The Accelerated Rebuild Theory has been debunked.
The standings don?t lie.
Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke?s adamant belief there was a shortcut to respectability in the ?new? NHL has been proven to be incorrect.
He had an aggressive rebuild-on-the-fly strategy, he executed it with some good moves, but the overall strategy failed to produce a quick turnaround into a playoff team.
The challenging question facing Burke and his staff is: What now?
What now for a Maple Leafs team that has won 13 of 36 games this season and will miss post-season play for a sixth straight season, it?s third spring out of the Stanley Cup tournament with Burke in charge?
See, we can argue all day about the Phil Kessel trade, the wisdom of believing Tyler Bozak could be a No. 1 centre at 26, the decision to appoint Dion Phaneuf captain, trying to jump-start the development of Nazem Kadri, or the choice to retain Ron Wilson as head coach.
But those were the tactics employed to advance the strategy.
It?s the strategy that hasn?t worked, leaving the club without the tangible benefits (high draft choices) usually accrued by teams after losing seasons.
Sitting 28th overall going into 2011 makes that a fact.
Burke?s short-term strategy hasn?t paid off for a bunch of reasons, a combination of his tactics and the unexpected way in which the business dynamics of the NHL have developed since the lockout of 2004-05.
Rather than producing a larger pool of impact, 27-year-old free agents every summer, the salary cap system has produced fewer. At the same time, the complexities of the cap system have caused the trade market to wither.
Even teams boxed in by salary cap problems haven?t had to divest themselves of top-end, high-salaried players in significant numbers, as Burke and others anticipated. The cap has kept increasing year after year ? by next year, a 57 per cent increase since ?05 ? and allowed teams to increase their payrolls rather than make tough choices.
So, whether by trade or free agency, marquee players haven?t been moving much. Burke?s miscalculation, then, wasn?t dealing for a 21-year-old Kessel; it was believing Kessel could quickly be surrounded by other talented players through trades and free agency.
In a non-cap world, it might have been easier to add those complimentary players, and thus fix what ails the Leafs more quickly.
In this still-developing cap world, that appears to be impossible and likely will continue to be such under a new collective agreement expected some time after September 2012.
So as 2011 begins, and understanding the issue now goes way beyond simply canning the coach, what?s the best strategy moving forward?
There are three obvious choices:
�?�Address the symptoms instead of the illness. Aggressively spend to add veteran players and end the losing as soon as possible.
Blow your brains out on an aging unrestricted free agent such as Brad Richards with an Ilya Kovalchuk-like deal next summer, or swap prospects or picks to land, say, Vinny Lecavalier and his ginormous contract, or, in the extreme, go after a restricted free agent like Zach Parise with an offer sheet, knowing that will cost at least two or three future first-round picks.
The Leafs will have a big chunk of money to spend this summer. The temptation will be there to spend and spend.
�?�Go the other way, dump all viable veterans and players older than 23, and do a tear-down like Washington did in 2003-04 that helped the Capitals land Alex Ovechkin, albeit with the aid of the draft lottery. In other words, tear down anything built in the past two years and begin a new five-year plan based on being terrible for at least three more seasons.
�?�Something in between the two extremes. Basically, continue the current approach, keep signing college and Euro free agents, add some mid-range NHL unrestricted types in their late twenties while ? and this is critical ? hanging on to all future first-round picks.
Which approach makes the most sense? Each of these strategies comes with benefits and risks. None of the three guarantees results.
The first would be tempting and could get the team back into the playoffs. But it would reduce flexibility by committing huge resources and cap space to one player and likely sentence the club to life in the mushy middle of the NHL. Or worse.
Unacceptable.
The second approach is unnecessarily radical, probably more appropriate for Calgary than the Leafs. Toronto is already among the NHL?s youngest teams. Three high first-rounders are in the system ? Kessel, Luke Schenn, Kadri ? while Bozak, Keith Aulie, Jussi Rynnas, Jerry D?Amigo, Jonas Gustavsson and Carl Gunnarsson appear to be bona fide prospects, if not blue-chippers. The majority were acquired by Burke, a clear commitment to youth.
Mikhail Grabovski is 26, Nikolai Kulemin is 24, Phaneuf is 25.
In other words, the cupboard isn?t bare. Collectively, it just isn?t ready to win. If anything, the Leafs need more youth, not expensive vets, to augment their young core.
So, the ?in-between? approach makes sense. Play more youngsters now and give them more minutes. Hang on to all prospects and young players. Keep future first-rounders in place. Spend conservatively on mid-range free agents for depth this summer while protecting cap space.
Let kids take the place of departing veterans Tomas Kaberle and J.S. Giguere. Go younger wherever possible and absorb one more difficult, painful season on the chin.
Make the 2012 entry draft the payoff, then spend more aggressively that summer, if possible.
Look to 2012-13 as the year to make the big step forward.
Burke has the long-term contract. He can be more patient, and should be. He can articulate to Leaf fans that he has determined a slight alteration to his initial game plan is necessary because cap realities have changed the landscape.
Forget defending the past. All the pain now won?t be worth anything if it doesn?t lead to something really good.
No comments:
Post a Comment