Luongo

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Will it result in players flocking here to play, giving up on millions to play elsewhere? No, probably not. Is it just a good thing to do for the players they have to give them a bit of peace of mind around the holidays?  Yup.

It could also be a determining factor when the same money and term are on the table for both teams and the player has to decide where he signs. I'd rather take that, than the team/ GM that doesn't do this. Chances are that if he does things like this, he does other little things that make a difference also, even if they're seen as insignificant to some.

 

[Champ Kind]

It's Burke's preference and it's consistent with his overall 'player first' approach. 

This is all I really meant to convey, not that you're not a good GM if you don't practice this. I like that he does it, or at least thinks to do these types of things. I was having a problem with somebody else thinking that it was something bad.

Exactly, I was in agreement with your assessment, BWB, and Nik and Flake's, too. 

It's a funny dichotomy in that some posters take umbrage with Burke's Christmas trade freeze - as, I'm assuming here, being too soft - are the same ones who chastise Burke's defense of the Leafs (regarding, especially, ESPN's coverage) as being too hard.  Really seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation. 

 

[maplesyrup]

Transparency.  : You know, Burke could have just kept this freeze policy to himself and that would have been it... As always, tough town.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Transparency.  : You know, Burke could have just kept this freeze policy to himself and that would have been it... As always, tough town.

Maybe that is the biggest issue when people think or talk about Burke, they really just don't like that he is boisterous in the end.

Personally, I ignore it and just accept that that is the way he is. He's a proud guy and wants the same thing that all of us fans want. Like Nik said, you want to route for a guy like that.

 

[Corn Flake]

It's Burke's preference and it's consistent with his overall 'player first' approach. 

This is all I really meant to convey, not that you're not a good GM if you don't practice this. I like that he does it, or at least thinks to do these types of things. I was having a problem with somebody else thinking that it was something bad.

Exactly, I was in agreement with your assessment, BWB, and Nik and Flake's, too. 

It's a funny dichotomy in that some posters take umbrage with Burke's Christmas trade freeze - as, I'm assuming here, being too soft - are the same ones who chastise Burke's defense of the Leafs (regarding, especially, ESPN's coverage) as being too hard.  Really seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation.

On the ESPN thing, we could have had a JFJ'esque response, where he stares at his shoes and mumbles some spineless, generic response that says basically nothing.  Sure he JFJ was the other extreme but I'd rather the GM come out and fire back than bend over and take their schlock just to not ruffle any feathers.  Better to be damned if you do.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

It's a funny dichotomy in that some posters take umbrage with Burke's Christmas trade freeze - as, I'm assuming here, being too soft - are the same ones who chastise Burke's defense of the Leafs (regarding, especially, ESPN's coverage) as being too hard.  Really seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation. 

What was he to do otherwise? He does the same thing in these types of situations, I'm sure that's why the reporter asked the question, they knew he would go off.

 

[maplesyrup]

Transparency.  : You know, Burke could have just kept this freeze policy to himself and that would have been it... As always, tough town.

Maybe that is the biggest issue when people think or talk about Burke, they really just don't like that he is boisterous in the end.

Personally, I ignore it and just accept that that is the way he is. He's a proud guy and wants the same thing that all of us fans want. Like Nik said, you want to route for a guy like that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Corn Flake]

Will it result in players flocking here to play, giving up on millions to play elsewhere? No, probably not. Is it just a good thing to do for the players they have to give them a bit of peace of mind around the holidays?  Yup.

It could also be a determining factor when the same money and term are on the table for both teams and the player has to decide where he signs. I'd rather take that, than the team/ GM that doesn't do this. Chances are that if he does things like this, he does other little things that make a difference also, even if they're seen as insignificant to some.

We did see some of this when it came to signing some of the College kids and the goalies a few years ago .. when the money was all the same across the board they came to Toronto, mentioning that playing for the Leafs and under Burke was a huge deciding factor.  Don't have time at the moment to look but pretty sure Bozak and Hanson were both quoted as saying something to that effect. 

 

[princedpw]

... and here I was seeing the stream of posts on the Luongo topic and thinking something interesting might have happened ...

 

[caver]

Transparency.  : You know, Burke could have just kept this freeze policy to himself and that would have been it... As always, tough town.

Maybe that is the biggest issue when people think or talk about Burke, they really just don't like that he is boisterous in the end.

Personally, I ignore it and just accept that that is the way he is. He's a proud guy and wants the same thing that all of us fans want. Like Nik said, you want to route for a guy like that.

I wholeheartedly agree.

X2

 

[Kin]

Exactly, I was in agreement with your assessment, BWB, and Nik and Flake's, too. 

It's a funny dichotomy in that some posters take umbrage with Burke's Christmas trade freeze - as, I'm assuming here, being too soft - are the same ones who chastise Burke's defense of the Leafs (regarding, especially, ESPN's coverage) as being too hard.  Really seems like a "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situation.

