Brian Burke fired by the Toronto Maple Leafs

Jonathan Willis
January 09 2013 10:54AM

So that just happened.

Not that we needed confirmation, given that this is Bob McKenzie, but here's Sportsnet's Nick Kypreos:

The timing of this almost defies belief. The NHL lockout is all but officially over, and soon teams are going to go from idling, as they have been all fall and winter, to full speed as they rush to get their teams on the ice and pull off any last minute trades to address injuries and weaknesses. It's a very strange time to dismiss a general manager, and a difficult time to line up a replacement who can hit the ground running. One would assume that Burke's lieutenant, Dave Nonis, will be left in charge of the team but there's been no word yet on who the Leafs are looking at as a replacement.

As for what this does to the rumoured interest of the Leafs in Roberto Luongo, here's Kypreos again:

There's been a lot of speculation that a disagreement between management and ownership on the acquisition of Luongo might be the reason for Burke's departure, but that doesn't really track cleanly for me. Luongo's been available since last summer, and the new ownership has been officially in place since fall - if there were substantive difference between Burke and his employers on that front, one would imagine it could have been dealt with during a less frenetic time for the team. 

Burke surived a little under four seasons without guiding the Leafs to a playoff appearance. He also survived a lockout where he was seen as one of NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's most loyal supporters. It's going to be interesting to learn what exactly prompted the team to part ways with him now, just over a week before the likely start of a shortened NHL season.

Post-script - surprise seems to be the order of the day for hockey men and media alike:

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is Managing Editor of the Nation Network. He also currently writes for the Edmonton Journal's Cult of Hockey, Grantland, and Hockey Prospectus. His work has appeared at theScore, ESPN and Puck Daddy. He was previously founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue. Contact him at jonathan (dot) willis (at) live (dot) ca.
Avatar
#51 Ryan2
January 09 2013, 01:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Too bad that the Nucks will likely get out of the Not so sweet Lou deal now. It would have been nice to see them have to buy him out or stick with him for longer.

On the other hand, if he is traded and Schneider stumbles a bit it could be fun to watch all of the second guessing in the media.

Avatar
#52 justDOit
January 09 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As for Roberto, his situation is only getting more complicated with the new CBA. His buyout number has enough zeros in it to make a Forbes 100 list member weak in the knees. Ownership is not going to approve this move as a first strategy.

So the new CBA could be more friendly towards big Louie - it allows for salary to be included in trades. This might allow for more teams to get in on the trade bidding, and might improve the return that Vancouver gets.

But the new CBA might not be so kind to Roberto in another respect - it included a clause to penalize teams that employ players on back-diving contracts.

If player x plays for 5 seasons on a back-diving contract, and then that player retires during the cheap years, the team will be penalized equal to the amount of cap savings provided by said contract. If the team earns $2M of cap space for each of those years played (5), and the player leaves 3 low-paid years on the table after retirement, then the team will be penalized 3 years x the cap savings offered by the contract ($2M). This will apply to every team that player x plays for during the back-diving contract. Ouch. That is going to leave a mark on the GM`s resume.

Avatar
#53 Truth
January 09 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I would absolutely love to see Burke turn up in the Boston Bruins head office. It would make so much sense.

IF the reason Burke got fired is because he didn't bite on Luongo then I respect him more than I did this morning. Whoever takes Luongo loses in the long run. There is just no way to overcome that horrendous contract. If I was a GM I would consider taking Luongo and a 1st round pick for my 7th round pick and a big contract. Yes, he was a number one goalie last year. He is 33 right now and signed @ $5.33M/yr until his contract is completed at age 43. How many more years does he have as a number 1? I would argue 3. Therefore, there are 6 years (66% of the years in the organization) in which you are paying elite goaltender money to your backup or low level number one goaltender. No thanks.

Avatar
#54 DSF
January 09 2013, 01:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Lebrun on Burke.

Says it is Luongo related.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21244/did-luongo-reluctance-cost-burke-his-job

Avatar
#55 DSF
January 09 2013, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
justDOit wrote:

As for Roberto, his situation is only getting more complicated with the new CBA. His buyout number has enough zeros in it to make a Forbes 100 list member weak in the knees. Ownership is not going to approve this move as a first strategy.

