Rick Nash to NYR
- Thread starter bustaheims
- Start date
Corn Flake
New member
Nik? said:
Thank you argument police. If you are going to continue to respond to nearly every single post on here for the foreseeable future, please give us a heads up so I can prepare my talking points in advance to minimize the correction required.
Corn Flake
New member
Nik? said:
You get pedantic when you are conscious.
Corn Flake
New member
Nik? said:
did you change your name to Sense?
ZBBM
Well-known member
Corn Flake said:
A couple of debatable assumptions in your argument. First is the timeline. What happened 12 years ago that serves as the point of comparison with BBs hiring? Sather has been there longer than that. So you are creating a rather arbitrary timeline for comparison whereas I am comparing the last four years.
Second is the assumption that we are in the middle of a progressive march toward competitiveness. There is no guarantee we are in the middle of that process. Or, our "middle" might be equivalent to CBJs middle in that it is in the middle of an eternity of failure.
Corn Flake
New member
Nik? said:
Pot, kettle, black. I'm bored and moving on now, thanks. Insult matching with you is dull and fills up the site database.
Corn Flake
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Sather was hired in 2000. 12 years ago. That isn't arbitrary. The comparison I'm throwing out is the Rangers in 2000 looked a lot like the Leafs in mid-2008.... veteran laden, little in the system, full of bad contracts, failing miserably, etc.
I think it's more fair to compare Burke's first 4 years to Sather's first 4 years than it is to compare Sather today and Burke today. The former has had 12 years build what we see today and the latter has had 4 years. I think NYR in 2000 looked a lot like TOR in 2008, and that's just my opinion.
My suggestion is that questioning whether the Leafs are in a march towards competitiveness is the same questioning that surrounded the Rangers not many years ago. I'm hearing the same shots and jokes taken at Burke that were taken at Sather for years until they got the ship turned around. The problem is it's pretty hard to tell until it either works or it doesn't and it is premature to suggest it has failed, much like it was premature to say Sather was failing the Rangers 5-6 years ago.
ZBBM
Well-known member
Corn Flake said:
I stand corrected on the starting point of his tenure. I thought he'd been there longer, and obviously was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out.
That adds some heft to your point about comparing Sather's first 4 years to Burke's. That's a valid alternative to the point I made, although I still think it's perfectly valid to compare the last 4 years of each, especially since BB by his own admission wasn't interested in a conventional rebuild. And so I think it's perfectly legit to compare (for example) whether Sather's blockbuster trade (for Nash) netted him better value at less cost than Burke's for Kessel. NOT that I want to turn this thread into a debate on that. Just saying it's a legitimate discussion to have, if one is so inclined.
Finally, as you say, "it's pretty hard to tell whether it works or doesn't." That, to me, means it's risky, and maybe meaningless, to assume that the Leafs are in the "middle" of anything. There may be no pattern here at all.
Corn Flake
New member
Tigger said:
Maybe one day we won't have to remind ourselves of this.
Corn Flake
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Alright well okay... if you want to compare the work of both GMs from 2008-2012, where Sather has done things Burke has not to me is a picture of the difference in the assets each one has to work with and where they are in their evolution. I think when you look at a Nash deal, certainly Sather is able to pull that off because he's got a team already contending and a cupboard full of prospects (and picks I guess) that are highly valued. Also has loads of money at his disposal. He's in about the most optimal place you can be as an elite team.
Yeah let's not get Kessel bizarro debate going again but there are certainly differences between the value of the respective players. Age and contract being the two obvious ones and then there's the production levels. Kessel could still get better and certainly could when he was acquired wheras Nash is declining, etc etc etc. But would you rather have Nash than Kessel? Kessel is producing far more offense even if he is less physical and constantly (unfairly) questioned for his heart. I think if Burke had gone and gotten a Nash type player instead at that price, it would have been heavily criticized as well and had no more of a positive impact on the team than Kessel has. I think less, and the old Leafs problem of emptying the cupboard on old past-their-prime guys would be ever present.
It is a legit discussion I agree, and yes Sather's moves in general for what they have done for his team in where they are at have been better than Burke's, at least in the immediate return, but the context of where each team is at in their development has a huge impact on that . Most of Burke's best moves involved prospects who will take time to determine whether they pan out or not, and he's gone through the same gutting process the Rangers had to go through back in Sather's early days.