Morning Mashup: Burke Being Fehr

by on July 8, 2011 in Leafs News - 145 Comments

Share

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Written in collaboration with Alec Brownscombe

There are still people who think that Burke should have been willing to, in order to land Brad Richards, join in on the cap circumvention party with a front loaded deal with bogus years attached at the end of it. Whether or not you agree with Burke’s business morals here is secondary;  on the management side of things, its simply responsible and smart to not engage in these deals, especially with a new CBA looming. Basically, the league can’t prove these players won’t play out the duration of their contracts until they, well, don’t. Then you can expect penalties, and only then can we argue those deals as smart or the complete opposite.

Our guess is that these teams are going to regret going postal in this year’s free agency come the next CBA. As Leafs fans we know, or should know, this lesson all too well, as the Leafs were burdened by older players on not so good contracts after the lockout. The Leafs are poised to potentially exploit these overpaying teams as soon as this fall, as Rick Dudley pointed out, when they find themselves in a cap crunch. As we all know, when you sign these deals, unless you’re Burke and you need to get rid of Blake, Toskala or Lebda (not a prime example but one that brings a smile to the face anyway), the solution is often separate from the problem. GMs are forced to trade off quality young assets alongside a salary dump in order to mend the situation and get their franchise back on track.

It seems Jeff Blair, in his latest piece in the G&M (see below), is suggesting the Leafs should be irresponsibly flexing their financial muscle, and should’ve done exactly that to win the Richards sweepstakes. However, there are two ways of going about using your financial advantage: the smart way and the Sather way. The Richards deal is an example of the latter. The Franson deal is the right way to use your financial position, and flexible cap situation, to “buy” an asset. Lombardi was on an uninsured contract and Nashville’s budget couldn’t afford it. Burke picks up Franson because he can either look at Lombardi as a business expense if he goes on LTIR, or, if he does return, Burke hasn’t committed too much of his cap to say a Richards and can use his cap flexibility to take on Lombardi in order to get Franson. Of course, he will hope that Lombardi proves to not be just a salary makeweight but a useful asset like Lupul, who was acquired in a pretty similar situation – supposedly as the “price” to make the Gardiner for Beauchemin deal work.

The decision to sign Connolly as a stopgap may leave the leafs without a long term solution at number one center, but it does buy development time for this long term foundation to keep strengthening without handcuffing the team cap wise. As a result Burke is also still in a position to trade for a younger number one center on a better deal. Burke’s best trades have come in February/march when the pressure points create good trading situations. As things stand now, the big question everyone is asking is – Is this a playoff roster?

LEAF LINKS:

Jeff Blair of The Globe and Mail asks- Could Burke do more? – Our direct counterpoint regarding this article

Leafs Nation Online looks at our 3rd line

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Tyler Bozak

NHL LINKS:

Financial storm on the horizon? Nicholas J. Cotsonika has the story

Varlamov glad to join franchise he rooted for growing up in Russia

Simmonds finally inks with the Flyers, THN has the story

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Print article

  • Andrew R
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    That is the beauty of this game bud….if you’re team plays well defensively, you get goaltending and you play as a team, anything and I mean anything is possible!!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    True, but with a new tv deal in the States and the healthy Canadian dollar helping all Canadian teams make great profits, there is no problems with the revenues for the league…individual teams, yes, but not the league.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    Good points. I can see the Cap reduced but not the players contract amounts. That will create more problems for teams who spend to the League Max than the marginal teams with an internal budget / cap.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • dlb

    holy shit balls, my 5 year old is beating me … MLB 11 home run derby with the Move. …is fun

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • dlb
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    Folks, we all have an opinion that’s open for debate but I don’t see any place for these personal attacks. This site was the best going up until these past few months and is discouraging to see people attacking others for what their opinion was.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • wendelsknuckles

    what the H double hockey sticks are you talking about?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    You would swear by some of these personal attacks that we are all cheering for separate teams

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • tron

    I agree NewieDave, argue the point not attack the person

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    I usually do….but it is the same comment from him time and time again and it gets annoying…it’s always an attack on Burke, which ever way he can angle it…if he’s got something positive to say, then fine, but quit with the attacks on Burke…we know his opinion on that.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rustynail

    That door swings both ways if you don’t want to be attacked don’t attack others.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Burtonboy

    Its your opinion that Burke made a serious mistake on one contract that has cost this club several years in its rebuild . Ok that’s fine but I still feel the jury is still out on that trade and time will tell.. You simply can’t argue the man has made not an enormous effort to rebuild what was a club in horrendous shape.. If there is one mistake that Burke made it was his initial analysis of where this organization was when he took over. Like he has said several times if you make a mistake then fix it as soon as possible. That is whats taking place right now. Andrew you must be able to see we have come a long way from where we were only 3 short years ago. Patience is the key here as Burke and company have obviously had to change course somewhat due to the ever changing situation we see right now in the NHL. Burke is very smart not doing these wonky deals like the Rags just did with Richards and I say bully for him for not doing so. The only other way we could have been in on Richards was to pay out the equivalent of 57 mil over a 6 yr term. I for one can’t even contemplate carrying that kind of cap hit for 6yrs. That my friend is as bad or worst then the Vinny contract.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rustynail

    For clarification won’t Burke have actually been here 3 years on November 29?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • luke
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • tron

    completely agree with your point as well Rusty.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    Yes, that is correct Sir.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Burtonboy

    Me thinks the NHL has a lot of work to do my friend. Parity was the goal and it sure a hell didn’t turn out that way

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • dlb

    “If there is one mistake that Burke made it was his initial analysis of where this organization was when he took over.”
    - something Burke has admitted to himself
    - i understand Andrew R’s point regarding signing a free player the calibre of Richards, i disagree with how much of a miss it was
    - i disagree with Andrew R’s assessment of the trade for Kessel being akin to trading away the future because that’s rediculous because odds were always in our favour that the known commodity in Kessel be better than any unknowns that we would have dealt away … the only way we can know for sure, just like Burke has always said, is to wait and see and judge the trade in hindsight

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)