AJC > Sports Thrashers > Blog > Archives > 2008 > May > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMercy For Maurice In Toronto?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Regardless of if it’s sports, business, a friend, neighbor or family…anytime you hear that someone has recently lost their job, one tends to feel sad and sorry for that person. However, when learning that the Toronto Maple Leafs had relieved Paul Maurice of his duties as head coach, some may feel a sense of relief for him instead of grief.
The 41-year old native of Sault St. Marie, Ontario was fired Wednesday and, as Scott Burnside of ESPN.com indicates, the news should probably cause reason for celebration rather than sorrow. His future with the Leafs had been in doubt ever since general manager John Ferguson, Jr. was shown the door shortly before the trade deadline and Cliff Fletcher took over the job on an “interim” basis. Maurice had coached Toronto for two seasons, both with winning records, (an overall mark of 76-65-22). Regardless, he failed to take his team to the post-season…two years ago falling short by a single point.
Maurice was the selection of the Philadelphia Flyers as the 252nd overall pick in the 1985 NHL entry draft. As a defender for the Windsor Spitfires of the Ontario Hockey League, he was struck in the eye with a puck while playing in a charity hockey game. The injury still leaves his vision partially impaired. Team owner Peter Karmanos offered him an opportunity to step behind the bench and he began his coaching career with the Detroit Junior Red Wings, (another team Karmanos owned).
He broke into the NHL ranks as a head coach with the Hartford Whalers in 1995 and remained with that organization as they relocated to Carolina after the ’96-’97 season. In 2002 the Carolina Hurricanes advance to the Stanley Cup Finals but were defeated by the Detroit Red Wings in five games.
Paul Maurice’s overall coaching record is 344-357-99-38 in the regular season and 17-18 in the playoffs.
So, shed no tears for Maurice for losing his job in Toronto, a team some would discribe as a mess and disfunctional. Delight in his liberation from the Maple Leafs right now as they try to figure out just which direction they are to go. He will most certainly be given a shot elsewhere and will likely be better off for it.
The question for you is…do you think that place should be here?
The Pat And Paul Show In Atlanta?
OK, I’ll be the Speculator-in-Chief and offer up this scenario.
We’ve already discussed Pat Quinn, his qualifications and interest in the Thrashers organ-I-zation. Given that, and the comments made recently by ASG co-owner Michael Gearon about Don Waddell, what do think about the prospect of Quinn as GM, Maurice as coach, (sort of the Toronto connection in the ATL), with Waddell retaining his role as Executive VP or moving into a newly created CEO or President gig?
Weekend Reading Assignments
Minnesota’s coach Jacques Lemaire is currently pondering whether or not to remain behind the Wild bench.
Darren Eliot gives credit where credit is due in Philadelphia.
Don’t look now, but there’s another Staal brother poised to enter the NHL.
Lastly, and completely off topic, here is a man who knows how to go out in style!
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By kev
May 9, 2008 6:16 AM | Link to this
well, one thing is for sure, there are plenty of qualified candidates available. another sure thing, Wadell and ASG will find a way to screw it up.
By kev
May 9, 2008 6:18 AM | Link to this
*Waddell
By BlueStreak
May 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
I think Quinn and Maurice would be a great fit here in the ATL, and might get us headed back in the right direction. I don’t think we need to give newbies a chance this time around. We need established successful leadership to get us going.
By Jim_Bob
May 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Howdy Doody there Rawhide and Jethro! How you fellers doin today? Now i tell you what, that Maurice feller looks like Niles Crane, wouldn’t ya’ say?
By polskidawg
May 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
I can’t say that I’d be really enthused by that combination.
Quinn in particular does not inspire me, and I’m a old Flames fan from the 70’s. He was extremely good at developing teams in the “old” NHL - big, strong, slow, dirty, tough.
Personally, I’d much prefer a younger man with some vision and presence (the opposite of DW) that can lead this organIzation through wholesale change in culture.
Maurice may have merit, but he may need a year off for mental restoration.
By Midfield
May 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
I’m not voting for Quinn in particular, but it’s not a bad idea to bring someone of his caliber. If he was extremely good at developing teams in the “old” NHL, I don’t seem why would he be bad at developing teams in the new NHL. I doubt that a “young man with the vision” is the solution here in Atlanta. We have some overpaid dead wood under contract - like much respected Slava Kozlov - who need a wake-up call from someone big, strong, dirty and tough. Kind of like Pat.