So the new CBA could be more friendly towards big Louie - it allows for salary to be included in trades. This might allow for more teams to get in on the trade bidding, and might improve the return that Vancouver gets.

But the new CBA might not be so kind to Roberto in another respect - it included a clause to penalize teams that employ players on back-diving contracts.

If player x plays for 5 seasons on a back-diving contract, and then that player retires during the cheap years, the team will be penalized equal to the amount of cap savings provided by said contract. If the team earns $2M of cap space for each of those years played (5), and the player leaves 3 low-paid years on the table after retirement, then the team will be penalized 3 years x the cap savings offered by the contract ($2M). This will apply to every team that player x plays for during the back-diving contract. Ouch. That is going to leave a mark on the GM`s resume.

That eventuality is so far away it's irrelevant.

None of Gillis, Nonis, Bettman or Fehr will be around at that point and there will be ANOTHER CBA in place.

In any case, it can easily be worked around by putting the player on LTIR.

Avatar
#56 justDOit
January 09 2013, 02:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

So CBA ratified by the billionaies - but transactions can`t take place until the millionaires have had their say as well?

Avatar
#57 DSF
January 09 2013, 02:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
justDOit wrote:

Not if he retires in 4 years (age: 37?). It`s when he retires that this clause kicks in.

And any GM coercing medical staff for a phony LTIR assessment would be lucky if he is only fired.

He won't retire in 4 years.

He'd be giving up huge dollars.

In the next six years, he's paid $6.7 million then $3.3M and $1.6M.

At that point, 8 years from now, his salary drops to $1 million.

Even if he's healthy enough to play at that point, the team could pay him to sit in the pressbox and eat popcorn.

Avatar
#58 Truth
January 09 2013, 02:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@DSF

His cap hit is $5.33M the entire period, no? Management shouldn't like the idea of a washed up goalie sitting in the press box eating up $5.33M/year when they could spend that on a high end player on the ice instead.

Avatar
#59 justDOit
January 09 2013, 02:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
DSF wrote:

He won't retire in 4 years.

He'd be giving up huge dollars.

In the next six years, he's paid $6.7 million then $3.3M and $1.6M.

At that point, 8 years from now, his salary drops to $1 million.

Even if he's healthy enough to play at that point, the team could pay him to sit in the pressbox and eat popcorn.

Ok, in 5 years then. That's when his salary drops to a paltry $3.8M before further dropping to about $1M. He only makes about $5M in the last 4 years of the deal, which is nothing after making a LOT more in the first years. If he has his health, and has saved/invested most of the money he has already earned, his retirement is a distinct possibility.

No GM wants to gamble with $2M - $3M of his salary cap on Luongo's retirement, and no GM will be willing to give up $5.3M of cap space to let him eat popcorn in the pressbox.

Avatar
#60 DSF
January 09 2013, 02:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Truth wrote:

His cap hit is $5.33M the entire period, no? Management shouldn't like the idea of a washed up goalie sitting in the press box eating up $5.33M/year when they could spend that on a high end player on the ice instead.

Think a little harder.

At that point, the cap ceiling will likely be approaching $100 million.

$5 million won't be a big deal.

Avatar
#61 Lochenzo
January 09 2013, 02:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The Oilers should hire Brian Burke. They can have Brian give fans a free pedicure as they stroll into Rexall.

Avatar
#62 DSF
January 09 2013, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
justDOit wrote:

Ok, in 5 years then. That's when his salary drops to a paltry $3.8M before further dropping to about $1M. He only makes about $5M in the last 4 years of the deal, which is nothing after making a LOT more in the first years. If he has his health, and has saved/invested most of the money he has already earned, his retirement is a distinct possibility.

No GM wants to gamble with $2M - $3M of his salary cap on Luongo's retirement, and no GM will be willing to give up $5.3M of cap space to let him eat popcorn in the pressbox.

No. 7 years.

And see the above post.

Toronto can easily spend their way out of the problem if it arises.

For example, in the new CBA, a team can keep salary and cap space on a split with the team they're trading a player to.

