Tom Anselmi and MLSE

[Peter D.]

Who would've thought the Rask deal would set into motion  a decade of wandering the desert. He would've been our #1 two or more years ago.

But we had Justin Pogge! 

That trade to this day still has my blood boiling whenever I hear or think about it.

EDIT: This goes back to Nik's point, but there is absolutely no way I will ever believe ownership told JFJ to make this deal.

I don't think ownership has that kind of insight.  I think if ownership is making demands to it's GM's then it's more along the lines of "Get a starting goalie", or "Flush out your pitching" or "Why have you gone through so many point guards when you have one that seems to be eager and capable of playing the position, but yet you refuse to use him as the starter?" 

I doubt very highly that the mandate from ownership was "Get us Andrew Raycroft."

Precisely.  And that's why I am in complete agreeance with Nik that even if ownership asks those questions and gives the GM an ultimatum, as narrow/short-sighted as it may it, it doesn't excuse the GM of his decisions.

On the other hand, when ownership steps in and starts making decisions themselves and forcing them upon the GM (ie. the Domi signing), that's an entirely different issue on itself.

 

[Redleaf]

Who would've thought the Rask deal would set into motion  a decade of wandering the desert. He would've been our #1 two or more years ago.

But we had Justin Pogge! 

That trade to this day still has my blood boiling whenever I hear or think about it.

EDIT: This goes back to Nik's point, but there is absolutely no way I will ever believe ownership told JFJ to make this deal.

I don't think ownership has that kind of insight.  I think if ownership is making demands to it's GM's then it's more along the lines of "Get a starting goalie", or "Flush out your pitching" or "Why have you gone through so many point guards when you have one that seems to be eager and capable of playing the position, but yet you refuse to use him as the starter?" 

I doubt very highly that the mandate from ownership was "Get us Andrew Raycroft."

Agreed.

 

[SchenNeuf]

From what I've read this wasn't really a snap decision, it started with the meetings back in August and dissatisfaction with Burke at the time.

If they want something more corporate to represent their shiny new toy, have at it, but it raises my hackles and furthers my disinterest.

Someone wrote today, can't remember if it was Mirtle or Cox, that Cope wanted Burke gone from the start and made that known in meetings in August. Tannenbaum and Rogers were unwilling to play ball at the time, and it was only now that Cope finally convinced them and got his way.

When the guy said something along the lines of "when you make this decision you don't sit on it...you can't fake it" that to cynical me translates pretty much directly to "we made this decision and sat on it until now".  My guess is that they sat on this until the lockout was over and had been planning for a quite a while to pull the trigger on the day it ended.

It may have been that the Bell CEO, Cope, arrived in that place last summer but didn't have the other board of directors, from Rogers & Tanenbaum, onside until recently. From the description of Tanenbaum at the BoG meetings yesterday, he still didn't seem very enthusiastic for Burke's firing after it went down. With only 25% control, he's largely just a figurehead chairman of the board who can be a tie breaker in a Rogers-Bell dispute over MLSE direction. Publicly, he'll probably say he supports it but privately, based upon his actions and appearance, he didn't appear very supportive.

As I understand it, the fact that he only owns 25% isn't really the issue. The problem for Larry is that Bell and Rogers have an agreement in place that requires the four board members they appoint to the board to vote together, which is not uncommon.  In turn, there would never be an instance where Tanenbaum and Lastman would act as a tiebreaker, which is why they really are powerless in this regard.  Basically, every vote of the MLSE board will be 4-2, 5-1 or 6-0, with the two Rogers and two Bell appointees always being contractually obligated to vote together.  Basically, Rogers and Bell have to reach a unanimous decision amongst themselves and, in turn, that effectively becomes the decision of the MLSE board.  More often than not, my guess is that you'll see Tanenbaum and Lastman vote the same way as the others just to maintain an appearance of unanimity, as a 4-2 versus a 6-0 vote are the same thing.  There's no doubt in my mind that Cope was the driving force behind firing Burke, but he was powerless to act without Rogers' and Mohamed's agreement. For whatever reason, it took until now for Cope to convince them to support him.  Ultimately, I would guess that the timing and the decision had nothing to do with anything hockey related and the odd timing was more of a coincidence than anything else. I think this was really just back office dealing where Bell gave Rogers something it wanted in exchange for its agreement to vote in favour of firing Burke.    what that something was? we'll likely never know.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Didn't think it deserved it's own thread yet...

Nick Kypreos ‏@RealKyper

Can definitively say preliminary discussions within MLSE have taken place. "@FadooBobcat: Gretzky next Prez. of the Leafs? There is a buzz"

 

[Redleaf]

Didn't think it deserved it's own thread yet...

Nick Kypreos ‏@RealKyper

Can definitively say preliminary discussions within MLSE have taken place. "@FadooBobcat: Gretzky next Prez. of the Leafs? There is a buzz"

Yeah. Saw this too. Chalk it up to 'heavy speculation' on Kippers part.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Well here ya go:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

TML presidency one of few jobs in hockey 99 would seriously consider but no direct contact between MLSE and Gretzky camp has been made.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

There likely was informal 3rd party inquiries - after Bell/Rogers took over Aug but none in last 2 months - and perhaps internal MLSE talks.

 

[Redleaf]

Well here ya go:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

TML presidency one of few jobs in hockey 99 would seriously consider but no direct contact between MLSE and Gretzky camp has been made.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

There likely was informal 3rd party inquiries - after Bell/Rogers took over Aug but none in last 2 months - and perhaps internal MLSE talks.

After watching MLSE severely botch the Burke firing, I would think Gretzky may be a little apprehensive aligning himself with this group. Not sure how much 'power' the job actually holds. Isnt it really more of a figurehead position?

 

[Mike1]

I agree with that but, even if someone were to think that the board at the time was only set on having a relatively quick turnaround that still doesn't constitute pressure being put on Burke to make the Kessel trade or any other deal. If his mandate was to quickly improve the team, there were lots of ways to do it that didn't involve trading first round picks. There were trades out there that weren't Phaneuf or Kessel, free agents besides Komisarek and Connolly.

No matter what the strategy was Burke, like JFJ, still is ultimately responsible for the poor decisions he made in pursuit of that goal.

I disagree. Strategy is just as important as any trade you make when you run a franchise. You have to be realistic about where the team is. When you form a strategy that isn't achievable that puts the franchise on the wrong path, which leads to short sighted moves that can set the organization back.

This internal pressure to "turn around quickly" is one the biggest reasons why the Leafs have been in the bottom of the league for so long. They were never in a situation during the past 8 years where a quick turnaround has ever been realistic. The lack of a methodical approach has put the team in this situation.

 

[Kin]

I disagree. Strategy is just as important as any trade you make when you run a franchise. You have to be realistic about where the team is. When you form a strategy that isn't achievable that puts the franchise on the wrong path, which leads to short sighted moves that can set the organization back.

Regardless, that doesn't insulate you from criticism regarding whether or not those moves actually worked in the sense that you acquired the right players or got good value for your assets. Regardless of strategy, those are achievable goals.

This internal pressure to "turn around quickly" is one the biggest reasons why the Leafs have been in the bottom of the league for so long.

Leaving aside that said pressure is largely conjecture I'd agree. It's one of the reasons. Another though, and as big a reason if not bigger, is the lack of good decision making by the GM's over that time span.

 

[Kin]

After watching MLSE severely botch the Burke firing, I would think Gretzky may be a little apprehensive aligning himself with this group. Not sure how much 'power' the job actually holds. Isnt it really more of a figurehead position?

Keeping in mind that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how MLSE handled the Burke firing, I find it hard to imagine that Gretzky would be realistically on the lookout for a job that comes with a great deal of decision making authority on the hockey end.

 

[bustaheims]

dshoalts: Two sources close to MLSE board say there is nothing to the notion of the company looking at Wayne Gretzky as CEO or president or whatever.

 

[Redleaf]

After watching MLSE severely botch the Burke firing, I would think Gretzky may be a little apprehensive aligning himself with this group. Not sure how much 'power' the job actually holds. Isnt it really more of a figurehead position?

Keeping in mind that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how MLSE handled the Burke firing, I find it hard to imagine that Gretzky would be realistically on the lookout for a job that comes with a great deal of decision making authority on the hockey end.

Then what is the lure of the position for Gretzky?  Keep in mind that not everyone may agree with your answer. 

 

[Kin]

Then what is the lure of the position for Gretzky?

Well, if the endless deluge of Ford, McDonalds, JVC, Nintendo and ESSO commercials over the last 35 years or so are any hint the man has no aversion to putting money in his pocket.

 

[Redleaf]

Then what is the lure of the position for Gretzky?

Well, if the endless deluge of Ford, McDonalds, JVC, Nintendo and ESSO commercials over the last 35 years or so are any hint the man has no aversion to putting money in his pocket.

So he would consider the job of President in order to line his pockets with money. Gotcha.

 

[Kin]

So he would consider the job of President in order to line his pockets with money. Gotcha.

Well, I don't want to shatter your worldly illusions or anything but a paycheck is the reason most people consider taking a job.

But heck, I don't know, there are lots of reasons he might be interested in the job. He's a lifelong TML fan who's never gotten a chance to associate with the club professionally, his elderly father lives closeby and he might want to spend more time with him, the position may have a number of corporate/business responsibilities that could prove challenging/valuable to him professionally.

But none of that was my point. Gretzky hasn't shown much of an interest in pursuing a job on the hockey operations side of things outside of coaching a team that he had an ownership stake in so the fact that this job might not have a great deal of authority over the hockey operations probably wouldn't rule him out.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Didn't think it deserved it's own thread yet...

Nick Kypreos ‏@RealKyper

Can definitively say preliminary discussions within MLSE have taken place. "@FadooBobcat: Gretzky next Prez. of the Leafs? There is a buzz"

Yeah. Saw this too. Chalk it up to 'heavy speculation' on Kippers part.

website here
link
.

Personally I wouldn't want to see Wayne Gretzky in a management capacity with the Leafs.  His past shows that he doesn't try to get people jobs that would have merit rather he would try to get old friends jobs.  He prefers nepotism to meritocracy.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Gretzky would be a G.D.J. as Leafs President!
No Thanks!

 

[hockeyfan1]

It wouldn't surprise me if Gretzky becomes Pres. of the Leafs. 

Anything can happen in Leafland.