Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
As I said before, the reason that it will never be their team is that the organiztion doesn't know what it wants (and that has to come first). They keep giving guys the reins only to pull them back when they see where the guy is going. And that is exactly what happened in Toronto - they hired Burke and then got frightened by what he was doing.
Look at good, stable orgainizations, they can move seemlessly form one GM to their successor? Why? Are they yes men? No. They have autonomy. But the organiztional philosophy doesn't change, therefore they can continue on seemlessly.
I know that strategic planning isn't for everyone. But it is vital.
And providing an organizational direction and vision IS NOT the same as taking away their autonomy. Those are different things.
|
I agree with having a strategy, but sometimes that can change. Example, pre-lockout 2004, clutch and grab game; post-lockout 2004, more freestyle higher tempo game. The game has now evolved to skilled forwards relied on for scoring surrounded by higher energy supporting cast who can skate and check. The game evolves, and sometime you have to change your vision as different opportunities become available, regardless if it goes against your originial philosophy. If they Flames continued loading up on big slow forwards post 2004, they'd continuously be among the last in the league.
While I'm not advocating this, just using it as an example (because I'm all for getting younger and rebuilding at this point), if TB came to Feaster and said I'll give you St. Louis for a 2nd and Gaudreau, even though the Flames may have a philosophy (hypothetically) of icing a bigger lineup or may be in the process of rebuilding, that deal can make you better now, but can also get your younger players to play at a higher level, though it costs you a younger player. Maybe down the road Gaudreau may be better, but if it elevates the rest of the prospects to be much better, it may work out. It's probably not the best example, but sometimes a strategy has to change depending on what deals are made available to the GM.
As for your comment on Burke, how did ownership get frightened at what he was doing? They got new ownership, he didn't rub them the right way as he likely seem them as meddling in hockey affairs where they had no business doing, and they wanted a change of face. Everyone is always going to point to Burke's Kessel deal, which wasn't a terrible deal by any stretch, but it's certainly a cop out by ignoring his other deals. He didn't do any huge detrimental deals to the organization, so again, I ask what exactly were Leafs ownership frightened about that he was doing?