[News] Feaster and Weisbrod relieved of duties. Burke will hire a new GM

[newts]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But if King and ownership meddled in hockey operations, how do they have more credibily than Feaster? It's King and Murray who have zero credibility when it comes to hockey. So the issue is whether they can keep their mitts off hockey operations.

And if the concern out there is about autonomy, I'm not sure how the prospect of Burke looking over his shoulder will be appealing to a GM candidate.

King/ownership gained back credibility with the hiring of Burke, thus creating a president of hockey operations run by a "hockey" guy. In some part an admission by king/ownership that their meddling and the lack of having this role had become an organizational weakness and an oversight.

A lot easier for a president & owner to disappear out of the public eye and go back to doing what they do best, oversee the organization from a macro level. Not so easy for a front line management guy like feaster who is under a microscope, and made mistakes (namely ROR) that are difficult to recover from. Certainly king/ownership deserve blame, after all they put feaster in the GM role; but hiring Burke was their move and thus any success moving forward with Burke and the hockey operations department (assuming/hoping that there will be) will have kings/ownerships fingerprints on it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Husky

Hopefully I got the years right for drafts. I am more of the "what have you done recently". Based on the last half a decade in TO Burke drafting has been downright horrible. His saving grace was a few shrewed trades.

Toronto Draft: Burke GM 2008-2013
2008
Luke Schenn
Jimmy Hayes
Mikhail Stefanovich
Greg Pateryn
Joel Champagne
Jerome Flaake
Grant Rollheiser
Andrew MacWilliam

2009
Nazem Kadri
Kenny Ryan
Jesse Blacker
Jamie Devane
Eric Knodel
Jerry D'Amigo
Barron Smith

2010
Brad Ross
Greg McKegg
Sondre Olden
Petter Granberg
Sam Carrick
Daniel Brodin
Josh Nicholls

2011
Tyler Biggs
Stuart Percy
Joshua Leivo
Tom Nilsson
Tony Cameranesi
David Broll
Dennis Robertson
Garret Sparks
Max Everson

2012
Morgan Rielly
Matt Finn
Dominic Toninato
Connor Brown
Ryan Rupert
Viktor Loov

Ugh... This scares me also.

[OzSome]

I know Feaster will get fired someday but I did not think it will happen before the end of the year. Now, are we going to hear Brian Burke imitating Darryl Sutter's speech before that the best candidate for the position is him?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by polak

Ugh... This scares me also.

Why?
Because scouting sucked, but return for trades was good?
In terms of the draft, you have to trust (or dump) your scouting staff.
What you control as GM is return on trades.

[thefoss1957]

Some quotes from Brian Burke that I would find disturbing, if I were a Flame fan:

"I don’t like playing flag football. I like teams that bang. I don’t like the way we play … we want black and blue hockey here. It’s what we do in Alberta. And that’s the first thing."

"We’ve got to be big and more truculent."

As a Blackhawk fan, I have come to appreciate the success that my team, and the 'Wings, for instance, have had with the finesse game. Trying to turn back the clock to the 90's or even the 70's, with it's "Broad Street Bully" model seems a stone cold FAIL, in this post-lockout NHL.

Looking at recent Stanley Cup Champion trends, it is the teams that SCORE that win, not necessarily the teams that HIT. Post lockout, it has been the NON-physical style of the Blackhawks, that have rung up multiple Cups, and current league leading success. Possession, puck movement, and finishing seem to trump "truculent" play. Example: In Wednesday's action at the UC, the Flyer's played "Black and Blue hockey" (actually, dirty cheapshotting hockey), and all they gained was a parade to the Penalty Box, while the 'Hawks filled the net.

The throwback model that Burke seems to be yearning for, is as dated as clogging a roster with 3 minute a night 4th liners, for their "grit".

For 20 years, the Pulford puppet GMs of the Blackhawks chased that very model...we never did get the elusive "Power Forward" that was required, and had only fleeting success in the Playoffs...even with the immediate post-Lockout teams, the build for that retro, grinding style bore nothing. It was not until Pulford's regime, and that whole mindset was wiped away, and the flowing possession style was embraced (partly by lucking into Kane as a draft pick...and not forcing an incompatible system on him), that consistent, winning, nay, dominant, Hockey came to Chi.

I truly hope that my Flame fan friends here DO find success...but, I do not see that success in Burke's stated desires. What I see is a dinosaur, clinging to an faded model.

[DOOM]

Its hilarious to some of you overreacting to some quotes from Burke...Ugh.

Relax..seriously..

[irrevocable]

I wake up hung over like never before.. flip on my laptop.. *BOOM*

I'm so glad the circus act of Feaster and Weisbrod are gone, gone, goooooone baby! ..rabble....rabble..

..

rabble!! ...jankowski

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Some quotes from Brian Burke that I would find disturbing, if I were a Flame fan:

"I don’t like playing flag football. I like teams that bang. I don’t like the way we play … we want black and blue hockey here. It’s what we do in Alberta. And that’s the first thing."

"We’ve got to be big and more truculent."

As a Blackhawk fan, I have come to appreciate the success that my team, and the 'Wings, for instance, have had with the finesse game. Trying to turn back the clock to the 90's or even the 70's, with it's "Broad Street Bully" model seems a stone cold FAIL, in this post-lockout NHL.

Looking at recent Stanley Cup Champion trends, it is the teams that SCORE that win, not necessarily the teams that HIT. Post lockout, it has been the NON-physical style of the Blackhawks, that have rung up multiple Cups, and current league leading success. Possession, puck movement, and finishing seem to trump "truculent" play. Example: In Wednesday's action at the UC, the Flyer's played "Black and Blue hockey" (actually, dirty cheapshotting hockey), and all they gained was a parade to the Penalty Box, while the 'Hawks filled the net.

The throwback model that Burke seems to be yearning for, is as dated as clogging a roster with 3 minute a night 4th liners, for their "grit".

For 20 years, the Pulford puppet GMs of the Blackhawks chased that very model...we never did get the elusive "Power Forward" that was required, and had only fleeting success in the Playoffs...even with the immediate post-Lockout teams, the build for that retro, grinding style bore nothing. It was not until Pulford's regime, and that whole mindset was wiped away, and the flowing possession style was embraced (partly by lucking into Kane as a draft pick...and not forcing an incompatible system on him), that consistent, winning, nay, dominant, Hockey came to Chi.

I truly hope that my Flame fan friends here DO find success...but, I do not see that success in Burke's stated desires. What I see is a dinosaur, clinging to an faded model.

No, not even close, take a look at the Bruins and Kings Stanley cup winning teams.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by DOOM

No, not even close, take a look at the Bruins and Kings Stanley cup winning teams.

heh...I have visions of last year's SCF, with Kane running circles around Chara!.

My feeling is, though, a team of pure grinders is NOT the best way to build a team for the 2010s...and it seems to be what Burke really wants.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

heh...I have visions of last year's SCF, with Kane running circles around Chara!.

My feeling is, though, a team of pure grinders is NOT the best way to build a team for the 2010s...and it seems to be what Burke really wants.

Anaheim's cup team had players like Getzlaf, Selanne, Perry, Neidermayer, real broad street bullies.

Just try and remember how very bad Chicago was as the laughing stock of the league for a while in order to get Toews and Kane

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

heh...I have visions of last year's SCF, with Kane running circles around Chara!.

My feeling is, though, a team of pure grinders is NOT the best way to build a team for the 2010s...and it seems to be what Burke really wants.

And I have visions of teams winning the cup the prior two years that fit the mold that Burke wants to produce.

Burke doesn't want a team made up of "pure grinders" either.

I usually like your posts, just seems like you are trying to pump up the Blackhawks skill and hate on teams that have won the cup recently in different ways.

[zamler]

The Hawks are a highly skilled team that can get away with not being the most physical club out there. But look at the Kings, the Ducks, the Bruins. These are big teams that punish you.

And I have no idea why people say you don't need good goaltending to win the Cup, the last 3 winners had sensational goaltending.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Burke describes his blueprint in the Behind the Moves book.

Expecting a guy like Butler to move on.

Edit: I should say some key elements of his blueprint

[Itse]

What I'm uncomfortable with is Burke's idea that there is one model.

Last champions: 'Hawks, Kings, Bruins, 'Hawks, Penguins, Wings, Ducks, Hurricanes.

Kings, Bruins and Ducks fit the model, 'Hawks, Penguins, Wings Hurricanes don't, so really, generally speaking the bruising team isn't the one that wins the championship.

The Blackhawks are a team that plays hard, so they tend to look bigger than they are, but it's not about size. It's about having good players and a good team mix.

And that drafting record is absolutely horrid, and since Burke is exactly the type that will meddle with the decisions, I have a hard time believing that it's somehow a product of inferior Leafs scouting.

I guess we'll see. But if there's one thing I've learned to trust as a Flames fan, it's poor management and mediocre coaching.

[dying4acup]

Brian Burke assembled most of the Canucks team that went to the final. If Burke was still there, there would likely have been some toughness on that team and they may have won the cup (ugh)

In Anaheim, a lot of pieces were in place, but Burke did contribute to that (Carlyle, Pronger, Niedermeyer).

Toronto hasn't done much, but the roster that made the playoffs last year was Burkes. And I don't think anybody doubts that the leafs wish they had Colborne right now.

Burke also drafted, developed or acquired players like the Sedins, Naslund, Kadri and Kessel.

One thing many forget is that when Burke took over in Vancouver, he made Manitoba the AHL affiliate and insisted as a condition that Smyl replace Carlyle as head coach as a condition. As a compromise, Carlyle was promoted to GM. Obviously, after working with Carlyle, he saw talent, and chose him to come to Anaheim.

My conclusion is that he is a great evaluator, both in terms of value and talent, in the 20-25year old range. He cuts his losses when he sees his failure, and he surrounds himself with people he trusts. He is also open to people earning his trust. Burke also appreciates TALENT as much as or more than SIZE.

I still don't like the Kessel trade, but at this point I think that even that looks like a win for Burke. There is not a lot of trades that one can look at and say that Burke lost.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But if King and ownership meddled in hockey operations, how do they have more credibily than Feaster? It's King and Murray who have zero credibility when it comes to hockey. So the issue is whether they can keep their mitts off hockey operations.

And if the concern out there is about autonomy, I'm not sure how the prospect of Burke looking over his shoulder will be appealing to a GM candidate.

Well, the idea would be that the person coming in would be working in concert with Burke in a mentor ship role, probably similar to how Burke learned from Pat Quinn. The purpose of Burke would be to insulate this new GM from scrutiny, both from error, and from above the management structure.

That sort of insulation is integral to allow a younger, promising hockey mind to establish themselves.

In my mind, the hiring of Burke is an implicit admission by ownership of the need to establish a separate management structure for hockey operations that is outside the purview of Ken King who is now managing the Calgary Flames Brand.

Burke stressed in the press conference that he organized the presentation in front of the entire ownership and King. He didn't report to King who filed it up the chain, and he didn't meet with one or two owners in a boardroom or a luncheon.

Burke is concentrating power to insulate himself.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

heh...I have visions of last year's SCF, with Kane running circles around Chara!.

My feeling is, though, a team of pure grinders is NOT the best way to build a team for the 2010s...and it seems to be what Burke really wants.

During the intermission, Burke made it clear that is not what he intends to do. He just wants to surround the skilled guys with some big ones. He went out of his way to mention that he thought very highly of Gaudreau for instance.

As for the comments previously about Burke's draft record - Feaster had an uglier one with his time in Tampa. Why didn't that carry forward here? I think it is really difficult to judge the history of a GM's scouting success without looking at patterns that GMs do with scouting staff. For instance, if suddenly he starts poaching scouts from Toronto, and replacing the Calgary scouts with them, we have a problem. Feaster was able to draft better than in Tampa because he not only kept the scouting department intact, but he deferred to the scouting department as to whom he should select. He also added to the scouting department (and I don't think any of them came from his time in Tampa, but I could be wrong).

It takes a few years for GMs to be able to make a change with their scouting department, and see the resulting change. Prospects take a few years to develop usually. It is tough to grade an organization from change through results without giving it time. For instance, I really feel Darryl Sutter made huge strides in the drafting department. Just when it seemed like it was turning around, it was too late. Feaster came in and everyone thinks he is a much better drafting GM, but the fact is that he kept the scouting department intact, and just added a few additional minds to help him out in his own perceived weakness. I wouldn't think Burke or the new GM would come in and change the scouting department too much. They may add a name or two - guys whom they feel they trust from a past track record - but I would be very shocked if the drafting and development department went through much of a change.

As for Burke's quote.. the only thing that continues to annoy me is how he states that the whole league started building bigger teams thanks to his Anaheim Ducks winning the cup. I would argue that it was the Calgary Flames in '04 that came out with their hard-working and physical attitude, steam-rolling all the teams to the final.

[Delthefunky]

We don`t have to be boston, or L.A., but as it stands right now, we are too small. I love how Russell, Hudler, Cammalleri, Stempniak etc are all playing, but when we get injuries, and our best option is Byron, it doesn`t make us that hard to play against. So with guys like Gaudreau coming in next year, we won`t be doing him any favours putting him in that line-up.

I`m not sure exactly what happens going forward, but I wouldn`t be surprised to see guy`s like Cammalleri, Hudler, Stempniak gone by the trade deadline. Not because they`re not skilled, but because they`re not big enough. I guess we`ll see what the return is. But either way they`ll be over 6` tall.

[getbak]

It's not like the Hawks are a tiny team. Andrew Shaw is their smallest player at 5'10" 180lbs. Oduya is their smallest d-man at 6'0" 190lbs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by zamler

The Hawks are a highly skilled team that can get away with not being the most physical club out there. But look at the Kings, the Ducks, the Bruins. These are big teams that punish you.

And I have no idea why people say you don't need good goaltending to win the Cup, the last 3 winners had sensational goaltending.

Also, that first cup winning Blackhawks team was pretty damned big with Ladd, Burrish, Brouwer, Byfuglien, Eager, Seabrook, Hossa and Toews taking regular shifts.