The Unofficial Fire Ron Wilson/Ron Wilson is the Greatest Thread

[Corn Flake]

I have plumped for going with Eakins, but something closer to the co-coach thing might work too.  Maybe a vet as head coach with responsibilities to deal with media, and Eakins as assistant in full charge of the defense?

Eakins and Scott Gordon combo?  I thought of Randy Carlyle but can't see him agreeing to a co-coach thing.

Why not just ovepay Eakins as an assistant coach, hand him the defensive duties and give him a career path of taking over as head coach in a few years.

Also, next person to suggest Marc Crawford gets a big face full of shut up.

 

[Erndog]

Bring in Carlyle as the head coach and Eakins as an assistant who works with the defencemen and PK.  Let him get his feet wet in the NHL for a couple years at least.

Then you also have your succession plan.  Similar to what Montreal was doing with Muller only, you know, keep the guy.

 

[Tigger]

Bring in Carlyle as the head coach and Eakins as an assistant who works with the defencemen and PK.  Let him get his feet wet in the NHL for a couple years at least.

Isn't Gord Dineen a big part of the defensive success of the Marlies too?

 

[Kin]

Then you also have your succession plan.  Similar to what Montreal was doing with Muller only, you know, keep the guy.

Although the issue in Montreal was that Martin experienced early success which meant Muller felt that he had to move on to find a quicker path to being a head coach in the NHL. There's only so much you can do to hang onto a guy if he's seen as a big time head coaching prospect.

Also, Crawford does have a cup and a Jack Adams.

 

[cw]

If think you've distorted and unfairly extrapolated anything that Burke said on the issue far more than I've distorted or unfairly extrapolated anything that you did.

By quoting him?

By quoting Burke out of context, kind of like what you just did to HS in the post he just responded to.

 

[Kin]

By quoting Burke out of context, kind of like what you just did to HS in the post he just responded to.

BS, quite frankly. Both quotes were entirely in context.

 

[Corn Flake]

Bring in Carlyle as the head coach and Eakins as an assistant who works with the defencemen and PK.  Let him get his feet wet in the NHL for a couple years at least.

Then you also have your succession plan.  Similar to what Montreal was doing with Muller only, you know, keep the guy.

Just give Eakins the golden handcuffs to stay as an asst. coach plus a succession plan, similar to what Burke has done with Nonis.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

By quoting Burke out of context, kind of like what you just did to HS in the post he just responded to.

BS, quite frankly. Both quotes were entirely in context.

If you asked Brian Burke if he would rather finish in 9th place out of the playoffs or finish in 8th place and get swept in the first round, I guarantee you he'd rather take the playoff berth and the first round exit, for the playoff experience that both you and I recognize would be of some value to a young team.  You've shown nothing to prove that Burke sees zero value in a short, losing playoff experience.  All you've shown is that he doesn't think that trading to increase a chance at the 8th spot with a mediocre team should come at a significant long-term cost.

Perreault for a 2nd rounder was awful for the Leafs at the time, but very similar to many trades by many teams at the trade deadline.  I can't see at all how it's the worst possible example of such trades, as you suggest.  It's a relatively common such example.

 

[cw]

By quoting Burke out of context, kind of like what you just did to HS in the post he just responded to.

BS, quite frankly. Both quotes were entirely in context.

Here's your post cherry picking the quote of Burke:

You're very much distorting the intent of what he said.  Burke merely suggested he didn't see value in making bad long-term trades merely to give a mediocre team a short-term boost to scrape into the playoffs and get their asses handed to them in the first round.

I'm actually not. You're just confusing two separate things he said. This is the quote I'm referring to:

?I?m not interested in making the playoffs and getting our asses kicked in the first round,? the GM told a Toronto radio station last month, repeating a mantra heard countless other times. ?I?ve done that. It?s not much fun.

?I?m interested in getting in with a realistic, reasonable chance to win or bloody somebody?s nose and use that round or two rounds or whatever we can do as a building block for a championship team.?

As the article notes, this isn't a one time thing he said in the context of the trade deadline. This is something he says often.

But either way, he's still saying he doesn't see the value in those deals. But there is value in those deals. Making the playoffs, even if you don't have a great chance of winning, has value. That's why teams make those trades.

And here's the context you ignored:
link

"I?m not paid to get in the playoffs. I want to win a championship here. Getting in the playoffs, we could have done that last year. We could have traded our young players and gotten in last year with a couple of 30-year-olds. We could have gotten in the year before, too, I believe, if we traded all the kids. If you look at what?s happened here, it?s not just that we?re in a playoff position today. We?ve been in a playoff position almost all year ? this is no fluke ? Would I improve the group if I could, even if it meant taking someone out of the group? Absolutely. I?m not interested in making the playoffs and getting our asses kicked in the first round. I?ve done that. It?s not much fun.I?m interested in getting in with a realistic, reasonable chance to win or bloody somebody?s nose doing it and use that round or two rounds ? or whatever we can do ? as a building block for a championship team.?

The underlined part is from your quote. The bolded text before is some of the context for your quoted remarks that you left out.

This post illustrates that Burke has taken this position many times to the extent that he worries about sounding like a parrot:
http://tmlfans.ca/community/index.php?topic=43.msg56996;topicseen#msg56996

This is Heroic Shrimp's full response to your post:

See cw's post.  There's value in those trades, it's just really poor value.  Do you seriously want Burke to make "Perreault for a 2nd rounder" kinds of deadline trades like JFJ made?

I have no doubt that Burke realizes that making the playoffs is better than not making it, even if the team gets swept.  However, I'm sure he also seriously weighs the short-term value of a likely quick exit vs. the long-term lost value of traded young assets, as his full quote indicates.  Everything comes at a cost, and sometimes the cost isn't worth it.

This is your cherry picking HS's post out of context to make a response:

See cw's post.  There's value in those trades, it's just really poor value.  Do you seriously want Burke to make "Perreault for a 2nd rounder" kinds of deadline trades like JFJ made?

Yes. I do. I want Brian Burke to make the worst possible example of those kinds of trades. That way, the team will get worse and I'll be immeasurably happy. Because that's what I'm saying.

When you chopped the bottom part of Herioic Shrimp's post, you distort the position he was taking - creating a straw man with your response - just like you did with Burke's position.

 

[Kin]

If you asked Brian Burke if he would rather finish in 9th place out of the playoffs or finish in 8th place and get swept in the first round, I guarantee you he'd rather take the playoff berth and the first round exit, for the playoff experience that both you and I recognize would be of some value to a young team.  You've shown nothing to prove that Burke sees zero value in a short, losing playoff experience.  All you've shown is that he doesn't think that trading to increase a chance at the 8th spot with a mediocre team should come at a significant long-term cost.

There's a super easy way to say "Obviously the goal is to make the playoffs but I'm not interested in sacrificing a big chunk of the future for that short term push" and I know that because I just did it. Repeatedly saying that you're not interested in making the playoffs just to get knocked out in the first round is not the same thing.

I understand a desire to paint everything Burke says in the best possible light but being as my original comment was about the actual crap he says and not my personal reading of how he feels deep down in his soul, I think I'm on pretty fair ground there.

Perreault for a 2nd rounder was awful for the Leafs at the time, but very similar to many trades by many teams at the trade deadline.  I can't see at all how it's the worst possible example of such trades, as you suggest.  It's a relatively common such example.

What are you, like the world's last remaining Brendan Bell fanatic? It was a second round pick and a prospect that turned out to be nothing. A second round pick is a significant long term cost? What's the average turn out of a second round pick?

Then look at the actual context of the trade. It was a team built around an aging super-star who were right on the cusp of making the playoffs. They were weak up the middle and weak on face-offs. They traded for a guy who'd scored 19 goals in 49 games. The team ended up missing the playoffs by one point.

The reason the Yanic Perreault trade is "the worst possible example" of those trades is because it yielded none of the benefits that those trades can. Perreault was hurt and didn't contribute. That's why it's was a bad trade. Not because of a second round pick and Brendan Bell.

 

[Kin]

Here's your post cherry picking the quote of Burke:

The idea that responding to specific parts of a statement rather than the whole if you're commenting about that specific part of a comment is "cherry picking" and "ignoring context" is laughable and beneath you.

