WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,990
- 26,475
Phaneuf was traded for on January 31, 2010 fwiw, so wouldn't have been around at the time they traded picks for Kessel (9/18/2009). Think in general the "quick fix" approach of trying to build a new core via UFA/Trades doesn't really work too well which is what Burke tried to do. Inevitable to have to go for a Draft foundation, and then from there can go with making the sort of savvy moves that earn (non-amateur scout heavy) GMs their money. Skipping ELC often means capping out the ceiling of players you get (Boston/Calgary made Kessel and Phaneuf available when they were still under team control, which says something) and you get them in their RFA years without developing the org foundation to support them in what would often be their best surplus value years to begin with. Once players in UFA years, really want to be able to be in a spot where you can afford to be continuously aggressively because you're supplementing a great core in their prime years, so if you are using your future capital to manufacture new salary cap (you sign old guy to term because who cares about back half, you trade away your 1st at deadline because it makes player you acquired a pro-rated cap hit, you use trade capital for the retention), etc. it's fine because you have good chance to win Cup and will deal with consequences of it next decade.Yes I imagine GM tend to be but they added Beauchemin-Phaneuf-Kessel, i.e. the 2 biggest minute D and what they thought the biggest minutes forward addition to their team.
Komisarek as well, that was in part a mis-evalution of impact player would have good, how good they really were, but expecting very different result with that much change is not crazy. Gettting Phaneuf-Kessel, that was getting 2 high draft pick in a sense.
Like you say the guy had giant success after success, throwing haymaker (The Sedins was seen as quite the move by now, Ducks had the cup), , building around Phaneuf, that Kessel trades, they were big move, they type that if they work make up for middle of the road drafting history.
The overall strategy was sound I think, just bad execution, Komisarek at 4.5 in that time, that was just bad, I think way worse than taking a chance on a Kessel potential game breaking talent. In a cap world that type of contract can tie you more than loosing what should have been middle of the roads picks...
Hard to say even with best case scenario with Burke moves the Leafs not just ending up in middle for a while anyways. Seems hard to envision a team in salary cap era that had success in what should have been the start of their tank cycle in an attempt to "speed it up". Result is more often than not just delaying inevitable.
Suck for some time (usually 5+ years), collect high draft picks, collect a bunch of excess picks, build prospect pool, build young/cost-controlled players, get aggressive once team shows 'organic' growth has really been the name of the game in Salary Cap era and almost all teams with runs of success have followed a similar pattern, including now Toronto in Matthews era. Biggest exception is Vegas who never had a drafted foundation, starting with their "Misfit" expansion foundation that massively overachieved all expectations and basically been "all in, every year" since then which has lead to a lot of favorable aggressive moves that panned out well.
Last edited: