them to go screw or whatever then that very well may have been the catalyst but that still doesn't change that he'd be protected by a better record(if for no other reason than a better record probably discourages much in the way of discussions with the board about the state of the club) and that there's no arguing for retaining Burke based on his record if and when the first seeds of discontent spring up in the board room.
[/quote]

I agree a better record would have protected Burke, in part to the fact that he would have had fewer negative articles written about him, and fewer run-ins with the press.  Had the Leafs been winning, and been a playoff team, the press would have written more flattering articles.  Remember when the Leafs were in the top 8 in the conference, Burke was doing the media circuit with a bunch of interviews, appeared on George Strombolopous to talk about how the Leafs were now in "run" mode.  All of that stems from the fact that Burke was less surly because the team was performing, and he was nicer to the press because of it.

[quote author=Nik Pollock]
Remember, another thing Anselmi said is that this decision was the result of months of deliberation. I know we as sports fans are more used to the idea of people being fired in piques of dissatisfaction because the coach lost the big game or didn't make the playoffs but this was a decision that was in the making for some time. What ultimately set it off isn't as important as what prompted it in the first place.

It's like the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back" the point there isn't that straw is really heavy, it's that there's a ton of other baggage on the camel as well.
[/quote]

Sure it was months of deliberation, but who is to say the deliberation wasn't all about Burke's persona and his presentation of the Leafs brand publicly?  He was as many have said, "the face of the Leafs".  Had the board truly made the decision about his record, that's all they had to say at the press conference and nobody could have questioned it.  "This is all about results, the team wasn't moving in the direction we would like, we didn't like the plan presented to us by Mr. Burke and a change had to be made" or something to that effect.  The board were the ones who brought up the "voice" reasons themselves.  Again, why even mention Burke's "voice" if that was secondary to the reason for him being fired?  I think it was the primary reason.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Had the board truly made the decision about his record, that's all they had to say at the press conference and nobody could have questioned it.  "This is all about results, the team wasn't moving in the direction we would like, we didn't like the plan presented to us by Mr. Burke and a change had to be made" or something to that effect.  The board were the ones who brought up the "voice" reasons themselves.  Again, why even mention Burke's "voice" if that was secondary to the reason for him being fired?  I think it was the primary reason.

This is why it's not sitting right for me and why it's more about MLSE, than Brian Burke.

 

[cw]

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I don't subscribe to the tank theory of hockey team building. Remember, he changed gears when the market didn't bare out what he wanted to do. That was long after the Kessel deal.

The thing with that is that when the Kessel deal went down, you could already see what the talent market was shaping up to look like. I posted observing that before the Kessel deal went down which was in part why I had trouble with the Kessel deal. In late 2008/summer 2009, you could see that the first potentially decent UFA summer was a long way off - summer 2013 - and a lot could happen to that group before the summer of 2013.

Trades are largely equal talent value for equal talent value - particularly when your policy is to not trade away youth during a retool. Burke did better than that with his trades in my opinion but unless you get Fletcher-Gilmour-trade lucky, rebuilding via trades is unlikely to provide a substantial lift to the overall franchise of talent. Trading is closer to being a mechanism for reshaping the talent you have or dumping guys for prospects/picks at the deadline than provide a major boost to the NHL roster in the short term in general as you win some and lose some deals.

And Burke didn't inherit a farm system teaming with young NHL talent. So the chances of Burke pulling off his chosen quick retooling direction in the short term was somewhere between slim and doomed in terms of building a Cup winner. The center piece of his retooling, Kessel, is a UFA who can leave for nothing in 2014.

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

Now, I would quickly concede that because of the difference in the talent market and talent building approach under the 2005 CBA, it's tougher to flip a team into a true contender. And therefore, a GM should be evaluated bearing that in mind, probably giving him more time - and that GM should not be evaluated the way we might have in 2004 and before. So I grant that much to Burke.

But Brian made a pretty major oversight on the talent market right out of the blocks in 2008-09 and it's an oversight I would not expect a top 10 NHL GM to have made.

 

[Kin]

His relationship with the media is all part and parcel to his "voice" and the brand that he's putting forward.  The board would care about that, especially since they're both media conglomerates.

I don't necessarily think that's true. Being media conglomerates they know that controversy isn't necessarily a bad thing for someone who's the public face of an organization that feeds the media culture. If Burke being a jerk leads to more media coverage, I doubt they care one way or the other.

I agree a better record would have protected Burke, in part to the fact that he would have had fewer negative articles written about him, and fewer run-ins with the press.  Had the Leafs been winning, and been a playoff team, the press would have written more flattering articles.  Remember when the Leafs were in the top 8 in the conference, Burke was doing the media circuit with a bunch of interviews, appeared on George Strombolopous to talk about how the Leafs were now in "run" mode.  All of that stems from the fact that Burke was less surly because the team was performing, and he was nicer to the press because of it.