So, for example, with 3 years remaining on Luongo's contract, they could trade him to a cap floor team. The Leafs could pay half the $3.6 million he is still owed, keep half his cap hit and send the other team a prospect for their trouble.

Interesting that it was Burke who was pushing for that change in the CBA and might not be around to take advantage of it.

Avatar
#63 Dave
January 09 2013, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Bob McCowan ( apparently a self appointed big wheel in Toronto radio) is beside himself with total anger that his buddy has been fired.

Avatar
#64 Truth
January 09 2013, 02:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
DSF wrote:

Think a little harder.

At that point, the cap ceiling will likely be approaching $100 million.

$5 million won't be a big deal.

Well that makes perfect sense as to why the owners were just pushing for shorter limits on contract length.

Avatar
#65 book¡e
January 09 2013, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
DSF wrote:

Think a little harder.

At that point, the cap ceiling will likely be approaching $100 million.

$5 million won't be a big deal.

5% of your budget is a big deal, ask any manager in any business.

Avatar
#66 DSF
January 09 2013, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
book¡e wrote:

5% of your budget is a big deal, ask any manager in any business.

It's not budget, it's cap space and, as noted above, the new CBA contains provisions that make moving it much easier.

Avatar
#67 HOFFFF
January 09 2013, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Dave wrote:

Bob McCowan ( apparently a self appointed big wheel in Toronto radio) is beside himself with total anger that his buddy has been fired.

That's because he's a loudmouth like Burke.

Listening to either one of them "is like taking a drink from a firehose."

Classic MacT line.

Avatar
#68 Truth
January 09 2013, 03:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I am unhappy Burke got fired in the same sense that I am happy Feaster is still the GM in Calgary.

I loved Burke's monumental Phil Kessel trade failure. Not only did he pay more in compensation through trade than if he signed Kessel to an RFA offer sheet, he lost two top 10 picks.

Avatar
#69 book¡e
January 09 2013, 03:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Job description for recently established position of "Senior Advisor" to be held by Brian Burke:

The primary responsibility of the employee will be to repeatedly and frequently tell everyone in the head office of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment that they can go F#@K themselves

Avatar
#70 gcw_rocks
January 09 2013, 03:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
justDOit wrote:

I think I heard somewhere that RL`s buyout would be about $30M. No matter how much revenue they generate, ML ownership is not going to view that move very favorably.

If you buy him out after the 2013/2014 season, he has 8 years and $33.8M in salary left, so the 2/3 buy out would be $22.7M over 16 years, would it not? And you only have to buy him out if he flops. Very doable for MLSE.

I would have a different view if the complaince buy outs were only this summer, but if you can save one for the summer after, its worth the risk. A rounds of playoffs each season would more than cover the expense. If you could send a bad contract like Connolly of Komiserek back the other way, even better.

Avatar
#71 GVBlackhawk
January 09 2013, 03:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
stevezie wrote:

Am I the only one who likes Burke? He's honest and while some of his principles may seem strange, he really sticks to them. Here is a GM who (maybe?) was willing to lose his job over acquiring a long-term contract because he thought it would hurt the team in the future. He care more about the team than keeping his job, isn't that an ideal GM? True Phaneuf has been inconsistant but he hasn't been bad, and that trade was such robbery I'd argue it cost Sutter his job. He fleeced the Ducks for Lupul and Gardiner, and began the arduous task of restocking the prospects cupboard. Even his most famous foul-up, and it was a huge mistake, still netted the Leafs a young point-a-game forward. There really aren't that many of them.

He hasn't been perfect so I wouldn't say he's getting screwed, but Burke remains a viable GM for any team looking for one, provided they can handle his personality. I don't think new Leafs ownership could.

His mom might like him, too...but that's probably a stretch.

Avatar
#72 GVBlackhawk
January 09 2013, 03:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
DSF wrote:

Think a little harder.

At that point, the cap ceiling will likely be approaching $100 million.

$5 million won't be a big deal.

That is a pretty big assumption you are making. There is no guarantee that the cap will be $100 million. Guessing is not a good management strategy.

