The Leafs Management vs NHL

[Kin]

I think the basic job is still largely the same. It's the details that have really changed. In some ways, things have simplified. In others, they've become more complicated or require more nuance, as some of the ways things have streamlined really just created different complications for management teams rather than eliminating complications entirely. Overall, I'd say the difficulty of doing the job probably hasn't shifted much.

I think how I might phrase it is that doing the job is easier, or less complicated, but that doing the job really well, where you find a noticeable advantage on your rivals, is probably more difficult.

 

[herman]

People are allowed to raise concerns about the current structure. We don't need to pretend that everything this group does is divinely spun perfection in order to still have a generally positive outlook for the future.

You're right. I was exaggerating. I agree that Lou is the weak link in the group; I don't think it's much of a problem though.

Except that's entirely ignoring the point I just made. Doesn't Lamoriello's success prove that "catalyzing" their development isn't necessary? By "easing" them into the GM's role, you're not helping them walk the same road, you're ensuring they take an entirely different and more conventional road.

What was the timeline of Lamoriello's success coming into the league completely new to the NHL? He was hired in '87 and won the Cup run in 95, 00, 03. I wouldn't mind shortcutting a few of those intervening years in terms of managerial development. Is it detrimental to have fresh eyes paired with experience that is very familiar with the conventional? Is it not worthwhile to have someone who knows pretty much every other GM in the league, their tendencies, and pressure points?

And you're still avoiding the central issue. Nobody is objecting to the idea of Dubas/Hunter not being made the GM regardless of any other consideration, it's that the guy who was made the GM is someone who hasn't done a particularly good job of running the team's he's been running over the last five or ten years. The sort of "guiding" you're advocating could easily be done as a consultant, similar to what the team wanted to do with Scotty Bowman.

If what encourages you so much about the Dubas era is no ugly signings(and Robidas doesn't look like much of a signing right now) and a data driven approach then, again, Lamoriello's record in that regard is a legitimate concern, between things like Ryan Clowe and apparently thinking a player's appearance matters.

I do think Lou is in more of a consultative GM role, but with the full GM title, if that makes any difference to this discussion. He's got the signing authority, but Shanahan has insisted on the brain trust model to back those plays. If Lou wasn't open to input from them, he wouldn't have bothered signing here. By and large, a lot of Lou's flaws are covered by Dubas, Hunter, and Pridham. One of the things he brings to the table is the experience of developing a team culture that is fiercely loyal and family-oriented (hometown discounts, relationships extending post-trade/retirement). Sure that might have included grooming directives in the past, but I'm not convinced that will come into play here in this time frame.

Robidas was a July 1 signing, which preceded Dubas by a few weeks (July 22). I can't speak for the Clowe signing (and a cursory search makes it sound like a David Clarkson situation), but my feeling on the matter is that a mistake made yesterday is a lesson learned for tomorrow.

 

[Frank E]

Well, regardless of how simple you think a job that commands $2-$3 million a year is, I'd venture that the board wasn't entirely comfortable with leaving the day-to-day activities of a $1billion dollar company product in the hands of a few people that have a combined 2 years of experience doing anything in the NHL.  Even Shanahan really doesn't have any experience running a company of this kind of size, and Lou has some experience doing a more President-type role. 

I think it was inevitable that they hired a grey-beard in a senior role to bring in some know-how on prioritizing, handling multi-million dollar contract negotiations with agents that might walk all over a Dubas or a Hunter, and to generally manage the rebuild process to Shanahan's plan.  Like most of you, I don't think Lou is here to engineer his own vision of an NHL team, I think he's here to help Shanahan with his.

It's not to say that Dubas or Hunter wouldn't learn this in time, I'm just not sure that ownership was willing to let them go through the growing pains of learning on the job, and especially given how important the next 2-3 years are to the franchise.     

 

[Kin]

What was the timeline of Lamoriello's success coming into the league completely new to the NHL? He was hired in '87 and won the Cup run in 95, 00, 03. I wouldn't mind shortcutting a few of those intervening years in terms of managerial development. Is it detrimental to have fresh eyes paired with experience that is very familiar with the conventional? Is it not worthwhile to have someone who knows pretty much every other GM in the league, their tendencies, and pressure points?

