Burke Speaks Out on Heatley

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=282128

Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke let it be known that the Leafs will not be in on the Dany Heatley sweepstakes, and he pulled no punches along the way.
In a phone interview with Deb Placey and Billy Jaffe on NHL Live!
broadcast on the NHL network, Burke stated that the Leafs had no
interest in the two-time 50 goal scorer, largely because of the way he
has chosen to handle his trade request.
"We're not going to be in on that," Burke stated. "He's a good
player but I have certain guidelines on how players ask for trades."
Despite being only one year into a six-year, $45 million contract
extension, the 28-year old Heatley went public with a trade demand last
week, claiming he was unhappy with his role on the team and his
relationship with Sens head coach Cory Clouston. Heatley, and his
agents, J.P. Barry and Stacey McAlpine's actions did not sit well with
Burke.
"When you have players come ask you for a trade, I tell the players
'don't finish that sentence,' because once you ask, I'm going to move
you," Burke stated. "If a player wants out, you're darn right I'm
going to move you. I'm not kissing anyone's Donkey to play in my town, so
to hell with you, don't finish the sentence. My second rule is if I
hear about this, you're not going anywhere."
While Burke stated that he has no problem with players requesting a
trade, he was unhappy with Heatley's decision to go public with his
request, thus making Senators general manager Bryan Murray's chances of
moving the sniper extremely difficult.
"For a player to pop off and say he wants out or leak it (to the
media), in my mind you are now no longer interested in your team. If
you've done that you've handicapped them, you've handcuffed your GM."
While Burke admitted that the Leafs planned to be very active in the
off-season and had plenty of money and cap space at their disposal, the
2002 Calder Trophy winner would not be welcome in Toronto under his
tenure.
"As long as you are on that team, you owe them to maximize the
asset, and once you've taken that step, sorry I don't accept that."

___________________________________

Obviously it's the right point of view and i agree with what Burke is saying, BUT this isn't helping Brian Murry in negotiations, when other Gm's hear this from Burke some of them might back off abit since he's a respected guy all around and guys want to manage their teams like him.

There's already a thread I think.

Interesting. On the one hand I applaud Burke for joining in with the rest of us, telling Heatley to go rot in hell. On the other hand, he's just made Murray's job a little more difficult. he's basically telling everyone (other GMS included) that he wouldn't touch Heatley with a ten foot pole.

wprager wrote:Interesting. On the one hand I applaud Burke for joining in with the rest of us, telling Heatley to go rot in hell. On the other hand, he's just made Murray's job a little more difficult. he's basically telling everyone (other GMS included) that he wouldn't touch Heatley with a ten foot pole.

His intention?

asq2 wrote:

wprager wrote:Interesting. On the one hand I applaud Burke for joining in with the rest of us, telling Heatley to go rot in hell. On the other hand, he's just made Murray's job a little more difficult. he's basically telling everyone (other GMS included) that he wouldn't touch Heatley with a ten foot pole.

His intention?

Very much likely.

I agree with everything there, I just wished he kept his mouth shut, buuuuuut it's Burke.

Pronger = Heatley

Who was the GM that traded for Pronger again?

Why do we have such sensationalist media these days? What the Diddle does Brian Burke have anything to do with Dany Heatley requesting a trade.

I mean, they don't even ask him anything worth knowing. They simply tell him to weigh in with his opinion on the situation. They don't ask him what it potentially means to move a player of Heatley's calibre or how this might affect how teams go about their spending plans on July 1st. No, they just ask him to tell us what he thinks about this situation.

What a Diddle waste of team...journalists these days are a bunch of short sighted twits who wouldn't know how to ask a real question if their life Diddle depended on it.

I don't know if I'd rather read that kind of question, or something like:
- How big was that goal at the end f the period for you guys?

dennycrane wrote:Pronger = Heatley

Who was the GM that traded for Pronger again?

Excellent catch. Although it's true that in Pronger's case he never said it was about the coach or. He still quit on his team, but not for selfish reasons (at least reportedly -- for all we know he threw his family under the "trade me" bus).

PKC wrote:Why do we have such sensationalist media these days? What the Diddle does Brian Burke have anything to do with Dany Heatley requesting a trade.

I mean, they don't even ask him anything worth knowing. They simply tell him to weigh in with his opinion on the situation. They don't ask him what it potentially means to move a player of Heatley's calibre or how this might affect how teams go about their spending plans on July 1st. No, they just ask him to tell us what he thinks about this situation.

What a Diddle waste of team...journalists these days are a bunch of short sighted twits who wouldn't know how to ask a real question if their life Diddle depended on it.

If the reporter asking him the question was really good (and quick to duck) then he would have followed up (after Burke "weighed in" saying he'd never trade for a player like Heatley) with: "So, Brian, how was this situation different from the Pronger trade request? There was another player who, basically, quit on his team a year into signing a new contract. You have first-hand experience with that case, seeing as how you were the one who traded for him."

dennycrane wrote:Pronger = Heatley

Who was the GM that traded for Pronger again?

But did Pronger leak anything to the media and make a circus of it? Pronger may have quit on his team and requested a trade... but he didn't pull a Heatley and turn it into a gong show.

Howard berger wrote a great article on this issue on everyone's favourite site.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Howard-Berger/Burke-Hypocritical-In-Heatley-Matter/3/21605

He brings up a really good point that got me thinking; is it any worse for a player to demand a trade than it is for a GM to buy out a player's contract?

The obvious answer as to why fans don't generally care when a player is bought out is because a GM would only buy out someone who isn't pulling their weight and makes too much money. Regardless, the GM is breaking a contract to a player who made a commitment to the organization. The player still gets some compensation in that they receive a portion of their expected salary and they can pursue another contract if anyone is interested, but they likely have a well-founded life in that city with a wife and kids. Conversely, when a player asks to be traded, the GM still gets compensation, but they do lose out on a piece of the team that they have assembled.

Does anyone see any holes in this argument? I can't myself, but this only just occurred to me now. If there is a difference, what is it?

A buy-out usually occurs when a GM can't move the asset at all - like our Emery situation. His stock value was so low Murray had no choice as we had to get him outta there.

I view a buy-out as worse for the club because they don't get any compensation and some of the player's salary remains on the books and cap for a while. A buy-out should be a last resort move only.

At least with a trade request, you can get compensation back and get the player's salary off your books and cap hit.

shabbs wrote:A buy-out usually occurs when a GM can't move the asset at all - like our Emery situation. His stock value was so low Murray had no choice as we had to get him outta there.

I view a buy-out as worse for the club because they don't get any compensation and some of the player's salary remains on the books and cap for a while. A buy-out should be a last resort move only.

At least with a trade request, you can get compensation back and get the player's salary off your books and cap hit.

For sure, the only compensation for the GM who buys out a player is that he has more cap room. I actually meant more in terms of ethics, as in, is there any ethical difference between asking for a trade and buying out a player?

This situation gets a little tricky in that there are two types of buyouts. The emery buyout for players who are too disruptive and need to be moved and the old-timer buyout, guys like Domi would fall into this category. Emery was a douche and needed to be moved out, but Domi's only fault was that he aged, and he can hardly be blamed for that.