I just think you have that backwards. I don't think a relationship with the media matters near as much as the record itself. There are lots of super-prickly coaches who have bad relationships with the media but if they're winners, they tend to keep their jobs.

Sure it was months of deliberation, but who is to say the deliberation wasn't all about Burke's persona and his presentation of the Leafs brand publicly?  He was as many have said, "the face of the Leafs".  Had the board truly made the decision about his record, that's all they had to say at the press conference and nobody could have questioned it.  "This is all about results, the team wasn't moving in the direction we would like, we didn't like the plan presented to us by Mr. Burke and a change had to be made" or something to that effect.  The board were the ones who brought up the "voice" reasons themselves.  Again, why even mention Burke's "voice" if that was secondary to the reason for him being fired?  I think it was the primary reason.

I still kind of think you're missing the thrust of what I'm saying. I think that everything here traces back to Burke's lousy record. That doesn't necessarily mean that the decision was made consciously to fire him because of the lousy record. It very well could be that Burke's personality clashed with someone on the board and that was the thing that pushed them into the "fire Burke" camp. I just don't think that personality clash happens without the lousy record and I think a good record protects him from that.

So, I mean, to me, I don't think it needs to be divided up into primary or secondary reasons. I'm sure that when they deliberated for months they spoke about everything, records and public personas. It defies belief that in the course of months about talking about Burke and his running the club nobody ever said "Hey, and also, the team has stunk under his watch".

As to your final question, I mean, that should be a little self-explanatory, no? They're in the business of selling the team. It's not like Anselmi could say "Burke left this team in an awful position, not only don't they figure to be good this year, they also figure to be lousy in the years to come. Also, be sure to tune in to all 48 games this year. Maple Leafs Hockey! The Passion that Unites us All!"

 

[hap_leaf]

Compare what Burke did over the last 3.5 years with what has gone on with the Oilers.  Who do you feel better about going forward?  The Oilers or the Leafs?  It all comes back to that unfortunate deal that Burke made in his first offseason.

I don't subscribe to the tank theory of hockey team building. Remember, he changed gears when the market didn't bare out what he wanted to do. That was long after the Kessel deal.

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

Thats a great analysis cw.  And he even lucked out with Lupul being way better than anyone expected.  Just imagine if we didn't have Lupul last year.
And Gardiner might be the cornerstone of our defense for years to come.  I hope for Burke that it is this trade that people remember.

Unlike JFJ, the only thing I remember about him is giving away Rask.  How great would he look as a Leaf?

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

But Brian made a pretty major oversight on the talent market right out of the blocks in 2008-09 and it's an oversight I would not expect a top 10 NHL GM to have made.

So, my next question would be, why did he make that decision? Could MLSE have asked for a quick rebuild and he tried his best to make it appear that he was going that route? Or was this all Burke thinking too much of his skills and ultimately failing?

It seems that until the end, after the decision to change direction, he wasn't going to sacrifice younger players for older, more skilled players. Nonis says he's going to keep on that direction, so is there a battle going on behind the scenes with ownership and management, about the direction the club should be taking? Or is this just what it appears and Burke was fired, because he's Brian Burke?

I do understand that his record wasn't going to save him, it's more what the expectations should be, recognizing that he did in fact have to change direction, right or wrong. You have to give more time, when you're drafting and developing. I think people have already said that it takes 5+ years to do it that way, he was given 2-3 years after it looked like the fast track wasn't going to work.

 

[Corn Flake]

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

I think that early bluster was fueled by him being convinced he could get the Sedins.  He was off on that opportunity by only a few hours. Clearly, if he had acquired them, the fortunes of this team would have lept forward in leaps and bounds.  After that summer, there has been little to touch the UFA market even close to their level.  Kessel may have been the only player available from that point forward who came close.  And not that Kessel hasn't delivered what was expected of him, for the most part, but of course the price is what we all wince over.

So he shouldn't have been as confident in that as he was, and when he didn't get the chance to sign them, probably retooled the plan then and there, and took the slow and steady way immediately.

 

[Kin]

So, my next question would be, why did he make that decision? Could MLSE have asked for a quick rebuild and he tried his best to make it appear that he was going that route? Or was this all Burke thinking too much of his skills and ultimately failing?

I don't think it ultimately matters. Either his failing was in not executing his plan or in not being able to convince MLSE of the right plan. Neither answer does him a ton of credit.

You have to give more time, when you're drafting and developing. I think people have already said that it takes 5+ years to do it that way, he was given 2-3 years after it looked like the fast track wasn't going to work.

I think you're confusing a lot of different things. The five year model, the one Burke himself criticized, is the tanking model that you don't subscribe to and I don't think anyone really believes Burke had followed at any point. But even still, that five year figure is when building a team from the basement to a contender is finished to completion. That doesn't mean that you don't have to hit measurements of progress towards that goal on a shorter time line or that the whole five years need to be waited out before judgments can be made.