Avatar
#73 DSF
January 09 2013, 04:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
GVBlackhawk wrote:

That is a pretty big assumption you are making. There is no guarantee that the cap will be $100 million. Guessing is not a good management strategy.

So, you are disputing the notion we can learn from history?

You might want to reflect for a moment that there is going to be a bidding war for Canadian hockey television rights after the expiration of CBC's current contract at the end of this season.

With TSN, Sportsnet and CBC all vying for the content, league revenue is about to go waaaaaaaaaay up.

And that's just the beginning.

Here are some revenue, cap and floor projections from the Globe and Mail.

Considering they are based on 5 percent annual growth, as opposed to the 7 percent that revenues grew on average over the last CBA, I think they are a little better than "guesses".

http://tinyurl.com/bc285gt

Avatar
#74 DSF
January 09 2013, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
stevezie wrote:

Am I the only one who likes Burke? He's honest and while some of his principles may seem strange, he really sticks to them. Here is a GM who (maybe?) was willing to lose his job over acquiring a long-term contract because he thought it would hurt the team in the future. He care more about the team than keeping his job, isn't that an ideal GM? True Phaneuf has been inconsistant but he hasn't been bad, and that trade was such robbery I'd argue it cost Sutter his job. He fleeced the Ducks for Lupul and Gardiner, and began the arduous task of restocking the prospects cupboard. Even his most famous foul-up, and it was a huge mistake, still netted the Leafs a young point-a-game forward. There really aren't that many of them.

He hasn't been perfect so I wouldn't say he's getting screwed, but Burke remains a viable GM for any team looking for one, provided they can handle his personality. I don't think new Leafs ownership could.

Agree completely.

He's honest, straightforward and loyal to a fault.

Even the Kessel trade wasn't as bad as it seems since he took a gamble and lost but which GM has never done that?

Horcoff contract, Khabibulin contract, Barker, Foster, Fraser ad infinitum.

As you say, he bagged a PPG player in his prime and, while I think Seguin will ultimately prove to be a better player, the difference won't be huge.

He more than made up for losing Dougie Hamilton when he stole Gardiner and Lupul so, on balance, I think he's done pretty well there.

With Rielly, Finn and others in the system, I don't think the Leafs will miss Hamilton all that much.

Avatar
#75 season not played
January 09 2013, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

i was looking back at all the moves burke made during his time as gm of the leafs just to gain a little perspective and there is one thing i will say.

i am not a dion phaneuf fan, i mean he really comes across as a punk, but what in the world was darryl sutter thinking when he pulled the trigger on that one?

Avatar
#76 DieHard
January 09 2013, 04:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
stevezie wrote:

Am I the only one who likes Burke? He's honest and while some of his principles may seem strange, he really sticks to them. Here is a GM who (maybe?) was willing to lose his job over acquiring a long-term contract because he thought it would hurt the team in the future. He care more about the team than keeping his job, isn't that an ideal GM? True Phaneuf has been inconsistant but he hasn't been bad, and that trade was such robbery I'd argue it cost Sutter his job. He fleeced the Ducks for Lupul and Gardiner, and began the arduous task of restocking the prospects cupboard. Even his most famous foul-up, and it was a huge mistake, still netted the Leafs a young point-a-game forward. There really aren't that many of them.

He hasn't been perfect so I wouldn't say he's getting screwed, but Burke remains a viable GM for any team looking for one, provided they can handle his personality. I don't think new Leafs ownership could.

I think Burke is OK as a GM. The Kessel deal did backfire on him. I believe he was thinking the first rounders he gave up would be mid-rounders not lottery level.

Avatar
#77 The Soup Fascist
January 09 2013, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Burke was two different guys. Did a lot of work for charities behind the scenes without looking for any publicity. A bright guy who it would be interesting to have a beer with.

On the flipside his public persona exuded arrogance.

He made some very good deals - Gardner / Lupul for Beauchemin. As Stevezie indicated - love or hate Phaneuf - it was a good trade in terms of value.

However his legacy will be the disaster deals:

- Komisarek F/A signing - 5yr / 4.5 mil per - Kessel for Seguin and Hamilton, as it turned out

Was Jeff Finger (remember him??) at $3.5 million a year - a Burkie deal or during Cliff Fletcher's first foray into dementia?

