Burke Speaks - January 30, 2014

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Good to hear about Russell. The backlund comment could mean a lot of different things depending on context so I would not get worked up about it.

I was freaking out about the return of Sutter stuff 2 months ago when Burke became GM but am sorta over it now.

If Burke loved the picks and acqusitions of Feaster's rebuild the he and Weisbrod would still be around. We'll know what rebuild #2 looks like when Burke gets through the deadline and draft and July 1st...or is it 5th again?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

CP a week ago: We love Burkie!

CP today: Burke is stupid!

CP in 4 days: Burkie is best!

Haha! That's exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread. Don't worry CP. After Burke's next luncheon we will all be back to praising him.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's amazing you can pull that last line while calling Burke arrogant. Unbelievable.

Burke never compared the two. You did. Burke said he only liked the 2013 draft. Does that mean it's set to produce more NHL talent than 2011? No.

Perhaps he likes it best because it was the most balanced. Perhaps he likes it best because he thinks the top end is higher in a few guys. Perhaps he thinks it's best because he just plain old like Sean Monahan.

It's really incredible that you actually need to put words in Burke's mouth just so you can then argue about them. Seriously man, chill out, you aren't even arguing against anything Burke SAID at this point.

You're right, this is a discussion board, so how about you try to discuss things instead of "BURKE IS WRONG THERE IS NO DEBATE"... doesn't sound like you're up for discussion to me.

Agree with your points, but to be fair, aren't you putting words in Burke's mouth? I wasn't there to hear Burke speak, but there's a difference between liking a draft best (2013) and only liking the 2013 draft (meaning he didn't like the others). Personally, I think it's a dumb thing to say as it pushes a lot of people under the bus.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

All Burke says about these guys is negative.

Negative feedback is fine in moderation. 100% negative feedback creates a terrible environment.

Is there any recent draft pick he has praised besides Monahan?

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone had thicker skin. But I sure as hell wouldn't be happy if my boss criticized every document I wrote or every presentation I made at work. I wouldn't stay there long.

He gave contracts to Kanzig, Poirier and Klimchuk, is that considered praise?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

All Burke says about these guys is negative.

Negative feedback is fine in moderation. 100% negative feedback creates a terrible environment.

Is there any recent draft pick he has praised besides Monahan?

Agree with you about the negativity overall, mentioned it earlier in the thread and it is the biggest gripe I have with Burke's form of leadership.

But in regards to comments made today I don't think he said anything that bad.

Even the Gaudreau comment was fine. Said he likes him, said he has great skills but said that he is tiny. Nothing there is false, even though Gaudreau is a sensation at the college level he is in tough at the NHL level due to his size.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Drafting for size and character... sounds like Sutter drafting plan v2.0.

This is my fear as well. I think Burke brings a lot of the great leadership qualities to the organization that Sutter brought, but he also scares me in that he seems very stubborn about what he wants and won't think outside that box.

Also, I don't know why he'd be calling out Backlund's skating when the kid is playing the best hockey of his career.

Burke knows best (I hope).

[CaramonLS]

HEADLINE: Burke refuses to draft McDavid, number too high.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I don't understand why Burke has to publicly criticize previous drafts. Some things he should keep to himself, nothing good can come of it so why even bother saying it?

[djsFlames]

Bennett is 6'0 185lbs. That's an alright size. Besides you can't pass up that talent level if Reinhart and Ekblad are taken, it would be a big mistake.

Also 2011 is probably my favourite Flames draft class in the past decade.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by codynw

He gave contracts to Kanzig, Poirier and Klimchuk, is that considered praise?

No. It's considered managing an organizational asset.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Sometimes I think people on this board don't realize that the players in this organization actually have contact with the management and coaching staff outside of what they say in public.

It's seems like people think our players and prospects only hear what we hear from Burke and sit around stewing about what was said or worry about it. Burke talks with these guys or someone does so I bet a lot that he says in public doesn't catch them off guard, and when it does, he does get to explain in more detail to the player in question.

[sun]

I like the low numbers thing. I don't know why, but I just do.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But that's what Burke just did. He just compared the 2011 and 2013 drafts. Why am I not allowed to disagree? Is this not a discussion board?