 

[cw]

Had the board truly made the decision about his record, that's all they had to say at the press conference and nobody could have questioned it.  "This is all about results, the team wasn't moving in the direction we would like, we didn't like the plan presented to us by Mr. Burke and a change had to be made" or something to that effect.  The board were the ones who brought up the "voice" reasons themselves.  Again, why even mention Burke's "voice" if that was secondary to the reason for him being fired?  I think it was the primary reason.

This is why it's not sitting right for me and why it's more about MLSE, than Brian Burke.

I don't doubt there were personality issues that factored in. They basically said as much.

But if one objectively reviewed what Burke promised MLSE and the fans on early against what he delivered, beyond the won-loss record, you could say that he didn't measure up to his bluster.

Beyond a poor assessment of the future talent market:

1. The Burke proposed Top 6/Bottom 6 roster structure was already an outdated talent structure in the NHL. Many teams of the successful NHL clubs had already moved away from it to develop third line scoring.

2. The "proper levels of pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence" do not exist in the franchise today. And Burke-Wilson were late recognizing the reduced role of an enforcer in the NHL and the ice time they should receive. I quickly concede getting your mitts on guys that bring that isn't easy.

3. "build from the goal line out" as Burke said at the outset has not happened in goal nor is it that great on his D.

4. Burke in 2009 on his Dmen: "I really believe one through six, we can stack our group up against almost any other team....... One through six. If your top four are Tomas Kaberle, Dion Phaneuf, Francois Beauchemin, Mike Komisarek, Gunnarson, Finger. Round it out any way you want, that's a pretty good group." I think a lot of folks would have a problem with the quality of that talent assessment by a NHL GM.

5. And then there was the 2010-11 season where Burke allowed his coach to try to fit a square peg in a round hole when he attempted to force his players to play a Burke desired system that didn't suit the talent he had to work with. Now last season, they attempted to adjust their system more around the talent they had to work with but it was a pretty major error that good coaches have avoided for decades.

I'm sure folks around here could add to that list. I could go on.

But there is something to be said about Burke's management style of shooting off his mouth that couldn't be reconciled with what he delivered. And when the MLSE board came to evaluate his performance, those words came back to haunt him - and rightfully so.

I still like Burke. To be forthright, I wouldn't be howling for his dismissal right now in spite of the above. I could also provide a list of good things he did to justify that to some extent. But I'd also quickly concede that it isn't easy to defend the above. And from that, I can see where the board was coming from or how they might have arrived at the conclusion they did.

 

[rdowdall]

But Brian made a pretty major oversight on the talent market right out of the blocks in 2008-09 and it's an oversight I would not expect a top 10 NHL GM to have made.

So, my next question would be, why did he make that decision? Could MLSE have asked for a quick rebuild and he tried his best to make it appear that he was going that route? Or was this all Burke thinking too much of his skills and ultimately failing?

It seems that until the end, after the decision to change direction, he wasn't going to sacrifice younger players for older, more skilled players. Nonis says he's going to keep on that direction, so is there a battle going on behind the scenes with ownership and management, about the direction the club should be taking? Or is this just what it appears and Burke was fired, because he's Brian Burke?

I do understand that his record wasn't going to save him, it's more what the expectations should be, recognizing that he did in fact have to change direction, right or wrong. You have to give more time, when you're drafting and developing. I think people have already said that it takes 5+ years to do it that way, he was given 2-3 years after it looked like the fast track wasn't going to work.

If you look at other teams though, there is a measurement of progress.  The LA Kings improved each year as they built towards being a Stanley Cup winner.  Edmonton hasn't moved out of the basement, but you can point to their NHL roster and look at the players that are the cornerstones for the team for the foreseeable future.  There has been no measured progress with the Leafs, and you can't point to any particular player on the Leafs team and say that they are the cornerstone for the foreseeable future.  This team has been stuck in limbo for the last couple of years, and that is not a good place to be if you are trying to move something towards a goal.

 

[Zee]

To be fair to Burke and his assessment of the D, I don't think you can judge the quality of the defensemen under Ron Wilson's style.  They were put into a position that wasn't geared towards team defense.  That being said, it's totally Burke's fault for leaving Wilson in place and not having a coach in place like Carlyle who stressed better team D.  Yes, Carlyle wasn't available, but i'm sure he could have found another coach that subscribed to team D.  If I recall, Hitchcock was available for a while before he took the reigns in St. Louis.

 

[Redleaf]

But Brian made a pretty major oversight on the talent market right out of the blocks in 2008-09 and it's an oversight I would not expect a top 10 NHL GM to have made.

So, my next question would be, why did he make that decision? Could MLSE have asked for a quick rebuild and he tried his best to make it appear that he was going that route? Or was this all Burke thinking too much of his skills and ultimately failing?

