Nik the Trik said:
That doesn't seem to add up. You say that the best group of centres available is one that includes Bolland but not Bozak, indicating that you think that Bolland is a superior player, but dismiss out of hand the idea that Carlyle would like Bolland as much as you think he (irrationally) liked Bozak.
I guess I'm giving him more credit than you.
Nik the Trik said:
I think the best group of centres that the Leafs had available to them, strangely enough, is the one they had when the season ended. I think Bozak is a better player than Bolland, he's younger, bigger, better on the draw, has scored at a better clip for the course of his career, is better defensively and so on. The reason Bolland is on the team is because he's a cost effective version of what Grabo(or in your ideal world, Bozak) would have been under Carlyle, a 2nd/3rd line centre who can score. Neither Bozak or Grabo were going to be that so, realistically, Nonis had to choose one or the other. Where did you stand on that decision again?
My ideal world is one where the Leafs had a real 1C, signed Lecavalier or traded for Stastny. But, of the probable worlds we could be living in, my ideal would be the group of centers the team had on June 30th. An appropriately paid, gritty veteran 3C with the skillset to center a shutdown line. I don't think Bozak is or will be that.
Nik the Trik said:
Regardless, I think that a lot of these moves were made with the idea that the question of which of Grabo, Bozak or Bolland is best suited for the first line job is moot. I think this team is being built on the idea that Kadri will take that job soon.
Agreed. So, it's a missed opportunity that they didn't lock up the future 1C for a relatively long term at a relatively decent price. But that aside, they'll still need a 2C. And I suspect that might be Tyler Bozak, but I doubt that Kessel will be on any Kadri-centered first line. Carlyle says he likes his pairs, and the Kessel-Bozak duo is one he's been pretty committed to.
Nik the Trik said:
Well, we've gone over the idea that a "Randy Carlyle player" doesn't really seem to indicate anything as he's found room in the past to accommodate all sorts of players,
Yes. All sorts, including players with limited skill sets, an propensity to fight that somehow balances that out, and who take direction well when instructed to chip it off the boards or fire it off the glass. And those sorts to a degree that's unique among modern NHL coaches -- hence "Randy Carlyle player."
Nik the Trik said:
regardless I'm not inclined to read too much into those comments by Nonis as A) as I said, it's still ultimately on Nonis because he's making the decision to keep Carlyle around
I certainly don't disagree with this. If the summer moves don't turn out well, you can say 'that's what you get building a team for your coach' -- and that, I think, ultimately means it's still on Nonis. As long as everyone's agreed that the GM is ultimately responsible for assembling a roster, I don't think it really matters whether one thinks that Nonis is letting Carlyle pick out FAs & trade targets, that Nonis is picking out the FAs & trade targets he thinks his coach wants, or that Nonis wants the same sort of FAs & trade targets.
Nik the Trik said:
and B) Ultimately you want your coach and GM on the same page
Sure, that's a sound principle. But their responsibilities are surely different. Clarkson might make the team more competitive this season, so I can see why Carlyle would want him regardless of the contract. But the GM needs a longer view than who's available for the lineup this season; he's trying, I'd think, to maintain the competitiveness of his team for the future. So, things that get in the way of locking up assets, cost picks, will likely encumber your team in future years should be avoided.
Nik the Trik said:
and C) it would be ridiculous to expect him to come out of a press conference saying that Carlyle didn't want a newly acquired player but he pulled rank.
Yes, Nik. That would be ridiculous.
Of course, he could just do what most other GMs do: tout the attributes of the player, where he fits into the team, and comment on the contract being one that's good for the longer-term fortunes of the team. Or he could, you know, not say those things but actually
do them.
Burke's remembered by some as an arrogant loudmouth, but his management style was actually more modest. He certainly never behaved like he was indifferent to the later years of a contract because he got the player he wanted for the upcoming season.