Is it? I don't know. I've never seen anything to indicate that it necessarily does and I can just as easily say that older executives can have a problem with flexibility and adapting to new things. I'm not sure why when it comes to every single tiny hockey decision we're supposed to be driven by data and objective analysis and then here we're to rely on the prospect of down-home "common sense".

Because objectively...what has all of that knowledge actually produced? If knowing all of these pressure points helped why was Lou's recent tenure with the Devils so mediocre? What contract did he sign that says "Boy, he sure can go toe to toe with any agent out there and eat his lunch".

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/New_Jersey_Devils/1

Which of these trades says "Oh man, Lou really used all that experience to commit larceny" to you?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00007066.html

Which draft pick in the post-cap era says "Man, he really exploited his knowledge of other GM's and their tendencies"?

I do think Lou is in more of a consultative GM role, but with the full GM title, if that makes any difference to this discussion. He's got the signing authority, but Shanahan has insisted on the brain trust model to back those plays. If Lou wasn't open to input from them, he wouldn't have bothered signing here. By and large, a lot of Lou's flaws are covered by Dubas, Hunter, and Pridham. One of the things he brings to the table is the experience of developing a team culture that is fiercely loyal and family-oriented (hometown discounts, relationships extending post-trade/retirement). Sure that might have included grooming directives in the past, but I'm not convinced that will come into play here in this time frame.

He's also got the "Experience" of the two best players he's had on his teams in the post-cap era choosing to go somewhere else. In fact, lots of notable Devils have chosen to move on voluntarily. Should that really be outweighed by the fact that he took care of Ken Daneyko?

This all started because people were saying that what concerned them was the fact that it didn't sound like Lamoriello's role was the "GM in name only" thing that we all assumed when he was brought on board. If that's the case, great, but this is predicated on indications to the contrary.

 

[Kin]

Well, regardless of how simple you think a job that commands $2-$3 million a year is, I'd venture that the board wasn't entirely comfortable with leaving the day-to-day activities of a $1billion dollar company product in the hands of a few people that have a combined 2 years of experience doing anything in the NHL.  Even Shanahan really doesn't have any experience running a company of this kind of size, and Lou has some experience doing a more President-type role. 

Mark Hunter is 52 years old. He played in the NHL for more than a decade. He's got more than a decade running what has been by far the most successful major junior franchise in the country. The idea that he would be an out of left field candidate or even one viewed as being particularly risky is kind of ridiculous.

More to the point, I'd really hope that the people on the board would be able to look at this team's recent history and say that bad contracts get signed by people with tons of NHL experience. The salary structure is pretty simple in this league, contracts are straight-forward.

Regardless, I don't think this came from the board. If they were overly concerned with experience then, like you say, Shanahan wouldn't have been their guy.

 

[Frank E]

Mark Hunter is 52 years old. He played in the NHL for more than a decade. He's got more than a decade running what has been by far the most successful major junior franchise in the country. The idea that he would be an out of left field candidate or even one viewed as being particularly risky is kind of ridiculous.

Not ridiculous.  He has a very prominent role in an NHL team, just not enough experience for "the" role yet.

More to the point, I'd really hope that the people on the board would be able to look at this team's recent history and say that bad contracts get signed by people with tons of NHL experience. The salary structure is pretty simple in this league, contracts are straight-forward.

OK, so because some questionable decisions were made by an experienced person means that someone else with experience wouldn't help?

Regardless, I don't think this came from the board. If they were overly concerned with experience then, like you say, Shanahan wouldn't have been their guy.

Sure Shanahan can be their guy, they like his vision.  Nothing wrong with them suggesting he get an experienced NHL GM to help him effect it and develop his team.  I could see them being a little more comfortable with that.   

 

[Kin]

Not ridiculous.  He has a very prominent role in an NHL team, just not enough experience for "the" role yet.