There was a third bowl of porridge in that story, no?

I don't suppose I see the contradiction you do there as it seems as though the two issues are largely separate. How a manager deals with the media and how someone deals with running the team strike me as areas that don't necessarily have a ton of overlap and someone could be seen wanting in both for opposite reasons.

Anyways, my point wasn't so much to play devil's advocate but rather just to highlight the obvious. I mention the Leo Durocher quote and I could come up with a hundred more that express a similar sentiment, Vince Lombardi was a fountain of 'em. That mentality, rightly or wrongly, exists in sports.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Yeah, I don't get why that is not seen as a good thing.

I've thought about that and I think primarily it's because it implies a sort of lack of ruthlessness when it comes to the business of putting a team together. I'm not sold on it as a positive or a negative but I get why there are people out there who prefer the idea of a GM who would step over their own grandmother.

didn't Bob Clarke of the Philadelphia Flyers fire a coach with cancer?  The real question is would you want a GM like that as your GM and do you think his tactics have been successful?

 

[hockeyfan1]

Yeah, I don't get why that is not seen as a good thing.

I've thought about that and I think primarily it's because it implies a sort of lack of ruthlessness when it comes to the business of putting a team together. I'm not sold on it as a positive or a negative but I get why there are people out there who prefer the idea of a GM who would step over their own grandmother.

didn't Bob Clarke of the Philadelphia Flyers fire a coach with cancer?  The real question is would you want a GM like that as your GM and do you think his tactics have been successful?

I don't think it's question of success, but rather, a question of character.  Bob Clarke may not possess Burke's 'bombastic' demeanor but he's had his moments of mouthing off in his own way.

What works for Clarke works for Clarke.  What works for Burke works for Burke.  Maybe one may even say that Clarke is the more 'successful' manager of the two if one may see it that way.

However, the approach these men have taken in respect to their teams in their day-to-day hockey operations is indicative of their accomplishments or non-accomplishments.

How they deal with these accomplishments or non-accomplishments as towards their respective organizations is indicative of their personalities & character.

 

[Redleaf]

Burke still trying to lure in Luongo...

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2012/09/18/20211171.html

Anybody surprised?

 

[hockeyfan1]

Burke still trying to lure in Luongo...

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2012/09/18/20211171.html

Anybody surprised?

No, because Burke did say that they would still be looking out for an upgrade even with a Reimer/Scrivens combo, should the opportunity for such arise in future.  Luongo as a Leaf still sounds like a longshot.  Then again, anything can transpire.  Who knows.

 

[pnjunction]

Burke still trying to lure in Luongo...

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/Toronto/2012/09/18/20211171.html

Anybody surprised?

IMO Burke simply cannot afford to quit looking to land a quality veteran netminder.  My feeling for this season is that, regardless of how much I wish the best for them, a Reimer/Scrivens combo is not going to drag this largely unchanged group of skaters into the playoffs. 

They might not even be much closer than last year, and if they don't make playoffs this year Burke will have hard time blustering his way out of being ridden out of town on rails.  I'm thinking in light of the 'Fire Wilson' chants from last year fans will be chanting loudly and continuously for Burke's head at every losing home game down the stretch if we're not in the mix.

 

[caver]

So, if Burke is successful in bringing Luongo to the Leafs which one of Reimer or Scrivens do you keep?

 

[Fanatic]

So, if Burke is successful in bringing Luongo to the Leafs which one of Reimer or Scrivens do you keep?

Maybe I am just out of it, but I really thought that Burke was clear about wanting to start the year with Reimer/Scrivens and was not interested in Luongo. From what I have heard, Luongo is either going to the Panthers or he is going to be mighty awkward to deal with in Vancouver if they cannot trade him.

 

[Redleaf]

So, if Burke is successful in bringing Luongo to the Leafs which one of Reimer or Scrivens do you keep?

Maybe I am just out of it, but I really thought that Burke was clear about wanting to start the year with Reimer/Scrivens and was not interested in Luongo. From what I have heard, Luongo is either going to the Panthers or he is going to be mighty awkward to deal with in Vancouver if they cannot trade him.

Brian Burke is being very coy about showing any interest in Luongo, but I still believe the Leafs are among the front runners, along with Florida to land his services.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

So, if Burke is successful in bringing Luongo to the Leafs which one of Reimer or Scrivens do you keep?

Maybe I am just out of it, but I really thought that Burke was clear about wanting to start the year with Reimer/Scrivens and was not interested in Luongo. From what I have heard, Luongo is either going to the Panthers or he is going to be mighty awkward to deal with in Vancouver if they cannot trade him.

Brian Burke is being very coy about showing any interest in Luongo, but I still believe the Leafs are among the front runners, along with Florida to land his services.

I wonder if Frattin and a 3nd or something like that is what the cost ends up being.

Not sure that's even too much (We'd all like him for Komi, Gillis would like to move him for 1sts).

What would people think of that deal?