By Bob
May 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
I’m sticking with my hope to bring in a GM who is curently an Asst. GM under a master like Gainey or Burke.
For Coach? I don’t know, Anderson from Chicago, Maurice, nobody is jumping out at me here. Any more Sutters floating around?
By Jethro
May 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
Ima thinkin sum one should go get Earnest T. Bass and hire him fer GM.
By Jethro
May 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Howya doin Jim_Bob?
Long time no hear.
Whatcha been upta?
By Jim_Bob
May 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
Well ima gonna tell you fellers what, down here in Valdosta, we justa wanta have them get some feller thatta knows what they r doing!
That feller on the AJC Thrasher page with the big head and the stupid look on his face looks like that deer I shot last fall, it stared and stared and I even told that feller i was a gonna blast him, and he just stared and stared and stared. The feller really had no clue what was a goin’ on.
But he sure did give me some mighty fine vension to snack on all winter!
By Tony C.
May 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Please please no Paul Maurice. I just don’t think he’s that good-yes I know about The Cup run in Carolina, but since then he’s been very middle of the road. Granted, he may have only been provided with middle of the road talent, but I would contend that the cast he had in Toronto is as talented (certainly more experienced) as what he would find here-with a big disparity in defensive experience and acumen.
So take a look at his record with the Marlies, then with TorontoMapleLeafs, and I think you’ll be able to see where I’m coming from.
By ranallo10
May 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
I agree with Tony C’s opinion of Maurice. He definitely wouldn’t rank on my list with Quenneville (who’s now available), Laviolette, Wilson, etc.
By ranallo10
May 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
I agree with Tony C’s opinion of Maurice. He definitely wouldn’t rank on my list with Quenneville (who’s now available), Laviolette, Wilson, etc.
By Tony C.
May 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Please please no Paul Maurice. I just don’t think he’s that good-yes I know about The Cup run in Carolina, but since then he’s been very middle of the road. Granted, he may have only been provided with middle of the road talent, but I would contend that the cast he had in Toronto is as talented (certainly more experienced) as what he would find here-with a big disparity in defensive experience and acumen.
So take a look at his record with the Marlies, then with TorontoMapleLeafs, and I think you’ll be able to see where I’m coming from.
I think Maurice would be a tremendous step up from DW, and could very well find that the warm weather just agrees with him. I don’t know, but I don’t like the track record.
Also, why get Maurice when Joel Quenneville is available?
By Craig's List
May 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
I hear Bob Hartley is available.
By Tony C.
May 9, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
Apologies for the multipost
By Brendan
May 9, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this
Is Bob Hartley really available? I hear this guy’s won a Stanley Cup and we’d be lucky to have him here in Atlanta!
By PJ
May 9, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
Let me sneak in my prediction before we get much further in this round….
Detroit in 5, Pittsburg in 7.
Brendan… How’s your monkey fairing in the bracketology so far?
By ToF
May 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this
Scott Burnside is reporting that sources inside ASG that DW has been asked to step down as GM. Check it out here There really isn’t any new information if you read CC’s blog from the other day, but it seems the idea is working its way around the news wire; so it has a very real possibility of beeing true.
By R. Stroz
May 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this
Referencing the above article, if reporters are trying to contact Levenson, I suggest they visit as many bars as possible.
By Tony C.
May 9, 2008 8:42 PM | Link to this
My favorite quote in the above article:
“Just look at the facts, the record. What choice do you have?” one source close to the team told ESPN.com Friday.
I just hope that wasn’t CC being quoted for a story he could never run @ the AJC…I hope that it is an actual ASG member-with actual power to effect change.
By Brendan
May 9, 2008 10:21 PM | Link to this
If Waddell has any oversight whatsoever over the way the Thrashers are run, nothing will change. This argument basically breaks down like this: “What’s better? To pay Waddell to do absolutely NOTHING? Or to have him lend his expertise on financial management and operational budget matters to the next Hawks and Thrashers GMs?
Still thinkin’?
Before we even answer that question, the ASG basically said that Bernie Mullin’s position served no purpose. So, now it would suddenly MATTER? How so? In what way?? The ASG told us, when Mullin “resigned,” that the GM’s reported directly to the ownership, bypassing Mullin. Basically, from what I could tell, Mullin’s job was some PR fluff. He’d make radio appearances on 680TheFan. He’s give the AJC some quotes. That’s about it.
