The Definition of Re-Tool
William Favaro | 16 July, 2009, 4:45 pm
The NHL standings are like a cup of fruit-on-the-bottom yogurt.
You’ve all been thinking that, you radical geniuses, but I had the guts to say it.
You have to get all the way to the bottom to get to the really good part (and you can‘t stir first, smart ass). That good part at the bottom is a Jonathan Tavares, Victor Hedman, or Matthew Duchene type player. A true top forward or top pairing defenseman and an elite, impact player moving forward. Someone who not only displays skill on the ice, but also is the face of the franchise. A face that lures investors and top-end free agents to us.
There has been a lot of talk about whether or not we’re rebuilding in this way. At a recent press conference, someone asked Brian Burke, “Are the Toronto Maple Leafs rebuilding?“ Burke answered with the phrase “re-tool”. But is it that simple? Are the Maple Leafs cohesive enough today that they only need a re-tool? I don’t even know what a re-tool is. Do any of you? Comment if you know the difference between a rebuild and a re-tool. Don’t be a dick about it, this isn‘t grade school. Just be specific.
I must go into history to find what I believe re-tool might mean:
[sitting at home]
Dominic Moore: “I should have re-tooled my demands.”
He proved to be greedy and he’s never going to get the type of money he asked for. Not anywhere. Who’s going to pay a checking center $2 million per season with a PPG ratio south of 0.25 during his stint with Buffalo.
[after making love to his wife]
Brian Burke: “I’ll be ready to go again after I re-tool, babycakes.”
Brian Burke just seems like the type of guy who wouldn’t disappoint the Mrs. in bed. But you never really know, because you know who else seemed like that type of guy? … David Carradine.
I wonder if Dave Nonis is hiding Burke’s secret–that he is the real mastermind and Brian spends most of his time in the Executive washroom with a polyester rope around his genitals.
[dawning fire fighter uniform]
Chad Kilger: “If only I could go back and re-tool my life, I wouldn’t be wearing this damn thing.”
I agree with Chad, though. There is nothing sexier than a masseuse who will go all the way on a whim.
[arriving at the mechanic]
Mark Bell: “I just hit a bump in the road, can you re-tool my truck?”
It could have also been a term used had he spent time in maximum-security prison, as he should have. Something like: “please don’t re-tool me, Sir.”
And I suppose that’s it. I wish I could think of more ways to use the term ‘re-tool‘, but I can’t. “Re-tool” is just a made-up, child’s play term that should not be accepted by one of the most intelligent sports fan bases in the world. If Brian Burke were knocking out the dents on my rusty Fiat, I still wouldn’t accept the term. Why do we? We so quickly seem to forget that each and every one of us has put our time and money into making it a multi-billion dollar organization–one of the wealthiest in all of sports.
You want to know what I think re-tool really means?
If you said “no” under your breath, then screw you. Here it is anyway:
It means:
I don’t … know what … the hell … I am doing.
I like … to hear … myself talk.
Brian Burke is the type of man who would record his interviews and pleasure himself as he re-watches them.
Now, with that mental image lodged in your mind, I am going to quit there.
I plan to bring you regular thoughts and views on the Maple Leafs from the perspective of a straight shooter. You poor, starving fans don’t get that very often. Mind you, I don’t consider myself to be a journalist in the league of a Howard Berger type. But for Christ’s sake, his mustache was in style before I was born. I can’t compete with that.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by The Burkean Priority Matrix | TML Central - Maple Leafs reporting, Leafs rumours and Kaberle rumours on July 20, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Mind you, I don’t consider myself to be a journalist in the league of a Howard Berger type.
I assume there’s a joke there but it doesn’t come across in print.
It means: I don’t … know what … the hell … I am doing. I like … to hear … myself talk.
Yeah, that’s not what it means. It’s not quite an original take to suggest that the only way that the Leafs can rebuild is to tank for the number one pick. It’s also not the only way that the Leafs can get back to respectability.
