Brian Burke: Let’s Make a Deal!

*The above photo is Brian Burke at the draft with Chris Pronger, a defenseman Burke believed in strongly enough to trade up in the draft order to acquire…hint hint

Amongst NHL media and fans there is the general belief that Brian Burke is one of the best GMs in the league when it comes to trades, specifically that he is better capable of stealing quality talent out of an organization than many or most of his peers.

Being the iconoclastic contrarian that I am, I decided I’d take a look into this to determine whether this was indeed true, and if so to what extent and based on what factors. I also wanted to look further into Burke’s history as a GM and determine where he ranks amongst his peers in the league.

In doing this research I looked at every trade made by the Canucks, Ducks and Leafs while Burke was GM with those organizations. His tenure in Hartford was very brief and was therefore excluded. I’ve also left out his time with the Flames as he has only recently taken over the GM position and prior to that we have no way of determining the impact of his presence on the trades made by his predecessor, Jay Feaster.

My process was to rank every trade as a win, break-even, or loss. Listed below you will see the wins and losses, respectively. I also took note of trades that were made where the featured return was a player noted for “truculence or intimidation” ahead of skill, basically when he traded for an enforcer, in order to determine whether Burke was more likely to spend resources acquiring this type of player.

I then compared Burke’s record with those of David Poile in Nashville, Don Maloney in Phoenix, and Doug Wilson in San Jose in order to provide some perspective through contrast.

My goal here isn’t to criticize or exalt Burke, but instead to draw on historical context to separate fact from narrative. We don’t have Corsi numbers on GMs so we have to cobble together their relative strengths and weaknesses using other means. Past performance relative to organizational context is as good a place to start as any.

Looking at the Field



Burke made 36 trades (excluding his draft-day Sedin trades) during his six-odd years with the Canucks (average of six a year), 35 in three-plus years with the Ducks (nearly twelve a year), and 39 in his roughly four years with the Leafs (just shy of ten per year).

Don Maloney has made 59 trades over six years in Phoenix (about ten a year), while Poile has made 47 trades over about five years (a little more than nine per year), and Wilson about 91 over ten years in San Jose (average of 9.1 a year).

Burke is certainly within the average of these GMs when it comes to the number of moves made per year.The most notable difference is that Burke has been willing to trade players in and out of the perceived core of a team more often than some of his colleagues. As well, Burke has spent relatively short to moderate periods of time with each organization compared to Poile, Maloney and Wilson.

All four GMs have spent time at various stages building a roster, pushing it up the standings, and then trying to put the finishing touches on creating a championship team. Burke was the only one to date who has been successful in this final stage.

In terms of adding those two infamous skill sets, truculence and grit, Burke has made roughly ten trades during his tenure in each organization to intentionally add an enforcer-type of player with NHL potential, that is to say, not solely for the AHL team.

By my count Maloney has made eight trades of a similar variety over his time with the Coyotes. I could only find three trades made by David Poile that qualified as bringing in NHL enforcers. Doug Wilson, over ten years, has made six trades that I could put in this category and this meant including trades for Ben Eager and Raffi Torres, both of which, at the time of their acquisition, were considered functionally productive NHL players.

Considering the reputation of each of these teams, Nashville, Phoenix and San Jose, they vary in terms of perceived size and toughness, so each example can give a little insight into how other GMs approach the philosophy of “team toughness” and adding size to a roster.

The evidence suggests that we are right to believe that Burke likes big players, and believes there is room in hockey for men whose job it is to physically intimidate at the cost of skill. No revelations there, but it is interesting to note the number of transactions he will make in a given year to address an area that many feel is an anachronism in the modern NHL.

He is also given to adding this characteristic through free-agency at least as often as trade, if not slightly more so, than some of his competitors.

Burke: Wrangler or Rustler?


Brian Burke has made some very deft trades in his time. But if we compare the trades he has won to those he has lost, where does he stand? His trade wins are usually spectacular, but in the end does that matter if he loses on a higher number of smaller moves that end up being a net loss for the team he is trying to build?

Here are the trades Burke has made in each organization – those that I believe he won appear first, those that I consider losses follow.

(Note: For clarity, I have left out the Sedin draft day trade, but this was clearly a win and one that has since been a cornerstone of the franchise since the departure of Todd Bertuzzi and Markus Naslund, just as I have left off judging many of his draft-day trades moving picks for picks because of the delay between making the pick and it delivering at the NHL level)

*all data taken from pro sports transactions

Canucks Wins June 1998 to May 2004

Date – Team – Acquired – Relinquished – Trade Partner



Ducks Wins June 2005 to November 2008

Date – Team – Acquired – Relinquished – Trade Partner


Maple Leafs Wins November 2008 to January 2013

Date – Team – Acquired – Relinquished – Trade Partner



Burke lost more trades than he won in Vancouver but at the time was rebuilding a team on the fly and this was at a time when Canadian franchises were struggling to survive. He made some significant roster moves in Bure and Mogilny, in both cases forsaking elite-level talent for a collection of roster pieces. Undoubtedly his crowning achievement, and one that resonates even today amongst Flames fans, was the machinations that allowed him to acquire both the 2nd and 3rd overall selections in the 1999 draft. It was a byzantine affair that, frankly, is worth a read all on its own. That being said, unless the Flames are looking at highly skilled identical twins in the draft again I don’t expect something similar anytime soon.

Burke’s record appears closer to break-even in Anaheim, although the Pronger deal and subsequent Stanley Cup win overshadow any negative impressions of his work there. It is worth noting that following the Pronger deal the remainder of his roster moves, either by addition or subtraction, were mostly minor deals adding depth or toughness. J.S. Aubin, M.A. Bergeron, Jay Leach, Joakim Lindstrom, Ken Klee, and various moves to either move up or down in the draft order were the bulk of Burke’s post-Stanley Cup trades. He was forced into a corner on two occasions via the salary cap, first with the Dustin Penner offer sheet and secondly in having to trade Andy MacDonald for Doug Weight. In both cases his loyalty to Scott Niedermeyer and Teemu Selanne in allowing them the summer to decide on retiring or returning was the primary cause.

Without a doubt Burke’s time in Toronto was his most successful in making trades when taken as a whole, acquiring Gardiner, Franson, Riemsdyk, and-wait for it-Phaneuf for a collection of spare parts, aging veterans, and modest draft picks. His one major mistake was the Phil Kessel deal and if one were to reverse that deal while maintaining all the rest, the Leafs at the end of Burke’s tenure, would have been a dramatically improved team from top to bottom.

If there is hope for Flames fans it is in this last episode as GM that it resides.

 Context? We Don’t Need No Stinking Context!


So what were the circumstances in each of these organizations while Burke was there?

Vancouver was rebuilding and fighting an uphill battle financially at the time. They had a few good pieces on the roster, added the twins and then Burke gradually just shuffled around the pieces, never really able to get the team to a high level and spending resources chasing goaltending and toughness.

In Anaheim Burke was gifted while just settling in to his new role with a desperate Kevin Lowe having to trade Chris Pronger. That he won that deal is self-evident in that Pronger was, at the time, one of the best defensemen in the game.

It has been mentioned many times before, but one must also keep in mind that the roster to which Burke added Pronger and lured Rob Niedermeyer was already boasting some impressive talent assmebled by the man who would coach Burke’s opponent in the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals, Bryan Murray.

That this is Burke’s one championship success is, in my opinion, no coincidence.

The Maple Leafs were a highly dysfunctional organization at the time Burke was hired and his mandate was to overhaul the team. He sought to avoid the draft-and-develop process, instead believing that he could add the necessary players through trade and free-agency, both professional and collegiate, to improve the team more quickly. His trades served two purposes: to remove bad contracts and aging veterans and return young players and prospects.

The Vancouver Canuck and Toronto Maple Leafs experiences were closer to rebuilds and bear some, though not all, similarities with the Flames in their current state (establishing identity, acquiring talent).

Brian Burke certainly boasts one of the best trade records in the NHL over the past five years with the bulk of his best work arguably being the most recent with the Maple Leafs. His downfall on the strategy of acquiring good players seems to lie in his insistence on acquiring an abundance of player-types who generally occupy one or perhaps two roster spots on most other teams.

As well, despite his insistence on building a team from the net out, he has spent a significant amount of his time as a GM attempting, but often failing, to secure adequate goaltending. The net effect, if you’ll pardon the pun, is a diluting of the overall skill level of his team and an imbalanced team that cannot compete against those teams who have equal or greater skill and can withstand his teams’ physical play.

In Toronto he eschewed the general practice of building a team through the draft, preferring instead to attract high-profile college free-agents, UFAs, and trading for young players. Had he pursued the draft in addition to his other moves it is my belief that he would still be employed in Toronto and that the Leafs could be a superior team to the one at the time of his departure.

He has proven adept at collecting defensive players and prospects (Jovanovski, Salo, Pronger, Gardiner, Phaneuf, Franson, and so on), but has also traded away a surprising amount of skilled and/or effective forwards, sometimes early on in their development (Bure, Mogilny, Parenteau, MacDonald, Glencross, and Umberger).

During his time in Toronto, however, Burke generally accumulated talent to a greater degree than was lost, and while I will debate the way in which those talents have been deployed and the coaching philosophy, the talents provided to the coaching staff were vastly improved from the time he first joined the organization.


Draft Picks Are For Sissies


For the sake of comparison, let’s take a quick look at the draft history of the Canucks, Ducks and Leafs during Burke’s time at each.

His record with the Canucks is the best in that he added Bryan Allen and Jarkko Ruutu in 1998, the Sedins in 1999, Umberger in 2001 and Kesler in 2003. Those were the draft successes of the Canucks over the course of his six years there.

His brief tenure in Anaheim (three years and change) produced only Bobby Ryan as a draft success.

Under Burke the Leafs drafted Luke Schenn (by trading up to 5th from 7th), Nazem Kadri (7th) and Morgan Rielly (5th). It should be noted that he had traded the draft picks that were ranked 2nd and 8th overall in 2010 and 2011, respectively over the course of roughly four years.

Generally speaking Burke is content to acquire skill in the draft, 2011 notwithstanding when he took Tyler Biggs and Stuart Percy in the first round.

Burke has also shown a predilection to making trades on the draft floor, although these generally have tended to be picks for picks, altering the draft order to either move up or down by adding or forfeting additional picks.

It is also worth noting that many of his expiring contract trades at the deadline have involved recouping both prospects and picks, meaning that the inclusion of the one necessarily dilutes the value of the other. For instance, based on previous trades, Burke could very well trade Cammalleri for a 2014 2nd, a conditional 2015 2nd and a middle-tier prospect rather than a 2014 1st round pick. This isn’t to say that it will happen, only that past behaviour makes it a distinct possibility. Consider his deadline trade of Stempniak as a possible template which recouped Matt Jones, a 2010 4th round pick (Philipp Grubauer) and a 2010 7th round pick, later traded to the Oilers for a 2011 6th round pick (David Broll).

In all likelihood Burke will not be the principal architect of the Flames roster beginning this summer. The initial moves have already been made by Feaster and Weisbrod through the draft and free-agent signings (Hudler and Wideman, especially) and I suspect that their true replacement will be named sometime before the end of the Olympic break and the trade deadline. This means that the June draft and off-season provide the most likely window for the eventual Flames GM to begin making meaningful changes to the Flames organization. One need only see the changes made by Dave Nonis, Burke’s understudy for the better part of a decade, in Toronto to see that this does not necessitate that the new hire will enact a carbon copy of Burke’s management style, but the hiring is likely to provide some insight to a general trend.

Burke has done well in many trades, reshaping teams in his preferred mold. There is no doubt that he has a history of acquiring talented players usually approaching or in the prime of their careers. He is also not afraid to trade away any asset if he feels it will improve the team as a whole. He is fiercely loyal to his players and has, at times, put his organization at a disadvantage on account of this. He aggressively pursues trades but has suggested in that past that he has reasonable limits as to how far he will pursue free agents. All this aside, Burke is focused solely on winning and it is reasonable to believe that if a course of action which he had earlier denounced were open to him as a way of significantly improving his team he would explore alternatives but in the end would not balk.

His deal for Phil Kessel as an alternative to an offer sheet and resignation from the Anaheim Ducks after implying that he would not pursue a job with the Maple Leafs while employed by the Ducks both stand as evidence in this regard.

 Drawing Conclusions


*For the record, that’s Dave Poulin pointing something out to Dave Nonis with Burke in the row in front. Poulin has been suggested as a possible GM candidate for the Flames. 

The Calgary Flames are in far better hands overall today with Brian Burke than they were under Jay Feaster. Whether he is GM or President of Hockey Operations, his experience and proven abilities with roster management and talent acquisition stand in stark contrast to that of his predecessor.

Is Brian Burke one of the elite GMs in the NHL? I wouldn’t put him in that rarified company, but I would argue that he is one of the better GMs in the league, notwithstanding his penchant for overvaluing players who fall into the enforcer category. He has proven himself to be adept at making trades, with as much of a willingness to take risks as Feaster but with a higher success rate. The first two moves that I believe we can in any way attribute to Burke, the Colborne and Westgarth moves, fit his history perfectly in that in both cases the Flames acquired NHL players with a large frame and relinquished little of immediate value.


  • piscera.infada

    Just a brain wave here, but do you think that if (in the likely chance) the Rangers can’t sign Callahan, would you make an offer to him as a UFA? I know he might not come here but I do know a) Burke likes him, and b) he’s a Burke type player. I personally like his game a lot. He’s not overly young, but also not super old (28 isn’t a horrible age), he has great leadership qualities, plays hard every night. Although there are some injury concerns. Anybody?

    • RexLibris

      Callahan would be a good player for the Flames.

      They’ll need someone experienced and he’d make a good tandem with Giordano in providing some leadership for the rest of the roster.

      The Oilers have been rumoured to be interested in him for years for similar reasons. I believe they see him as a sort of better, modern day Ethan Moreau.

      • piscera.infada

        Yeah, I’m skeptical as to why the Rangers wouldn’t resign their captain, who’s relatively young, but apparently they value Girardi more – it’ll be tough to get something done. I have a hard time seeing him on the plains of Canada, but Burke might be able to get him – given the USA Hockey relationship thing.

        Really enjoyed the article by the by.

  • MonsterPod

    Whew, that’s a long one. I could not read the whole thing and I was highly distracted by the lovely topless blonde. Sincere thanks for that.

    Good work, though. This is the kind of analysis that does or does not get a guy like Burke hired and fired. I think it speaks to his accomplishments that he is currently employed and has never been unemployed for very long.

    The whole win/loss thing is not only subjective but must be put into context. They are also open to debate. You had Mogilny and Bure in the ‘loss’ column, but Bure wanted out of Vancouver and Jovanovski was great there for a lot of years. Mogilny was an underperformer, for the most part, and there was talk of drug problems.

    Sometimes you may ‘lose’ a trade when you need to move a problem player. Boston moved Seguin for Eriksson and Reilly, essentially, because Seguin was a problem. If Seguin becomes elite as Eriksson gets older, did Chiarelli ‘lose’ this trade?

    Speaking of Seguin, your Kessel ‘loss’ claims that Hamilton and Seguin are more valuable than Kessel to a franchise, and while those two young guys look good, Kessel has not been a bust at all. So that trade is a slight tilt one way or another, unlike… ahem, the Phaneuf deal.

    • RexLibris

      Eriksson was ostensibly the main piece going Boston’s way in the Seguin trade, and yet Reilly Smith is currently their second leading scorer. I’d say they did okay.

    • RexLibris

      I took the simplified “the winner is the one who gets the best player in the deal” approach. Probably should have explained that, but as you can see I was going for brevity…*waits for laugh track*

      I take a more nuanced approach to judging trades. Case in point: the two recent Oilers deals. Dubnyk for Hendricks is not a good deal. But if one takes the two deals together – Dubnyk and a 3rd round pick for Scrivens and Hendricks it begins to even out. And of course, history decides the winners in most trades. If the Sedins go back to Sweden to play and McCabe becomes a top pairing defender, then the draft-day deal for the twins looks like a complete disaster.

      Mogilny left Vancouver and had a very productive career in New Jersey. Bure wanted out and Jovanovski was a good return, but when you look at the remainder of the pieces coming back, it doesn’t entirely add up.

      In both situations Burke was dealing from a position of weakness. Something I’ve tried to account for in the article. But it is important to recognize those times because it goes against the narrative that he could trade a bucket of rusty bolts for a bar of gold.

      Kessel hasn’t been a bust, but if you subtract Kessel from their current group and add Seguin and Hamilton, the Leafs have an embarrassment of riches.

      • EugeneV

        The only problem with the “Hamilton and Seguin” for Kessell trade is that even Burke wouldn’t have made the trade for those 2 players.
        The trade was for 2 1st round draft picks and he expected to make the playoffs after adding Kessell meaning the “Seguin pick” wouldn’t have been #2 overall, but in the 15 – 30 range instead and who wins the trade then?

        Burke understands that a team needs elite level talent to win and you can see how he has targeted that elite talent through the moves to draft Pronger and the Sedins.

        • jonahgo

          the fact that he totally misevaluated the talent level of his own team, by assuming they’d be in playoff contention when they ended up in the lottery, is just as bad of a blunder.

          • RexLibris


            The moment he made that trade I was relatively certain that it would be a top five selection. The roster was awful and unbalanced, he was placing heavy bets on unproven talents like Bozak, Hanson and Gustavsson, and the addition of Wilson meant that any struggles were likely to become dramatic and undermining.

            He got the talent identification part right – Kessel is a phenomenal winger – but misjudged the remainder of his roster and administration terribly.

  • RexLibris

    Thanks for all the work on this. After reading this and today’s Sun article I am prepared to take more of a wait see attitude towards Burke and trades. This does not mean that I like his view of hockey but I’m more prepared to see what he does than just be critical of him.

    • RexLibris

      I’m not a fan of the kind of hockey Burke has most closely associated himself with – last evening as another example.

      That being said, credit where due and he is a far, far better architect to an actual NHL team, regardless of what style it plays, than Jay Feaster.

      The Flames will improve. Burke is not a panacea and a tremendous number of things will need to break in their favour for this rebuild to be successful within three to five years. But there is reason for cautious optimism, provided fans can shut out the hyperbole and background narrative and focus on objective expectations.

  • Lordmork

    Good read. It brings some clarity to the debate over Burke. It seems pretty clear that the team will improve with him running it. The question is, I guess, whether his methods will improve the team enough to compete for 8th, or enough to compete for a cup.

    • piscera.infada

      I think it’s possible, but that would have to be a draft-day trade IMO. The situation would be if the Flames make another push, end up with, say, the number 5 pick. If you don’t like anyone there, and other teams do, why not see if you can get something good for the pick? On the other hand, if it’s first overall, I doubt he moves it. The problem with hindsight on the Kessel pick is that we seem to forget how high that pick was. The issue was that Burke miscalculated how good that team would be (something he hopefully learned from) rather than the trade being all that bad in principle.

    • EugeneV

      Burke has never intentionally traded a high 1st round pick, and I don’t believe he will do that in this case either, unless we drop out of the top 2 or 3. If we drop out of the top 3 then I would advocate trading the pick myself.

    • RexLibris

      The only example I could see happening is if the Flames were to finish 4th, for example, and another team 2nd, where Burke might trade the pick and a player or prospect to move up and take Ekblad.

      That is the only prospect I see Burke coveting enough to consider trading up (based on his history with Pronger and the verbal about Johnson in ’05).

      Should the Flames end up with the 6th overall pick, I can see him trading out or down at the draft, most likely at the time the Flames are due to select so as to best ascertain those available and the deals offered.

      Anything in the top five, though, and I think he keeps it.

        • RexLibris

          If a team behind them won the lottery? Or perhaps Burke makes deadline deals that immediately improve the team. The team performed relatively well after the deadline last year, playing themselves out of a top five selection by year’s end.

          Lots of track left and a number of things can still happen.

  • ChinookArchYYC

    Good article.

    I have maintained from the first day Burke arrived that his contributions to Anaheim’s cup were largely overrated. In fact, he himself also respectfully gave a lot of credit to Murray (and rightly so). I always felt he made the Leafs better, but I didn’t expect how much work he did. They are not a great team today, but the Leafs were a pathetic and hopeless organization, before Burke’s arrival. I will give credit where credit is due.

    • RexLibris

      When Burke joined the Leafs they were a basketcase franchise with virtually nothing in their development process and trending in a terrible direction.

      He did manage to acquire a great deal of talent but I believe this was handicapped by his insistence on circumventing the draft as a principle means of talent acquisition for an organization in that situation.

      The funny thing is, once he left that old Yogi Berra quote that he “turned the team around 360 degrees” could be applied positively.

      Nonis has taken something nascent but altogether promising and driven it hard into the guard rails.

      The only thing that frustrates me is that Burke, and by extension the Flames, is perfectly positioned to take advantage of Nonis’ shortsightedness.

    • RexLibris


      Have we started a FN GM pool yet? Call the name and date it is announced and win some FN swag?

      I was positive they’d announce a hiring right when I finished this article and before it went live.

  • beloch

    Okay, obvious question:

    If Burke is above average, what went wrong in Toronto? He did pick up some good players over the years, but the underlying numbers there have looked awful and continue to look awful, early-season luck aside. Is there any evidence that Burke knows how to build a team, not just obtain a few stars and goons?

    • MonsterPod

      I like the team, to be honest. Take the sweater off and just look at the roster:

      Van Reimsdyk – good,

      Kessel – good,

      Lupul – good,

      Kadri – good,

      Bolland – good,

      Even Clarkson is a guy I would want on my team, just not at that price.

      Franson, Reilly, Gardiner and (cough) Phaneuf — some pretty appealing D.

      And I’d take their two goalies over our two goalies, hands down.

      Yes, they’re struggling and maybe they need a new coach and maybe even a new GM, but they’re not a wasteland by any stretch. And I would argue that they are not an ‘awful’ team.

    • RexLibris

      Look at the roster at the moment that Burke was fired, and subtract all the other dross that has happened since (buying out Grabovski, the Clarkson overpay, etc).

      He built a decent team and restocked a moribund development pipeline with other teams’ draft picks. Not bad for three years’ work.

      The Leafs’ underlying numbers have diverged from performance since acquiring Carlyle, so that is on the coaching staff more than the GM, in this case Nonis.

      Burke’s problem has more or less always been the same: he spends valuable resources chasing goaltending and size so that the talent he does acquire gets watered down or ends up playing a style of hockey that went out of fashion in 2004.

      In Toronto he tried an end-run around a basic principle in hockey, you need to draft and develop as one aspect of team building. Burke’s drafting has long been sub-par, and how he runs the draft board this year, even if a new GM is in place, will be very interesting.

      What I believe Burke to be good at is winning the occasional trade that brings in a difference-maker. He takes risks and has been described as extremely aggressive in trade negotiations – to the point that some have wondered if the other GM doesn’t just give in to shut him up.

      Those can be advantageous, but at the same time, Burke has moved around a fair bit in management and one wonders if his approach wears on others. One thing that I believe is true now after his time in Toronto is that every GM can see him coming and, just as they eventually became with Glen Sather, they are likely to become more vigilant in their dealings with him.

      On the positive side, I really believe that it is only a matter of time before he walks away from a trade handshake leaving Nonis counting his fingers.

  • The Last Big Bear

    Nobody in the world thought that Toronto’s picks were going to include a lottery pick, and another top-10.

    Toronto looked like they’d be a bubble team, probably not in the playoffs, but at least in the mix. Especially when they added Kessel. The degree to which Toronto sucked surprised an awful lot of people.

    And all that aside, even with the benefit of hindsight, I can’t honestly say this is a loss for Toronto. I think it’s arguable as to who is the better player between Seguin and Kessel, but I’d lean towards Kessel. He has a longer track record of more consistent success, compared to Seguin’s “I’ve been doing really well for a couple of months since I was dumped like a hot potato by my previous team for reasons which few seem to disagree with.”

    And Dougie Hamilton still has oceans of upside, but until he hits it, he’s still just another kid with potential.

    As of 2014, I think Toronto has the best player from the deal, and I’d honestly call it a wash unless Hamilton becomes a top-pairing guy.

    • Disagree. A lot of folks figured the team was still pretty awful and the bet was a bad one. I didn’t think it would be 2nd overall, but I didn’t like the gamble at the time and still don’t like it, even though Kessel came more or less as advertised.

      One of the problems for Toronto in that deal is that Kessel is a great offensive talent, but not a guy who tilts the ice. With possession being one of their enduring weaknesses, his acquisition wasn’t the type to really turn things around.

      I think Seguin has a better than average chance of being better than Kessel in a year or two as well.

  • Though Bryan Murray was largely the architect of constructing the Ducks championship team, Burke still had to put together the right pieces to finish the puzzle. Getting Pronger was massive and integral for the Ducks to win the Cup. Also, he totally fleeced Darryl Sutter on the Phaneuf trade. He’s probably partly responsible for setting the Flames back in some ways. The Toronto Maple Leafs had some good pieces, but they are still not built properly. Bringing in guys like JVR and Lupul are a big reason for the Leafs successes. He’s got to get some impactful return if and when he trades guys like Cammy, Stajan and Stemps.

  • RexLibris

    Toronto is 51-37-10 over the past 98 games and are in a hunt for a playoff spot again with an exciting young roster. Kessel is the 5th leading scorer in the NHL over the past 3 seasons only 17 points away from first. Kessel and the Leafs may not tilt the ice but they sure seem to be bending the twine. Just think what might happen if they add to this talented young group?

  • The Last Big Bear

    Burke is one of the better GM’s in the league.

    He gave VAN conerstone players to build around.

    He put the final touches on a Ducks team that needed a piece or two to reach the next level.

    He turned TO into a respectable team again. I dont care what anyone says that Kessel trade was more even than people like to admit.

    I can only name a handful of GM’s who I think have a better resume.

    People will realize that we are lucky to have him.

    He will turn this thing around. There will always be debatable moves but every GM has those.

    I have faith and am looking forward to his vision coming to fruition. There is no denying we need to add grit just as much as skill. Burke will address both.

  • acg5151

    One thing – a lot of the ‘losses’ you have are debatable/had extenuating circumstances.

    a) Trading Pavel Bure netted a good return – basically Ed Jovanovski and some other pieces that varied in effectiveness, plus he didn’t have much choice since Pavel Bure wanted out.

    b) Trading Mogilny netted the Canucks Brendan Morrison who was a big part of the West Coast Express.

    c) Trading Pavel Kubina didn’t get the Leafs a lot but it shed some cap.

    d) The Leafs gained a star winger who became one of the best snipers in the NHL for a guy who still hasn’t established himself as a top line center and a decent defenseman who has some upside. The Kessel trade to me definitely is a draw as far as I’m concerned.

    But good article, I definitely think Burke is a solid GM and Calgary couldn’t have done much better than to get him in the organization, even if he just functions as an advisor to whoever he picks as a GM.