If Waddell had as much control and oversight over the Thrashers as Bernie Mullin did … then it’d be a safe place to “stash” him. But what are the odds that Waddell won’t want to “meddle” in the team that was his baby for a decade?
How many of you have kids who are 18 or older? On their 18th birthday, did you throw your hands up in the air and say, “PFFT! They’re on their own now! Out the door they go. I’m washing my hands clean of this whole ‘parent’ situation.”
Ohhh, you did not. No, you didn’t. And Waddell won’t banish himself to the corner, with some “devil may care” attitude. “This isn’t my show anymore.” Right. Waddell will sit in an office and think, “I’ll just sit here and watch the next GM show me up?”
If Waddell remains on the payroll, in any capacity beyond “broadcaster,” it’s a mistake, for the ASG didn’t make a clean “get-a-way.” Imagine being the next GM, running reports up the chain to Waddell, and making budget requests and roster decisions that require his consultation? Chuckling.
If the organization wants to turn the corner, then turn it. Fire Waddell. And don’t look back, other than to write the checks that you foolishly owe him, for a “knee-jerk” reaction to an 11-4 record. Allegedly, supposedly. I still haven’t seen that Waddell was given a contract extension. Then again, contracts are kept “internal,” per ASG policy.
By Brendan
May 9, 2008 10:35 PM | Link to this
PJ, sadly I didn’t catch Maggie the Monkey’s picks beyond those of the opening round. Maybe she only makes 1st round picks?
Maggie went 3-1 in the East and 2-2 in the West, for a 5-3 overall. I “tied” her!! I’m battling my “coin flips,” and we’re both tied, 8-4, thus far. My coin flips say the Finals are Philly vs. Detroit. But I’ve got Pittsburgh and Dallas.
From a TV-ratings perspective, the league is probably hoping for its most visible team, Detroit, to face its most visible star, Crosby, in the Finals. The NHL has got to be happy about getting Montreal and the NY Ranger markets into the 2nd round. Philly and Boston returning to the playoffs, in 1st round seven-game series, probably didn’t hurt the league’s marketing either.
Out West, the NHL got Denver back in it. Minnesota got in. The Cup winners at least got a chance to defend their title. The league should be pleased by the playoff field. Nashville and Dallas represented the South and Southwest, as non-traditional markets.
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 1:06 AM | Link to this
Brendan — I remember seeing video clips of Maggie’s picks for last round on TSN, I’m sure you could find the stories looking through their headlines.
RH — Sorry about the double post, AJC was acting up earlier. So, I blame it on Tony this time.
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 4:24 AM | Link to this
ESPN article on Quenneville’s firing
A few things jumped out at me from this story:
1 - “Quenneville’s preference for, or even insistence on, a system that leads to most offense stemming off getting the puck down low and cycling was an issue”
2 - his preference for grinding fourth-line types — sometimes even on the second and third lines, which could seem discordant — was curious at times
3 - Quenneville never has been a renowned nurturer of goaltenders (he uses Theodore as the recent example.
All three of those reek of the Bob Hartley “system” of coaching.
1 — I don’t want another dump and chase system, with bangers along the boards working endless cycles and eventually losing puck possession with no scoring opportunities created. The Thrashers currently have trouble getting the puck up the ice, and out of their own zone…plus they already have trouble getting scoring from the defenders…will Quenneville bring more of that system to Atlanta?
2 — Grinding fourth line players on top two scoring lines…HERE WE GO AGAIN. Maybe he’d be able to fully utilize our plethora of 3rd line players, but not many people on this roster would qualify as grinding line players.
3 — Lehtonen appears to be the type of goaltender that needs the nurturing type coach, who will support him through the bad games and not ostracize him for a sub-par performance. Hartley didn’t appear to help his confidence, so we don’t need ANOTHER coach coming in and turning Lehtonen (our currently best goalie) into a bench warmer (similar to Theodore last season).
So yeah, all things considered, Quenneville is now low on my list.
Anderson, Sullivan, DeBoer (from the currently available) — Babcock, Laviollette, Wilson (from the hopefully available)
Tortorella, Quinn and Maurice don’t rank.
By Rawhide
May 10, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
RANALLO - WHAT’S THAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU…QUENNEVILLE’S 438-282-77-41 OVERALL RECORD AS A COACH AND 131-92-23 IN COLORADO IS SCREAMING TOO LOUD…I CAN HARDLY MAKE OUT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING!!
DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT HIM BEING ANOTHER BOB HARTLEY? YEAH, YEAH…IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE 4-5 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, WOULDN’T IT? NOT TO MENTION BRINGING SOME DISCIPLINE BACK TO THE TEAM…SO, YEAH, THAT’D BE GOOD!
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Rawhide — I SAID…nevermind.
You’re right, Quenneville’s record is better than our current coach’s. Very good point…
It’s also better than Anderson’s, and I think I’d rather him.
By kracker
May 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Ranallo & RAWHIDE You both make good points. What do we want to do? Fit the coach to our players or fit current and new players to the coaching style? It seems to me a given that ultimately, players must be acquired to fit the identity of the team and the coach’s style of play. Since the Thrashers have no style of play known to be “Thrashers hockey”, no GM and no coach, where does that leave us?
I think we begin at the beginning by hiring the GM, let him hire a coach - and scouts - to fit whatever his vision is for developing winning hockey in this franchise - what works in a hockey-crazed city might not work here where the only hockey tradition is losing and then try to utilize the current roster as much as possible, changing it to fit the new team as best as can be managed. Of course, competitive financial support from the owners (and us fans) is a given.
By kracker
May 10, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
I just read Craig’s article posted today Co-owner: Promotion considered for Thrashers’ Waddell
Hopefully, Gearon’s comments are the classic “vote of confidence” given just before the firing, or in this case the promotion and removal of DW as GM.
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
kracker — I’d think a GM with a vision for success should be first, so that all draft picks and player acquisitions can be made according to his vision. I’d think the second step would be the ownership understanding the financial implications of the successful implementation of a successful vision, and be on board with the GM for most monetary demands. Finally I would think a coach would need to be found that shares the same vision with the GM and Ownership group, and can successfully lead the players given to him to victory.
It all sounds so easy, but the important thing is ownership desiring success. If ownership continues to desire making money while keeping overhead low (the apparent business model of the ASG), then such a successful plan cannot be implemented, in my opinion.
By Rawhide
May 10, 2008 7:49 PM | Link to this
ranallo - Good point regarding ownership being where this all starts.
As for Quenneville, personally I think Toronto would be on the top of HIS list right now. He’s from the area and I’ve been reading about the Leafs being interested in hi. So it all might be a moot point anyway.
Truth be told…I think Anderson is the man who will be tapped for the job here…as soon as te Wolves are done with the playoffs.
Personally, I would be more comfortable with a Wilson or Laviolette should they become available. But as I’ve said before…Anderson deserves a shot up here, so…it is what it is.
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this
Rawhide — Wilson and Laviolette are the “imediate impact” types of coaches. Anderson and DeBoer are the “long term” types of coaches.
So it all depends on what the GM and ownership group want from this team. If they want to keep scrapping by as a 9-15 seed, then they’ll hire a Wilson or Laviolette type coach and keep the status-quo regarding development of talent. If they want to build a team of youth and current talent mixed, they’ll bring in a Anderson or a DeBoer type coach and let the coaches and players gain an identity together.
I don’t see Wilson and Laviolette wanting to come to Atlanta to be in a building phase. It’ll take a person who is looking for his “shot” at a spot behind an NHL bench, and is willing to take his lumps to prove his worth at this level.
All signs point to an Anderson or DeBoer type player, in my opinion.
By ranallo10
May 10, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this
All signs point to an Anderson or DeBoer type player, in my opinion.
Clearly I meant “coach”.
To add to my post (sorry Hokie).
What coach of substance would want to come to Atlanta? Would you want an experienced coach desperate for a job, or a young coach desperate to make a mark at the NHL level?
By Brendan
May 10, 2008 10:20 PM | Link to this
Ranallo, your 1:08 PM post just may have been your very best all year. I agree. But to split hairs, shouldn’t your #1 and #2 be reversed? (Both are correct, by the way.) As in, first step is ownership being committed to financially empower the new GM’s “vision?” Step two, hire the “visionary” GM. Step Three, let the GM find the coach who shares his vision. And if it takes all the way ‘til training camp to find that coach, so be it! The GM is the one to reshape this team, philosophically.
