I agree with you KingLeerKingLeer said:
. Carter will price himself out of the market .
Last edited:
Canucks Sign Jan Bulis
- Thread starter KingLeer
- Start date
. Carter will price himself out of the market .Uh...I wouldn't count on it. He's 27 and couldn't even make Atlanta who thought so highly of him that they packaged a 5th round pick with him and got only a conditional pick back. Their 4th line will probably consist of Reid/Burrows/Linden with Green and Bouck as extras. They'll also give King and Schultz a shot well before Santala.
was that really due to Burke or was that really due to the fact thatwilde said:
Scott wanted to play with his brother? I heard on BCTV (for what that's worth) and one of the sports radio programs (Pratt and Taylor) that Scott could have been signed for the Canucks -- now, maybe that was wishful thinking because he was 'available', but if he wanted to be out West and wanted to play with his brother then how hard was it for Burke to get a good deal???
Burke is famous for dumping salary, and considering the shit he got from Sergie's little brother, the Federov name probably held no special meaning for Burke so this is not really a brilliant move but one of his 'I'll drive him to the airport myself' moves. That he got a good player in return has been known to happen ... but what did he do for the Canucks that was comparable???wilde said:
another 'anywhere but Edmonton' player who moved someplace warmer.wilde said:
off the top of my head: missed last year, lockout, out in first round previous three years ... yippee!wilde said:
and it could have gone the other way too ... however, Selanne was alway talented and motivated (maybe he can inspire Naslund?)wilde said:
and finally: how many teams has he been GM of that have won Stanley Cups????
Just to show the depth of my ignorance, I don't even know the GM's of Detroit or Colorado, but i would consider them 'successful' teams ...
exciting teams, winning teams, sell-out crowds teams ... and almost always considered contenders ...
so is Burke a better GM than the guys managing those teams?
I'd definitely rank him higher than Bobby Clark or the nut that was running the Islanders or the Rangers or Phil Esposito ... and probably better than Nonis, but let's give him a season first ...
Even if you could find a picture of the the Buffalo GM humping a pig with Lindy Ruff whipping his ass, Buffalo is not making that trade. Even if they did, we still couldnt afford $5 Mill for Briere.KYG said:
And after reading your last rant Lonely Ghost...I suggest you switch to baseball. If you say you don't know anything about baseball, at least that will even up with what you know about hockey.
i don't copy and paste every post ... i copied and pasted the infomassageseeker said:
on two players from TSN ... would you like a citation with that?
second, i don't respond well to personal attacks ... disagree with me it you like, and say i'm wrong but then back it up yourself like Wilde did in his post that i responded to above.
i don't mind admitting that i'm wrong or apologizing if necessary -- there's lots of others here who will attest to that,
but call me names and you can forget any civility back from me.
hey, maybe I can get a job hosting a sports radio program!KingLeer said:
or am I over-qualified?
None, but each year 29 GMs fail to win the cup. Does that make them chop liver?LonelyGhost said:
That would be Ken Holland and Francois Giguere (the "successful" one that you refer to was Pierre Lacroix).LonelyGhost said:
Those teams were successful in the pre-cap days because they have a shit load of money to burn and therefore can buy their way out of trouble. Outbidding your rivals because you have more cash is not really a skill.
And in the post-cap NHL, look what your "successful" teams did. Detroit out in the 1st round, Colorado sweeped by Burke's Ducks in the 2nd. I am so glad you brought them up.
Most definitely.LonelyGhost said:
I knew you were going to say that.LonelyGhost said:
So next time when you quote, don't be too selective. I already said they were crap in the playoffs.wilde said:
p.s. I know the majority is not always right but take a closer look at the posts in this thread. Most (actually all except you) is of the opinion that Brian Burke is an excellent GM. And you need some thicker skin, I can think of a lot worst "personal attacks" than calling someone totally clueless.
Last edited:
and it takes one voice to say the Emperor has no clothes! If Burke proves me wrong in my opinion then goody for the Ducks! But I have still not seen compelling evidence that Burke is an excellent GM, so I'll just be the lone dissenter.wilde said:
And I do apologize for over-reacting to your clueless comment, you have been very helpful and patient in answering questions that others consider 'common knowledge' or 'self evident'.