Restating a premise isn't an argument. People have been successful NHL GM's without NHL experience. People have successfully run sports franchises without sports experience.

Hunter is neither. He's got NHL experience. He's run a major junior team. Nobody would blink twice if someone with his resume was hired to run a NHL team. He's not Mike Gillis.

OK, so because some questionable decisions were made by an experienced person means that someone else with experience wouldn't help?

No, but a reasonable and objective look at "experience" in this context would tell us that it doesn't mean much. It's certainly not particularly predictive of success. If Mark Hunter can't handle contract negotiations at 52 years old then a couple years in a NHL front office isn't likely to change that.

Sure Shanahan can be their guy, they like his vision.  Nothing wrong with them suggesting he get an experienced NHL GM to help him effect it and develop his team.  I could see them being a little more comfortable with that. 

Right. So experience is super important. Except when it isn't. And they wouldn't let someone run the franchise without it. Except for when they did.

Glad you cleared that up.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Pour one out for the team broadcasters:

https://twitter.com/simmonssteve/status/644521532748877824

@simmonssteve
Leafs have become the first NHL team to have pushed the team broadcasters off the team charters.

Worth noting: Oddly enough from noted fact-checker Simmons, this appears to be incorrect based on replies to that tweet by some other media.  Leafs are not first to do this.

 

[bustaheims]

@simmonssteve
Leafs have become the first NHL team to have pushed the team broadcasters off the team charters.

Worth noting: Oddly enough from noted fact-checker Simmons, this appears to be incorrect based on replies to that tweet by some other media.  Leafs are not first to do this.

I didn't realize they were on the team charters to start with. They shouldn't be. Give the players and coaches some space when they travel.

The somewhat amusing thing here is that the Leafs made a decision that will end up costing their ownership group a little more money. Nothing substantial, I would imagine, but, still amusing.

 

[Frank E]

I might think that they're doing this because of the painful season ahead with a team full of short-term rentals. 

 

[LuncheonMeat]

@simmonssteve
Leafs have become the first NHL team to have pushed the team broadcasters off the team charters.

Worth noting: Oddly enough from noted fact-checker Simmons, this appears to be incorrect based on replies to that tweet by some other media.  Leafs are not first to do this.

I didn't realize they were on the team charters to start with. They shouldn't be. Give the players and coaches some space when they travel.

The somewhat amusing thing here is that the Leafs made a decision that will end up costing their ownership group a little more money. Nothing substantial, I would imagine, but, still amusing.

When Simmons announced this on TSN radio this morning, he went on about how after 27 years Joe Bowen would no longer be allowed to fly on the charter. Like it was some sort of slap in the face to a hockey legend. Anything to stir things up when, like you mentioned, he/they shouldn't be traveling with the team to begin with.

 

[Kin]

I didn't realize they were on the team charters to start with. They shouldn't be. Give the players and coaches some space when they travel.

Give them some space from the hard hitting investigative journalism of Joe Bowen and Paul Hendricks?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

When Simmons announced this on TSN radio this morning, he went on about how after 27 years Joe Bowen would no longer be allowed to fly on the charter. Like it was some sort of slap in the face to a hockey legend. Anything to stir things up when, like you mentioned, he/they shouldn't be traveling with the team to begin with.

And it's not like they're forcing those guys to bus or buy their own plane tickets. The team/ownership will still be flying them.

 

[bustaheims]

Give them some space from the hard hitting investigative journalism of Joe Bowen and Paul Hendricks?

Well, just space in general where they're free from the media while in transit. It's probably not a big deal, but they get enough of it when they're in the arena. I just don't see the benefit of having embedded reporting, while I do see some from a separation - as limited as it may be.

 

[Kin]

Well, just space in general where they're free from the media while in transit. It's probably not a big deal, but they get enough of it when they're in the arena. I just don't see the benefit of having embedded reporting, while I do see some from a separation - as limited as it may be.

Again, we're talking about team broadcasters. These guys are "media" in only the loosest definition of the term even before you factor in that everyone here is on the Rogers/Bell payroll. These guys travelling with the team to begin with is largely a holdover from the days when they were hired and fired by the teams and, in a lot of non-Leafs cases, they're still basically team employees. Watch a Coyotes game, for instance, and the Broadcasters read 30-40 ads trying to sell tickets(or, for that matter, any Blue Jays game before the team got good).

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing they're doing this but I really doubt there's any actual reason to do it.

 

[L K]

Well, just space in general where they're free from the media while in transit. It's probably not a big deal, but they get enough of it when they're in the arena. I just don't see the benefit of having embedded reporting, while I do see some from a separation - as limited as it may be.

Again, we're talking about team broadcasters. These guys are "media" in only the loosest definition of the term even before you factor in that everyone here is on the Rogers/Bell payroll. These guys travelling with the team to begin with is largely a holdover from the days when they were hired and fired by the teams and, in a lot of non-Leafs cases, they're still basically team employees. Watch a Coyotes game, for instance, and the Broadcasters read 30-40 ads trying to sell tickets(or, for that matter, any Blue Jays game before the team got good).

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing they're doing this but I really doubt there's any actual reason to do it.

I'll be more impressed when they set up a be fair and balanced as a part of the media otherwise you lose your media access to the team/management system.  Simmons has already written a few garbage pieces that are baiting the organization and ripping on the players.  To me, that's a part of the Toronto culture that needs to change.

 

[Kin]

I'll be more impressed when they set up a be fair and balanced as a part of the media otherwise you lose your media access to the team/management system.  Simmons has already written a few garbage pieces that are baiting the organization and ripping on the players.  To me, that's a part of the Toronto culture that needs to change.

So the only way to have media access is to write things that our corporate overlords approve of?

 

[L K]

I'll be more impressed when they set up a be fair and balanced as a part of the media otherwise you lose your media access to the team/management system.  Simmons has already written a few garbage pieces that are baiting the organization and ripping on the players.  To me, that's a part of the Toronto culture that needs to change.

So the only way to have media access is to write things that our corporate overlords approve of?

No.  I'd just like to see some accountability.  I think there is a bit of a difference between writing a negative piece about the performance of the team and writing an essay on how fat Phil Kessel is and how much he loves hot dogs.  I don't think the Leafs need to develop the Blue Jays media that fawns over them and is afraid to ask any tough questions but I think there could be a little more professionalism out of them.

 

[Kin]

No.  I'd just like to see some accountability.  I think there is a bit of a difference between writing a negative piece about the performance of the team and writing an essay on how fat Phil Kessel is and how much he loves hot dogs.  I don't think the Leafs need to develop the Blue Jays media that fawns over them and is afraid to ask any tough questions but I think there could be a little more professionalism out of them.

Well, except you're clearly saying yes. You're saying the team should dole out access based whether or not they approve of what someone writes, you just think they should have a low bar to clear. That's not a path I'd want the team to go down as a fan.

As far as accountability...that's on fans. I didn't read any of the Kessel hot dog stuff. If people did, if the people who write the stuff you find objectionable have an audience, then your beef is really with the fanbase, not with the media.

 

[herman]

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13677788/nhl-toronto-maple-leafs-open-camp-high-standards

I stand corrected: Lou lays down the grooming 'guidelines'.

You see, Papa Lou Lamoriello met with a few core players the previous day, and the message was gentle, yet clearly sent. Just like during his days running the New Jersey Devils, the veteran general manager wants his players to look proper.

"Lou just wants us to be pros. Let's look like pros," goaltender Jonathan Bernier, one of the players in the meeting with Lamoriello, said in French on Thursday. "When you're on the road, always wear a suit. Your haircut, your facial hair, all that stuff."

Babcock's greatest challenge as coach of the Maple Leafs over the next few seasons will be to somehow stomach the meaningless losses in February while the team builds this thing up piece by piece and all the while not lose his mind.

Take, for example, this exchange with [...] Francois Gagnon of RDS on Thursday during Babcock's presser.

Gagnon: "You've been a winner ..."

Babcock interjecting: "That was past-tense, let's try that again."

Gagnon: "You are a winner."

Babcock: "Thank you."