Brian Burke

[868904]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you hire Burke, it's going to be 'Burke's team' and that is precisely what I don't want (not just Burke, but the strategy in general)

But therein lies the problem with this organization, this will never be any GM's team. It will always be ownership and Ken King's team and when you have non-hockey people influencing hockey decisions, you get failure.

No qualified or good GM will want or get hired because they know this will never be "their" team. Any rational GM would rebuild and would say so in an interview and when they do that ownership and King would say "NEXT", until they get to a super desperate and incompetent GM who says "I think we are only a few pieces from winning a StaNley Cup, we don't need to rebuild".

[Enoch Root]

Let me put it another way that might make it easier to see:

You are suggesting the Flames need a new GM and you think Burke is a good candidate.

I am saying that a new GM (especially one like Burke) will not fix anthing here. THat the problem is directional and that has to be fixed first. Once that's fixed, you find a GM that fits the organization.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 868904

But therein lies the problem with this organization, this will never be any GM's team. It will always be ownership and Ken King's team and when you have non-hockey people influencing hockey decisions, you get failure.

No qualified or good GM will want or get hired because they know this will never be "their" team. Any rational GM would rebuild and would say so in an interview and when they do that ownership and King would say "NEXT", until they get to a super desperate and incompetent GM who says "I think we are only a few pieces from winning a StaNley Cup, we don't need to rebuild".

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.

[kyuss275]

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.

Sorry but i think you need to come to grips that the organization does know what it wants. It wants a competitive team that will try and make the playoffs and they want Iggy to retire as a flame. They have made that abundantly clear the last bunch of seasons.

You and I might not agree with that , but that is what ownership wants.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Sorry but i think you need to come to grips that the organization does know what it wants. It wants a competitive team that will try and make the playoffs and they want Iggy to retire as a flame. They have made that abundantly clear the last bunch of seasons.

You and I might not agree with that , but that is what ownership wants.

They may or may not want that, you do not know for sure. However, it is irrelevant to the current argument.

Hiring another GM will solve NOTHING.

The Flames need to replace KK with a president that can run a hockey operation (someone like JD). Until they have a proper vision and strategy at the top, this circus will continue over and over.

Try and imagine a Flames team with Burke at the helm. In two or three years his act would grow thin and then he would be replaced with yet another, completely different character, brought in to fix whatever problem is the issue de jour.

Rince, repeat

[bluejays]

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?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by fleury

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?

To the first paragraph: of course you have to adapt to rule changes, equipment changes, size of players, league direction, etc. Anyone in charge of an organization (i.e. the president) who cannot adapt his strategy to changing environments is not qualified to be in charge. Pretty obvious and straight-forward.

re your example in the second paragraph: an organizational direction has more scope than 'wants a bigger lineup'. I am sorry if you cannot envision that.

Re Burke: with Burke, his direction is what you get. You are right that there was some new ownership and ownership didn't like his direction and style. Thus change. This is precisely the short-term cycle that I would liketo see the Flaems escape from.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

re your example in the second paragraph: an organizational direction has more scope than 'wants a bigger lineup'. I am sorry if you cannot envision that.

I gave a quick example, I know there's more to strategic direction than just "wants a bigger lineup", such as offensive and defensive style, whether to build from goaltending outwards or another philosophy, how to spread the budget (evenly spread-St.Louis or top heavy-Pittsburgh), etc. If you want to pick on a quick example of that's fine, but you still haven't really answered the question yourself of what you meant by sticking to a particular strategy, and really what Burke did so wrong?

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They may or may not want that, you do not know for sure. However, it is irrelevant to the current argument.

Hiring another GM will solve NOTHING.

The Flames need to replace KK with a president that can run a hockey operation (someone like JD). Until they have a proper vision and strategy at the top, this circus will continue over and over.

Try and imagine a Flames team with Burke at the helm. In two or three years his act would grow thin and then he would be replaced with yet another, completely different character, brought in to fix whatever problem is the issue de jour.