A few days ago, Jeff Schultz wrote a column about the Spirit having the opportunity to make their mark on the sports world, if they’re going to do that. Schultz said that average players could make an average coach look better. He said an average coach, with skilled players, could make an average GM seem better. But under no circumstances, NONE WHATSOEVER, can players overcome bad ownership. Bad ownership typically installs bad management.
Stop. He’s right. Name for me … any athletic program, from college, to the minors, to the pros, that overcomes INEPT ownership to win a championship? It doesn’t happen. Once in a bluemoon, a team gets close. But it takes an extraordinary set of circumstances for even THAT to occur.
In “concept,” Ranallo is right. It all sounds very easy to do. But the practical reality is … it isn’t, without the cashflow. Moreover, it’s THEIR money (ASG’s); they’ll do with it as they please. And there it is, with no sugar coating. The closest this ownership group has to prior hockey experience is Bruce Levenson. And well, I’d prefer Eugene & Rusty, two guys I see waitin’ for the bus everyday, to him running the show.
If the ASG intends to be “cheap,” or “guarded,” to be more politically correct. There is a strategy that can work. But few pull it off. Look at the 2005-06 Buffalo Sabres. It’s a team full of draft picks and players who flew under the radar. They rolled four lines of “team speed” as a philosophy. That’s a “Depth Strategy,” where your 3rd and 4th lines are about as apt to score as your first two lines. And you have 10 guys who score 20 goals apiece. What about the price? Buffalo did it for about $28 million, three years ago. With today’s inflation, it’d be about $35-36 million, at a minimum. And of course, you need budding Tier I guys like Briere and Campbell to emerge. Of course, as time goes by, and contracts come due, you’ll be forced to jettison them for whatever the best possible return might be. And repeat this … over and over and over again. In essence, you become a “farm team” for the rest of the league every offseason. But if you draft flawlessly, there’s always new, fresh, eager talent in the pipeline, just trying to make their mark. And you give yourself a “shot” at winning the Cup, if the “depth” is truly there. Buffalo went to the Conference Finals in back-to-back years using this model. They even won a President’s Trophy with it.
By ranallo10
May 11, 2008 12:22 AM | Link to this
Brendan — Thanks, but I don’t think it’s necessary for #1 & #2 to be reversed.
As you said, it’s splitting hairs, but doesn’t it require a solid idea before one can be convinced to back it monetarily? The way the ASG works, they’ll need to get lucky with a visionary GM with a solid plan BEFORE they’ll be convinced to back said plan any more than the league average (monetarily).
But we seem to be in agreement.
As for you idea of inept ownership winning a franchise…isn’t that a self-negating statement? One opinion would be “they won a championship, so the ownership can’t be inept”…while others would say “they won a championship DESPITE the inept ownership.”
I give you Al Davis as my example. He’s definitely a dedicated owner, who has won championships, yet I’d consider his current ownership philosophy as that of an inept owner. Someone will say “but he won a championship”, to which I respond “in what year?”
By Infect Truth
May 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Al Davis seems not to have to same level of “effort and commitment” from year to year. We can probably point to others, like a Georgia Frontiere, who owned the Rams. A stuck clock is right twice a day, as they say. Steinbrenner and his Yankees have something like 27 World Series wins. Yet, since 2000, they haven’t won another, despite paying a luxury tax that is in excess of the entire team payroll of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Still, that does reflect a “commitment” to trying to win? Answer: Yes, it does.
Step One just may have to be ownership being willing to finance “the vision” … or the “visionary GM” may not consider the post. Why should an ownership group have to be “convinced” to spend money? Answer: If they’re not “predisposed” to fielding a winner and/or if it doesn’t have faith in its managerial decision-making skills.
Sadly, this seems to be the case with the ASG, based on what I’ve seen lately. I can’t say the ASG is ENTIRELY uncommitted, as I believe that’s untrue. They did go to the cap limit in 2005. And, eventually, after the trade deadline, they returned to the limit in 2006. In 2007, they were $8 million under the cap on “Opening Night.”
You’d be correct to argue that, in 2006, the Spirit Group wasn’t at or near the cap limit on Opening Night. And that’s a valid point. Also, to spend in that fashion requires “cashflow” from ticket sales. That means increased ticket prices. If it’s true that the “break-even” point is $38 million, and the cap limit is $50.3 million, there there’s a disparity of $11+ million. Even with revenue-sharing, I would think spending at or near the cap would reflect a loss of $5-6 million, at a minimum.
That’s a “rough reality.” Especially when you don’t really have faith in your GM. But imagine if you did!! You “might,” just MIGHT, want to spend to the cap limit, because you BELIEVE your GM will bring in 4-6 home playoff games’ worth of “free profits.” Let’s say it’s actually five (5) home games. That’s $10 million in profit. Well, if you lost $5 million during the regular season, but you made $10 millin in playoff revenues, then you “netted” $5 million. What ELSE did you do?
Oh c’mon now. You know this one!! (1) You built up (increased) your fan base. (2) You “energized” the community. (3) You elevated “awareness” of your product to your target audience. (4) You changed/maintained your image to that of a “winner.” (5) You put yourself in a position to justify raising ticket prices again. (6) You affirmed “confidence” in your product and your organization. (7) You possibly prevented the “exit strategies” of key components of your player roster. I could go on and on.
By ranallo10
May 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this
Brendan/Infect Truth — I guess I think of the relationship between the GM and the Owners much like that between a CEO and the Board. The CEO is the visionary and annually (sometimes more or less) gives the Board an update about the current and future status of the company. He/she breaks down the current direction of the company, the past successes and failures, the long term vision, and is evaluated based on such successes or failures. The Board then approves the overall vision, and justify’s the investment they give the CEO annually, often adjusting the cashflow to anticipate changes in the market, stimulate the growth of the company, reward the employees for their goal attainment, etc (this isn’t business class).
I would think that the CEO’s duties are to sell to the board his/her vision, and convince the board it’s a worthy vision to back. If the board has the predetermined decision of “we’ll spend however much it takes” you run the risk of the CEO having a failed vision, and the Board sinking money into a plan destined for failure.
SO I stick with my current order, but the important part (as I said previously) is that the ownership group is committed to funding what could ultimately come a successful franchise. Without the backing of the ownership, there is much less chance of attaining success.
By NASCAR Dave
May 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this
SO, what’s the deal???
Has Don FRAUDell been FIRED yet???
Is he DONE Waddell yet???
Can we look forward to brighter days yet, or are we stuck with the jackass STILL???
NUFF SAID.
By Brendan
May 11, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this
NASCAR, you know he hasn’t been fired. The closest thing that may ever happen is Waddell could “resign,” a la Billy Knight. Now, I don’t know the whole story, obviously, but it seems the ASG wouldn’t allow BK to fire Woodson. So, Knight “resigned.” Likewise, if Waddell has been offered a position that ultimately results in his oversight of a new GM, Waddell may just decline and “resign.” From what I’ve heard, Waddell will remain as GM, and have additional “Mullin” duties. Didn’t Gearon and Levenson express concern over Waddell being spread too thin? So, what’s this move all about? And in 2010, the Winter Olympics will be in North America, again, and Waddell will be focused on that, and being the President of the team, and its GM?? Whatever.
Ranallo, I understand what you’re saying about the business process. Make perfect sense. But what’s the first thing that will happen in the interview process, other than, “Hi. Thanks for coming. Please sit down.”
Still thinking?
The very first thing the prospective GM hire will ask is, “What kind of budget am I going to get?” If the ASG’s answer is, “First, we want to evaluate your vision. Then we’ll decide if we want to fund it,” guess what that does to the interview process?
Well, in the case of a “well established, proven commodity GM,” the interview ends at that point, with thanks to the ASG for considering the applicant. If the prospective GM is not “well-established,” the interview process continues a bit longer. But eventually, this “young hopeful” GM asks the same question a different way, “Do we have the money to keep Kovalchuk, longterm, or not? I need to know because this alters my vision for this club, for the future.”
So, until the ASG has the ability to answer that question by stating, “The budget will be within $3 million of whatever the cap is on ‘Opening Night, every year, for the forseeable future,” it’s going to hamper the search for a quality GM. And there it is.
By ranallo10
May 12, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Brendan — And that’s what the ASG is doing. So you’ve come to the conclusion that the biggest thing hampering this franchise from fielding a continually competitive team is…
THE ASG.
Complain all you (the collective, not you specifically Brendan) want about the GM this and the GM that, until the ASG changes their way of doing business, nothing substantial will change.
By Brendan
May 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Well, on the surface that appears to be true, Ranallo. But if the Minnesota Wild can reach the 2003 Conference Finals on a budget of $22 million … and the 2006 Buffalo Sabres can take a one goal lead into the 3rd period of Game Seven, of the Conference Finals, on a budget of $28 million, I must give “some consideration” to the possibility that substantial playoff success can be achieved with a “shoestring” budget.