 

[losveratos]

Here's your post cherry picking the quote of Burke:

The idea that responding to specific parts of a statement rather than the whole if you're commenting about that specific part of a comment is "cherry picking" and "ignoring context" is laughable and beneath you.

Taking a few sentences from the middle of a much larger idea all during the same conversation is exactly what cherry picking is. It's also, depending on the circumstances easily ignoring context.

Movie boxes do the same thing! This film was a god awful "Master Piece!" in garbage film making.

 

[lc9]

I agree with Nik, doesn't seem to be any cherry picking going on.  The context of Niks argument is based on things Burke says, he has made that clear.

 

[Kin]

Taking a few sentences from the middle of a much larger idea all during the same conversation is exactly what cherry picking is.

Not if you're referring to them specifically and narrowly.

 

[Erndog]

What are you, like the world's last remaining Brendan Bell fanatic?

Hey, watch it pal.... I went to school with him and was buddies with his brother.

 

[Kin]

What are you, like the world's last second last remaining Brendan Bell fanatic?

Hey, watch it pal.... I went to school with him and was buddies with his brother.

I fixed it for ya.

 

[losveratos]

Taking a few sentences from the middle of a much larger idea all during the same conversation is exactly what cherry picking is.

Not if you're referring to them specifically and narrowly.

Actually... that's exactly what makes something cherry picking. Referring to them specifically and narrowly not including all that's around them.

But to bring us back around. Burke is just saying that if he traded away our youth he could probably get us into the playoffs but not the cup.

Coming full circle back around to what was being talked about though making it seem like the playoffs were a benefit even if knocked out in the 1st. Is stupid in the context of what Burke is saying. Because all of our youth that would benefit is gone in the trades Burke is mentioning. So not only do we now have a bunch of 30 yr olds out in the first... we also gained little to no benefit from said experience because the youth we wanted that experience for is gone.

It's honestly a moot thing to be talking about.

 

[Kin]

Actually... that's exactly what makes something cherry picking. Referring to them specifically and narrowly not including all that's around them.

Sweet googly moogly. Where were you when I was in Grad school? "NO responding to specific points! Only summaries!"

But to bring us back around. Burke is just saying that if he traded away our youth he could probably get us into the playoffs but not the cup.

Coming full circle back around to what was being talked about though making it seem like the playoffs were a benefit even if knocked out in the 1st. Is stupid in the context of what Burke is saying. Because all of our youth that would benefit is gone in the trades Burke is mentioning. So not only do we now have a bunch of 30 yr olds out in the first... we also gained little to no benefit from said experience because the youth we wanted that experience for is gone.

It's honestly a moot thing to be talking about.

That's just nonsense. Burke isn't talking about trading away the whole team. He's talking about trading away some young players and parts of the prospect base.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Also, Crawford does have a cup and a Jack Adams.

And since then he's gotten out of the 2nd round once and missed the playoffs 7 times in 13 seasons. I'm with CF on this one.

 

[losveratos]

Actually... that's exactly what makes something cherry picking. Referring to them specifically and narrowly not including all that's around them.

Sweet googly moogly. Where were you when I was in Grad school? "NO responding to specific points! Only summaries!"

But to bring us back around. Burke is just saying that if he traded away our youth he could probably get us into the playoffs but not the cup.

Coming full circle back around to what was being talked about though making it seem like the playoffs were a benefit even if knocked out in the 1st. Is stupid in the context of what Burke is saying. Because all of our youth that would benefit is gone in the trades Burke is mentioning. So not only do we now have a bunch of 30 yr olds out in the first... we also gained little to no benefit from said experience because the youth we wanted that experience for is gone.

It's honestly a moot thing to be talking about.

That's just nonsense. Burke isn't talking about trading away the whole team. He's talking about trading away some young players and parts of the prospect base.

Actually.... if you even bothered to read what he said which is not only on the website CW linked but also in the "BIG BOLDED AREA" too. He specifically said all the kids. Not some... not a couple. And certainly not some + parts of the prospect base.

My God... if you're going to argue about what someone said read the damn thing.