It seems that until the end, after the decision to change direction, he wasn't going to sacrifice younger players for older, more skilled players. Nonis says he's going to keep on that direction, so is there a battle going on behind the scenes with ownership and management, about the direction the club should be taking? Or is this just what it appears and Burke was fired, because he's Brian Burke?

I do understand that his record wasn't going to save him, it's more what the expectations should be, recognizing that he did in fact have to change direction, right or wrong. You have to give more time, when you're drafting and developing. I think people have already said that it takes 5+ years to do it that way, he was given 2-3 years after it looked like the fast track wasn't going to work.

If you look at other teams though, there is a measurement of progress.  The LA Kings improved each year as they built towards being a Stanley Cup winner.  Edmonton hasn't moved out of the basement, but you can point to their NHL roster and look at the players that are the cornerstones for the team for the foreseeable future.  There has been no measured progress with the Leafs, and you can't point to any particular player on the Leafs team and say that they are the cornerstone for the foreseeable future.  This team has been stuck in limbo for the last couple of years, and that is not a good place to be if you are trying to move something towards a goal.

I think these kinds of claims of having no measured success partially fall on the fact that the Leafs goaltending went into a tail spin late last year, just as the team was gaining some sustained momentum. Had that not happened I believe we'd be talking about a much improved club heading into this season from the one we saw 2 years ago.

edit: This is why the Leafs have been desperately pursuing a veteran goaltender. One that can play consistently throughout an entire season.

 

[cw]

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

I think that early bluster was fueled by him being convinced he could get the Sedins.  He was off on that opportunity by only a few hours. Clearly, if he had acquired them, the fortunes of this team would have lept forward in leaps and bounds.  After that summer, there has been little to touch the UFA market even close to their level.  Kessel may have been the only player available from that point forward who came close.  And not that Kessel hasn't delivered what was expected of him, for the most part, but of course the price is what we all wince over.

So he shouldn't have been as confident in that as he was, and when he didn't get the chance to sign them, probably retooled the plan then and there, and took the slow and steady way immediately.

Can a GM reliably structure his retooling effort around a possibility of signing a particular couple of UFAs that he cannot talk to due to tampering rules? Yes, I realize there is chatter behind the scenes. But that strikes me as putting too many eggs in one basket of slim hope.

In terms of sound strategy, "oh well, I didn't get to sign the Sedins so my whole retooling plan is out the window" doesn't work for me. In my opinion, a good GM has to have better contingencies in place than that when setting his direction for building his franchise.

 

[Corn Flake]

A criticism I have always had of Burke is that he should have seen or known the likely future of the talent market before blustering away at his early press conferences and committing to the retooling approach. Because it was pretty handily apparent before he pulled the trigger on the Kessel deal, and folks like me said as much back then, that teams were hording their good talent, keeping it away from the UFA market and they were to some degree hanging on to their youth and draft picks more than they had in the past.

I think that early bluster was fueled by him being convinced he could get the Sedins.  He was off on that opportunity by only a few hours. Clearly, if he had acquired them, the fortunes of this team would have lept forward in leaps and bounds.  After that summer, there has been little to touch the UFA market even close to their level.  Kessel may have been the only player available from that point forward who came close.  And not that Kessel hasn't delivered what was expected of him, for the most part, but of course the price is what we all wince over.

So he shouldn't have been as confident in that as he was, and when he didn't get the chance to sign them, probably retooled the plan then and there, and took the slow and steady way immediately.

Can a GM reliably structure his retooling effort around a possibility of signing a particular couple of UFAs that he cannot talk to due to tampering rules? Yes, I realize there is chatter behind the scenes. But that strikes me as putting too many eggs in one basket of slim hope.

In terms of sound strategy, "oh well, I didn't get to sign the Sedins so my whole retooling plan is out the window" doesn't work for me. In my opinion, a good GM has to have better contingencies in place than that when setting his direction for building his franchise.

I didn't say it was a good strategy, I just think that is one of the things that happened.  He had that as plan A for sure.  Plan B (Sedins go elsewhere) probably could/should have been to immediately opt for a more bottom-up rebuild. I think he tried to find substitutes for the Sedin option after that and they didn't materialize, while continuing on as if achieving that was a foregone conclusion, hence the price paid and risk taken in that price for Kessel.

Thing is, aaaaaalll that said, his biggest error was judgement in goaltending.  He believed in Toskala and said it himself.  Gave it two seasons too.  Same thing that sunk him in Vancouver sunk him here. In Anaheim he inherited Jiggy so it worked out nicely.  Still remains his biggest issue in team building and talent evaluation.  Even reasonably good goaltending would have prevented the 29th place finish that resulted in the Seguin pick and what put a lot of bruises on the foreheads of many people in this town from banging their heads on tables.