Kessel deal became his Waterloo and Burke's constant bleating that "he would do the same deal again" endeared him to no one. Not even Kessel.

Avatar
#78 justDOit
January 09 2013, 05:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@DSF

I still think that Luongo is a prime candidate for taking retirement early - he's already made $55M in his career, and could get out rich, with his health and start a business in south FL.

Yes the trade and keep salary/cap hit helps, but the cap benefit recapture (CBR) clause applies to any team he plays for.

Roberto has a NTC which is quite complicated and may or may not follow him to another team. If it does follow him, that would make it even more difficult to trade away cap hit

In the end, MLSE can afford to try this, but I don't think you'll see a lot of GMs waste cap space by retaining a lot of cap hit in trades or taking CBR penalties. Cap space will always be precious, no matter how high the cap goes because GMs are not wired for restraint.

It will be interesting to see how these two clauses impact the trade market though. Eklund must be frothing at the mouth...

Avatar
#79 justDOit
January 09 2013, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@stevezie

I think he's made some really darling trades (Beauchemin for Gardiner and Lupul, for instance, not to mention fleecing the Flames), and he really supports his troops, so you've got to like that. But as someone else has pointed out here, that Seguin/Hamilton situation is going to burn for a long time.

Whatever they say in the media about this being culture change, I believe the rumors that this was related to his reluctance to bring in Luongo.

Avatar
#80 Harlie
January 09 2013, 06:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@The Soup Fascist

hmmm..who else muttered the phrase "he would do the deal again" and was shown the door?

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports/7691753.bin?size=620x400s

Avatar
#81 Fili
January 09 2013, 06:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Burke is probably being groomed for the next commissioner job

Avatar
#82 Stallions35
January 09 2013, 07:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

So Brian Burke got fired for considering trading for Luongo? Is this the first time a GM has been fired before he makes a proposed trade?...lol

Avatar
#83 The Soup Fascist
January 09 2013, 07:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Stallions35 wrote:

So Brian Burke got fired for considering trading for Luongo? Is this the first time a GM has been fired before he makes a proposed trade?...lol

Quite the opposite. Allegedly shown the door for NOT wanting to trade for Lou-own-goal

Avatar
#84 DSF
January 09 2013, 08:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The Flyers are chasing Luongo:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=413187

Avatar
#85 Quicksilver ballet
January 09 2013, 09:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Always liked Burke. He's a big picture guy not afraid to make big changes. If you're on Brians like list you'll always find yourself employed. He built a couple pretty good clubs in Vancouver and Anaheim before he moved east closer to home. Some deals haven't worked out as he had hoped, but Brian Burke is probably glad to be out of Hells Kitchen with the 12 chefs in charge in Toronto. Brian Burke must not have had the control of the hockey club he thought he had.

Dave Nonis has probably already been fitted for the handcuffs preventing him from making the Leafs his own as well. They deserve each other in Leafland with corporate leadership like this.

Avatar
#86 Dave
January 09 2013, 10:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
kim wrote:

somebody will have to replace Cherry. Burke is the perfect man.

I agree ,although I would ,if I could, give a bigger role to Elliote Friedman.

Love to see a whole thread devoted to building a better HNIC crew . PJ Stock would not be on my crew and neither would be Kevin Weekes.

I like our local Oilers broadcasts a lot!

Avatar
#87 andrewmk20
January 09 2013, 11:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@DSF

I was only using the Oilers as an example in terms of relative value. Also if the Leafs acquire Luongo would it still be possible for them to buy him out if he doesn't work out next offseason or the one after that?

Avatar
#88 oilerman53
January 11 2013, 04:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Burke is like the loud grumpy old lady at bingo who never wins but yet still buys as many cards as she can hoping for the best. His gambles will be seen as fails on all fronts, I never thought for one second that Phaneuf is a leader. Kessel is a toss up, but three years into that deal the Bruins look like gangbusters. Burkes Leafs Legacy will be muffing on Seguin, drafting Khadri, praising Coliaccavo and making crybaby Phaneuf captain. Godspeed Burke and take your big piehole stateside.

Comments are closed for this article.