What Burke is doing is telling all of you “Tank Nation” followers that you are wrong!!! You don’t have to finish in dead last to remake a team. Burke will prove that Tank Nation has been a moronic way to remake the Leafs. Playoff contender this year…next year they will begin to be a regular playoff team!!
Pension Plan Puppets | July 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I assume there’s a joke there but it doesn’t come across in print.
Yeah, that’s not what it means. It’s not quite an original take to suggest that the only way that the Leafs can rebuild is to tank for the number one pick. It’s also not the only way that the Leafs can get back to respectability.
____________________________________________
Sorry you didn’t like it, Papa. I had no idea you were going to come here and read it.
But in all seriousness (or however close to that I can get) you are wrong, my friend. The tank is very much on in Leaf Land. Burke has just thrown you all a swerve. And I shall explain this to you in my next article (to be posted July 17th).
And there is no other way to rebuild, ultimately. They will either need a high first round pick or a top line player worth more than a high first round pick. (Stop eating every word these people say.)
John R | July 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm
What Burke is doing is telling all of you “Tank Nation” followers that you are wrong!!! You don’t have to finish in dead last to remake a team. Burke will prove that Tank Nation has been a moronic way to remake the Leafs. Playoff contender this year…next year they will begin to be a regular playoff team!!
____________________________________________
What Burke is telling you is a lie. The sooner you know that the better.
As stated above:
The tank is very much on in Leaf Land. Burke has just thrown you all a swerve. And I shall explain this to you in my next article (to be posted July 17th).
And there is no other way to rebuild, ultimately. They will either need a high first round pick or a top line player worth more than a high first round pick.
It’ll be interesting to read your next article as I assume you’ll explain how teams like Detroit and San Jose have been on top for so long without tanking.
(Stop eating every word these people say.)
Howard would be so proud.
Let’s see Pittsburgh tanked for years to win their Cup I’ll give you that but let’s look at some other teams at or near the bottom for years and their success. To make it fair we’ll go over the last 15 drafts prior to last years because maybe a year isn’t enough to make an impact.
1993: First overall pick - Ottawa - Stanley Cups since: 0
1994: First overall pick - Florida - Stanley Cups since: 0
1995: First overall pick - Ottawa - Stanley Cups since: 0
1996: First overall pick - Ottawa - Stanley Cups since: 0
1997: First overall pick - Boston - Stanley Cups since: 0
1998: First overall pick - Tampa Bay - Stanley Cups since: 1
1999: First overall pick - Atlanta - Stanley Cups since: 0
2000: First overall pick - New York Islanders - Stanley Cups since: 0
2001: First overall pick - Atlanta - Stanley Cups since: 0
2002: First overall pick - Columbus - Stanley Cups since: 0
2003: First overall pick - Pittsburgh - Stanley Cups since: 1
2004: First overall pick - Washington - Stanley Cups since: 0
2005: First overall pick - Pittsburgh - Stanley Cups since: 1
2006: First overall pick - St. Louis - Stanley Cups since: 0
2007: First overall pick - Chicago - - Stanley Cups since: 0
So of all the teams that picked first overall in the last 15 years Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay are the only ones that picked first overall and even then got ridiculously lucky. Tampa Bay had to trade up to pick first in 1998 to get Lecavalier and picked Richards 64th that year. Then added pieces outside the draft like St. Louis as a free agent that nobody else wanted.
In Pittsburgh’s case Crosby came in the infamous 2005 lottery where there was no season in which to tank. The notion for tanking for top players doesn’t really hold water.
furcifer | July 17, 2009 at 11:02 am
Let’s see Pittsburgh tanked for years to win their Cup I’ll give you that but let’s look at some other teams at or near the bottom for years and their success. To make it fair we’ll go over the last 15 drafts prior to last years because maybe a year isn’t enough to make an impact.
____________________________________________
Hey, man … nice shot.
“Tank” has never meant “the drop to first overall.”
“Tank” is purposely icing a team that, in all probability, can’t make the playoffs.
So make up a new list that includes, say, top ten draft picks and Stanley Cup winners.