But I’m far, far from confident in saying that sort of thing can be achieved by EVERY organization. A lot of that success has to be attributed to Minnesota and Buffalo having good scouting, good coaching, and a very capable General Manager, etc. I’m pursuaded to say that no GM will win the Cup under the present ASG “business model,” but I’m still NOT CONVINCED that another GM couldn’t take the Thrashers to the Conference Finals by following the blueprints that Buffalo and Minnesota used, with a very limited budget.
In that regard, I don’t see the value of retaining Waddell as GM, simply because no other GM, using this business model, could do ANY BETTER. I think a different GM could do better. But I do believe the ASG must alter its business model to achieve better results. If the ASG altered its business model, but retained Waddell, I still don’t believe things would get better. Not substantively. And not soon. I don’t believe that Waddell enjoys the “confidence” of the players. On the contrary, I believe the players are contemplating their “exit strategies” from the Atlanta market. At least in terms of those players who are attractive to other markets. J.P. Vigier would come back to Atlanta in a heartbeat … just because he needs a job at the NHL level, wherever that job might be. He’s hardly alone. Similarly skilled players will come to Atlanta precisely because it is an “NHL paycheck.” They’d play for a team on the moon, too, as long as there was an NHL team with a rink on the moon.
By ranallo10
May 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Brendan — Of course I agree with you that retaining Waddell should not be done simply because of the flawed business model. I also will agree that there are some examples of success under cap restricted systems (such as Minnesota and Buffalo), but I urge you to remember there are also many failures under such monetarily restrictive systems (Atlanta, Phoenix, Edmonton, Columbus, etc).
And of the two clubs you mentioned, neither have competed for a Stanley Cup since the inception of the salary cap.
So I would say that in the limited sample size (3 seasons, 30 teams, 6 conference champions), one team has made it as far as the Stanley Cup finals with a restrictive salary cap (Edmonton). If I missed one team, please feel free to let me know.
I’d say that of those 6 teams, 1 is the perfect example of why restrictive monetary support is not a successful business model. Success can be achieved in such a model, but at a 16% chance IF THINGS WORK PERFECTLY (i.e., good management, team chemistry, personnel overperform when needed, etc).
Would you rather see the GM change but the business model remain the same, or see the business model change and the GM stay the same?
I’d rather the business model change, as there’s far more evidence of success with a financially supportive ownership group than there is of a crap shoot of a GM winning a championship.
Of the current GMs, how many HAVE NOT won a Conference Championship? I don’t know the answer, but I know another GM on the list is Waddell.
Ideally this team would have a more supportive ownership group AND a more successful GM. Since I can’t choose which happens, I personally only care that the ownership’s business model changes, otherwise we could be in for another 8 years of fleeting “success”.
By Brendan
May 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Link to this
Ranallo, I cannot recall the payroll of the 2006 Carolina Hurricanes. Keep in mind, the cap was $39 million back then. I “think” the ‘Canes fielded a team aroud $34-$37 million, depending on the trade deadline moves.
The fact that a market as hampered as Buffalo’s could reach the Conference Finals in successive years is somewhat encouraging. It’s no Stanley Cup Finals berth, I grant you. But reaching the “Final Four,” in a league of 30, is no small achievement. But I understand the larger concept: It’s not a Cup win … and it’s not a “model” with a high success rate.
Given that retaining Waddell is a gutless, “indefensible” sports decision, I am extremely hesitant to say that I’d rather see the business model change and Waddell retained. A business model that handicaps the GM is not something that I’d want to pursue.
But if the business won’t change, then the GM must change. Because this GM cannot overcome this handicap imposed by the ownership. Objectively speaking, Waddell fielded his best team ever in 2005-06, when he had the benefit of a $38+ million budget. Had Lehtonen stayed healthy all year … or if Pasi Nurminen had been able to be healthy all year, that 2006 Thrashers club would have been a playoff team. Theoretically, it was a team that might have advanced into the second round.
But right now, player confidence in Waddell appears so low, that handing him some $50 million budget … might not even improve things. Sure, Atlanta would have more money to spend, but what Tier I free agent is willing to “risk” his “prime years” languishing in Atlanta, under Waddell’s leadership?