The 2011 draft was good because of the picks outside of the first round. All of them are playing above their draft position.

Not a single one of our post-first round picks from 2013 are trending in that direction.

So tell me, would you rather have a prospect that is developing well and playing above is draft position now, or a prospect that has a small chance of being as good as the former player two years from now?

Seriously. I could say that the earth is round and you guys would argue with me

Again I'm right in my analysis.

Landing one top line centre is a good draft. Who cares if the rest of the picks suck. Monahan is likely going to be the best centre the Flames have had since the glory years. Getting one of them makes it a good draft considering the Flames haven't drafted a top notch centre in about 20 years.

In 2006, the Blackhawks had one guy make the NHL (Toews), in 2004 and 2005 they had 11 guys combined make the NHL. That 2006 draft with one guy is the one that wins them Stanley Cups.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by sun

I like the low numbers thing. I don't know why, but I just do.

After Gretzky wore 99 I don't understand why anyone would care.

Do managers think it puts pressure on the players?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Landing one top line centre is a good draft. Who cares if the rest of the picks suck.

My god.

Where are the Oilers now?

[Aarongavey]

I get that the GM is not out scouting junior or college players, but what the GM does do is provide direction to his scouting staff as to the type of player that the organization wants. How else can one explain the difference in Flames drafting tendencies under Darryl and Feaster? Burke likes his big players, in Vancouver he had the following record in terms of the draft

1998 - 12 picks, one player under 6 feet, 2 players under 190 lbs

1999 - Sedin's are over 6 feet but they are sleight of stature in terms of weight. No players under 6 feet, only two under 190 lbs (the Sedin's)

2000 - 2 under 6 feet, 2 under 190 lbs

2001 - 1 under 6 feet, 2 under 190 lbs

2002 - 2 under 6 feet, 4 under 190 lbs

2003 - 2 under 6 feet, 3 under 190 lbs

For the most part he goes for big and heavy.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by nik-

No. It's considered managing an organizational asset.

If he gave them contracts he obviously likes them. If he didn't he would trade their rights to another team.

Also he said he liked the 2013 draft, does that count as praise?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by codynw

If he gave them contracts he obviously likes them. If he didn't he would trade their rights to another team.

Also he said he liked the 2013 draft, does that count as praise?

Giving them contracts doesn't mean he likes them. It's asserting control over the asset for a longer period of time. He may indeed like them, but that's not proven by a contract.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Burke's drafting history

1993 - Chris Pronger 2nd overall, Marek Malik 72rd overall, Nolan Pratt 115th, Manny Legace 188 - pretty good draft for Burke

Pretty good draft? ####ing joke. That was an amazing draft. Burke had said that Pronger was who he thought should have gone first when the rest of the world was drooling over Alexandre "No one remembers number two" Diagle. His next pick, 70 spots later, goes on to play 700 games. He gets another 500+ game player and a goalie who plays close to 400. Take a look at the rest of the teams. Who had a better draft that year? No one.

1999 - Sedin's, nothing else - pretty good draft to get two anchors for your team for the next 10-15 years

It was also just a terrible draft. Unless you got lucky and picked Zetterberg with the 210th pick there wasn't a way to come out of that draft happy. Well except for Burke who orchestrated getting both Sedins in a franchise changing move. We can make fun of the Canucks and the Sedins as much as we want but being unbiased again that was a slaughter by Burke.


You got to look at the individual drafts, draft picks and not just the players. 2005 might not have been a great haul, but again bad draft for near everyone. Mason Raymond is one of the better players from that draft class and he couldn't even get a contract this summer. A lot of teams would have been happy to come away with "just" Ryan that year.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Sometimes I think people on this board don't realize that the players in this organization actually have contact with the management and coaching staff outside of what they say in public.

It's seems like people think our players and prospects only hear what we hear from Burke and sit around stewing about what was said or worry about it. Burke talks with these guys or someone does so I bet a lot that he says in public doesn't catch them off guard, and when it does, he does get to explain in more detail to the player in question.

This.