I think Burke's track record speaks for itself. Wilde brought up some good examples of what he's done and is capable of doing.LonelyGhost said:
In fact, I'm willing to bet that if Burke had stayed on as Canuck GM, he still would've landed Scott Niedermayer and that alone would've made a big difference. At worst, given the team's slide late in the season, Burke would've made the RIGHT moves to make sure the team made the playoffs first, then possibly make more drastic moves in the offseason, if needed.
Is it a coincidence that the Canucks drop from 3rd to 9th in the standings and miss the playoffs after Burke leaves, while the Ducks not only make a huge 21 pt improvement over the previous season, but make a convincing run in the playoffs?
On the hockey side of things, Burke has built a team with strong goaltending (assuming there isn't a big controversy between Giguere and Bryzgalov), one of the best defensive corps in the league, some veteran leadership up front with plenty of young up and coming talent up front. Most importantly, the ducks have developed a solid team chemistry esp. after Burke made his signature moves.
On the financial side, the ducks were a finanical mess before Burke arrived. One season was all Burke needed to restore profitability and fiscal discipline. Someone else pointed out that only Burke could fix the Islanders. I woudl agree to that
As the coming NHl season nears, I bet every major hockey rag will pick the ducks (or maybe the sharks) to top the pacific division
Burke's every success is the Canucks' loss..now only time will tell us whether Nonis is up to snuff
When the Ducks lost to the Oil in the playoffs, one major factor was the superior play of Pronger. Burke recognized this and wasted no time in beating other GMs to the punch in landing him.
Re-signing Selanne to a 1 yr deal was another good move. Although the ducks haven't made too many other major moves, Burke can tinker with the roster further by trading Giguere for some insurance up front
Re-signing Selanne to a 1 yr deal was another good move. Although the ducks haven't made too many other major moves, Burke can tinker with the roster further by trading Giguere for some insurance up front
Canucks sign Jan Bulis
.
I think most off topic/original thread was about the Canucks signing of Jan BulisKingLeer said:
.
counterfactuals are interesting, but little evidence to support that conclusionjimbo2006 said:
unless Scott publicly admits he signed because of Burke and not because he wanted to be out west and/or play with his brother.
well, the Canucks were basically the SAME team that Burke compiled over the years ... so was it just Burke? Crow? Bert? Chemistry?jimbo2006 said:
and same with the Ducks ... was that Burke? new players? coaching?
okay, so here is what I consider the first 'objective criteria' that could be used to compare all GM's the same way ... we can ignore some of the 'intangibles' like coaching, team chemistry etc. and concentrate on simple economic indicators -- increased season ticket sales, revenues, profits -- but only if the GM is in charge of those factors.jimbo2006 said:
and ironically, Nonis is Burke's protege ... so we will see if the 'formula' works.jimbo2006 said:
I may not know hockey, but if someone tells me that Burke is an excellent GM and then only gives me 'cherry picked' stats that cannot be used to determine how well any other GM is doing, then its not an objective criteria.
For example, does Burke have the absolute final say on every player on the ice? Ownership has no say? the Coach has no say? What about the contracts? How the players are coached? Do we then blame Burke if the 'product' doesn't produce? Do we blame the Coach? the Team Chemistry? the bloody schedule? ice conditions? the fans?
So what about financials? Burke turned the Canucks around on that, but did he put a better team on the ice? Was it better for the financials but not for their chemistry/performance? So are the Canucks successful because they have great financials, lots of season ticket holders, sold out games but miss the playoffs or out in the first round for five years (including lock-out)???
Or is it about great trades? Leadership? What is the measure of a GM???
Until someone answers that in a manner that can be objectively applied to any other GM (including Garth Snow!) then its all 'opinion' and we know what those are worth.
And I'll stick by mine.
Not likely...
Naslund has a no trade contract. Knowing him, he won't even consider living in Buffalo and Edmonton doesn't need him.Pudgy said:
