Dubas will not return as Leafs GM

[Pengwin7]

Personally, the Tavares thing was a "big bowl of nothing"... for Dubas.
Tavares wanted to go to Toronto - they got him a smidge, probably, below market price.

We can say "it was a solid signing"... but Dubas didn't exactly have to "work" for it.
We can say "they could've spent their money differently"... but we couldn't pinpoint how - at that time.
It was just... fine/easy. It went OK. It wasn't bad... wasn't great... it was fine. Blah.

The Kadri trade - they had cap issues - made sense. Also "fine" - at the time.
The McCann/Kerfoot thing - I mean, for me, that was clever/fine... not a big deal... Kerfoot certainly wasn't a game-breaker, IMO.

I do remember criticizing the add of McCann - because it seemed more like that was Dubas protecting what he got (Kerfoot) for Kadri.
If he doesn't make that move than people are screaming "We lost Kadri for... nothing." (If Kerfoot gets picked in expansion draft without a solid holding piece).

All meh/fine/blah moves by Dubas dressed up as "clever"/"novel".
And then he'd grab plug & play spot goalies and defense and the guys that panned out got more time... obviously.

Meh.
Fine.
Blah.

The composure and glasses & novelty of his youthfulness in a major market.
We don't see that in GMs.
It all made Dubas appear to be a unique GM.
And we associate unique with positive.

But as a GM:
Meh.
Fine.
Blah.

I think if people erase what Dubas looks like... and they just review his signings, trades... it's very... boring.

[tweetdrivr]

And at the end of the day it hasn’t worked. That’s the bottom line.

[2014olympicgold]

Yup, he had 4 or 5 yrs with 1 series win. End of the day that's what ends your tenor in other places.

Dubas is 37yrs old. He has another 30yrs of potential chances. Which means he can get a new job like 6 times in the NHL if he continues this type of success, which is nuts to think lol.

[random-d]

The "old boys club" in professional sports always fascinates me. And by fascinates I mean frustrates. You would think by looking around for awhile that there were only 32 people qualified for any given position in professional sports franchise because they just keep cycling through the same names over and over again. It's similar to the academic world where once you have tenure you're pretty much in for life unless you sh*t on the bosses desk and sell nude pictures of his wife. I'm interested to see if the Leafs regret taking a chance on Dubas and overcorrect by hiring one of the good ole boys. I'm sure we'll have another interesting retrospective no matter which route they take.

[hockeyrobot]

Clocks ticking Shanny.

[blayze]

I personally wouldn't mind them giving Pridham a shot. Everyone labels him a salary cap whiz but give him a chance to see if he's more than that. the downside is that he's Dubas 2.0 but I'd rather gamble on that then hire from the 60 year old recycled pool.

[2014olympicgold]

I personally wouldn't mind them giving Pridham a shot. Everyone labels him a salary cap whiz but give him a chance to see if he's more than that. the downside is that he's Dubas 2.0 but I'd rather gamble on that then hire from the 60 year old recycled pool.

The flip side of the "He's Dubas2.0" is he could see what Dubas was doing wrong because he is a set of eyes close, but not making the decisions.

He also knows what Shanahan likely wants to hear. But Shanahan might also know Pridham isn't the guy because of the suggestions Pridham has said the last 5yrs as a AGM (or the last 9yrs in the organization).

[hockeyrobot]

Classy statement from Dubas....
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...sed-departure/

[dejeanneret]

Serious question that I don't know the answer to:

How many organizations have a President or President of Hockey Operations or whatever who is as hands-on and looming over the GM as Shanny is in Toronto?

Seems to me this is a relatively new phenomenon in the league; maybe over the last 15-20 years. And the situations that immediately come to my mind have tended to not work out all that favorably.

Don't even know if this list is accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...eam_presidents

But if this is indeed the list of team Presidents, I've never heard of many of them -- much less heard of them constantly publicly opining about how their team and GM are performing at any given moment.

Perhaps part of the problem in Toronto (and elsewhere) has to do with the organizational structure where the GM is micro-managed and scrutinized constantly (and publicly) by his boss. Nobody likes being micro-managed and seldom does doing so extract the best performance from the one subjected to it.

Like I said at the outset, beats me. But just a thought to ponder.

[2014olympicgold]

I know the Jays had to go to Rogers and ask if they can sign someone when it was more than 5yrs and over x amount of dollars. It wouldn't surprise me if teams have a thing where if it involves certain players, picks or money, it's not just a 1 person decision. Especially when you think a President tends to outlast a GM and trading a pick/prospect might alter the Presidents team in the future where the GM isn't there.

Think about how awful a deal can be when a GM is only thinking about the GMs future. (Raycroft and Rask)

[blayze]

I do think the President of Hockey Ops role is redundant. It would make more sense for GM to report to a senior exec at MLSE. But MLSE shits money so they don't care.

[hockeyrobot]

And I think a lot of teams are using it in order to keep people in house through promotions instead of losing them to other teams.

For day to day at MLSE I think it's specifically a job to manage upwards and allow the GM to focus on the hockey. But clearly it can hinder and slow things down when it comes to making big decisions.

[2014olympicgold]

The role also differs from organization to organization. But it's meant as a 2nd opinion in a lot of places, or a sobering thought. Other places they use the role as a bit of a face of the hockey organization in terms of events. Some have the President as a role for having the teams financial goals at heart vs the GM having team success at heart.

But having a President veto what the GM does is not a rare thing. It is however rare for it to happen often. In this instant we don't know what moves were vetoed or pushed by Shanahan, or how often.

Here's what the Flyers released this yr when announcing their GM/Pres hirings:

"The president of hockey operations will lead the strategic direction for all aspects of the hockey operations department while collaborating on business goals. The general manager is responsible for all hockey decisions as it pertains to signings, trades and draft picks as well as overseeing scouting, player development, roster construction and more."

[dejeanneret]

The GM has to report to somebody, I get that. And it'd make sense for that person to be the "President" of the team. But I guess what I'm focused on is how publicly that is done in some places -- including Toronto. It's as if the President is, in fact, operating as a GM Emeritus or some such thing. Far more public about the day-to-day hockey side of things and undermining to the GM than I'd think would be an optimal organizational setup.

[dejeanneret]

The role also differs from organization to organization. But it's meant as a 2nd opinion in a lot of places, or a sobering thought. Other places they use the role as a bit of a face of the hockey organization in terms of events. Some have the President as a role for having the teams financial goals at heart vs the GM having team success at heart.

But having a President veto what the GM does is not a rare thing. It is however rare for it to happen often. In this instant we don't know what moves were vetoed or pushed by Shanahan, or how often.

Here's what the Flyers released this yr when announcing their GM/Pres hirings:

"The president of hockey operations will lead the strategic direction for all aspects of the hockey operations department while collaborating on business goals. The general manager is responsible for all hockey decisions as it pertains to signings, trades and draft picks as well as overseeing scouting, player development, roster construction and more."

That's really interesting, thanks for posting it!

Even then, however, it seems to me that that delineation has the potential to be really messy I think if things don't go as hoped in terms of team success.

I mean, where do you draw the line between the signings, trades, drafts that the GM is responsible for being lousy vs. the "the strategic direction for all aspects of the hockey operations" that the team President is responsible for being the root of the problem and informing what type of player to draft, sign, etc.? In some truly disastrous scenarios, it may be obvious. But in other situations, it most likely won't be.

For instance, if we assume this is roughly how the Leafs envision the roles, is the failure the singings, trades and draft picks or the strategic direction for all aspects of the hockey operations, including revolving around a "big 4" of offensive players and filling in other pieces as needed?