Top 10? So a third of the league?? Even more than a third if you go back before 1999. Why don’t I take the top 14? Maybe the top 20?
furcifer | July 18, 2009 at 1:47 am
Top 10? So a third of the league?? Even more than a third if you go back before 1999. Why don’t I take the top 14? Maybe the top 20?
____________________________________________
Does that mean you now realize how absurd it was for you to only use the first overall pick to attempt to disprove me?
You might as well do the top 14. It makes just as much sense.
You might as well do the top 14. It makes just as much sense.
____________________________________________
Now I’m done arguing with you. Your entire point was that you have to be at/near the bottom to get good players. Great players are drafted at all sorts of positions in the draft. Not including Detroit’s late picks in Datsyuk and Zetterberg there’s Getzlaf (19th), Gagne (22nd), Boyes (24th), and Iginla (11th), Tanking to get to the bottom doesn’t guarantee anything.
One always quits arguing when they’re wrong. It was just as absurd for you to single out only the first overall draft pick as it was for me to ask for you to make a chart of the top ten picks in each season. And I did it as an example to show you how narrow minded you were being.
As far as your statements that there are quality draft picks all throughout. Of course! One could be lucky and snag themselves a Datsyuk in any draft. But that’s being far too optimistic.
Don’t forget that there is a monumental difference between a team like Detroit who is maintaining greatness and a team like Toronto who must climb a mountain to get there in the first place.
Where do you get top end talent? Through the draft.
Where is top end talent more of a guarantee than a top ten pick?
For example, in the 2002 draft: two franchise player’s were chosen in the top ten picks, along with four or five solid talent’s (20% chance). In the following 281 draft picks, one potential franchise player was drafted (Semin) and just a handful of solid players (Keith, Stoll). So let’s count all three: (about a 1% chance)
In 2001: Again, two franchise player’s in the first ten picks (20% chance). In the following 279 draft picks: Hemsky, Cammalleri, Pominville, Sharp, plus a few decent secondary player’s. Let’s pretend those four are all franchise player’s on the level of Spezza and Kovalchuk. (That’s still a 1% chance to get a good player out of the top ten)
Twenty percent chance to get a franchise player in the top ten.
One percent chance in the rest of the draft.
Then you argue that we’d have more than one draft pick. Assume we have ten (those were nine round drafts). There’s less than one good player taken per additional round, so the likelihood is still only in the 3-3.33% range.
Do you even remember what your argument was?
And there is no other way to rebuild, ultimately. They will either need a high first round pick or a top line player worth more than a high first round pick.
PPP mentioned San Jose and Detroit as examples. Sure it’s possible. Nobody is denying that you don’t get good players in the draft but for every Crosby drafted there’s a Stefan, for every Ovechkin there’s a Daigle. Rebuilding can occur without tanking.
One more thing if having high draft picks is such a sure-fire means of success as you suggest explain the plight of St. Louis, Atlanta, L.A., Phoenix etc. teams that have mired low in the draft for a long time yet still have no success to show for it.
There is nothing sadder than a writer who isn’t funny but thinks they are. Also, arguing with commenters discourages future participation and reeks of amateur.
Bjorn Nitmo | July 19, 2009 at 12:17 pm
There is nothing sadder than a writer who isn’t funny but thinks they are. Also, arguing with commenters discourages future participation and reeks of amateur.
_______________________________________
The other two writers here are budding pros, to be honest. But I am a straight amateur and will remain as such. So thanks for the shot of confidence, you’ve told me I’m on the right path.
furcifer | July 19, 2009 at 3:30 am
One more thing if having high draft picks is such a sure-fire means of success as you suggest explain the plight of St. Louis, Atlanta, L.A., Phoenix etc. teams that have mired low in the draft for a long time yet still have no success to show for it.
_______________________________________
It’s not an exact science in the top ten either. But it is a 20% chance rather than a 3 or less percent chance. No other team can be expected to do what Detroit does.
And the four teams you’ve mentioned were all in a sorry state of meidocre drafting mixed with not enough financial room to surround their good players. Following in their footsteps in the top ten is almost as unlikely as following Detroit’s footsteps in the later rounds.