Rince, repeat

Again, you're attacking Burke's character over the substance of his deals or strategy. How would his "act would grow thin" would affect the on-ice product? You're basically saying he'd get let go over his brazen attitude and ignoring the possiblity of what he can bring to the on-ice product. Do you not agree with his style of teams built? I just don't get it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by fleury

Again, you're attacking Burke's character over the substance of his deals or strategy. How would his "act would grow thin" would affect the on-ice product? You're basically saying he'd get let go over his brazen attitude and ignoring the possiblity of what he can bring to the on-ice product. Do you not agree with his style of teams built? I just don't get it.

My problem isn't with Burke. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. My problem is the ongoing cycle of bringing in a guy with a new direction/strategy.

I believe direction is organizational (Philaderlphia, Detroit, Nashville on a low budget, more recently St Louis).

What I am saying is, get the organizational direction established with the right president.

Then find a GM that fits the organization.

I don 't dislike Burke. I am simply saying that hiring a Burke is yet another attempt to spin the wheel and try yet another new collection of decisions. And in a few years, do it again.

[Tinordi]

Utterly agree with Enoch. The rot starts at the top with ownership and Mr. Rock Solid Plan King.

They do not understand what it takes to build a contender it is painfully obvious. King stated clearly two or three seasons ago that the organizational strategy is to be competitive every season.

There's either one of two things wrong then. A) we have not been competitive in 3 seasons at least (arguably 4 or 5) so they are failing the strategy or B) the strategy is failed itself. The mountains of evidence suggest that B is the problem. So you can bring in new GMs like Burke to try and execute the strategy but if it's the wrong one then no amount of execution will get you there.

The only way a guy like Burke would be successful is if he replaced King not Feaster.

[Otto29]

No. Never. For the love of all things sacred....NO!

/close thread

[Otto29]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The only way a guy like Burke would be successful is if he replaced King not Feaster.

Ok...i'll explain this for you

President - In charge of the club's business operations

GM - In charge of the clubs hockey operations

You see now why that statement you made is total BS?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ok...i'll explain this for you

President - In charge of the club's business operations

GM - In charge of the clubs hockey operations

You see now why that statement you made is total BS?

They can be both though. Heck, Burke wouldn't even have to worry to much of the business side since King could still handle that. Burke would just have to handle anything in regard to the product of the ice, front office, and the vision of the club.

If the ownership is willing to do that, then it may address the issue Enoch brought up. Until the ownership is willing to be honest with itself and make a new realistic direction for the franchise, then find the person that can set execute it, nothing is going to change.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Ok...i'll explain this for you

President - In charge of the club's business operations

GM - In charge of the clubs hockey operations

You see now why that statement you made is total BS?

There are several teams now that have a President (or Vice President) of Hockey Operations, who is not also the GM.

[Otto29]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There are several teams now that have a President (or Vice President) of Hockey Operations, who is not also the GM.

Yes I do understand that. The point is that the case was being made to replace King with Burke. My point is to define why that's a horrible idea

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Otto29

Yes I do understand that. The point is that the case was being made to replace King with Burke. My point is to define why that's a horrible idea

Just because one is a business operations position, and the other is hockey operations, it doesn't mean they're exclusive. They work with eachother regularly. Your explaination isn't much of one as to why Burke wouldn't be a good President. Personally, I think he's astute enough to be President as he is very intuned with business decision making, but his hockey operations would be better suited for the Flames as has been shown by his deal history. Giving him both would probably not work out well as evidence by the few teams who've attempted it (including Sutter's stint).

[bluck]

Can we start a petition to bring this man in please? Maybe with the Fire Feaster threads and this Burke thread the media will take notice and push for it.. one can dream right?

[To Be Quite Honest]

No.

[bluck]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

No.

Really insightful, I applaud your contribution.