He said that just to avoid getting into any kind of trouble but then he addressed it by saying it wasn't an issue that was brought up.

But, most sane and normal people would realize that if it was such a massive issue, that he couldn't just brush it aside as he did.
- Two_For_Truth

Well, he couldn't do anything but for fear of the aforementioned tampering. He is still, of course, an employee of the maple leafs organisation. Maybe if he was not employed by them anymore, then he would (could?) have been more upfront.

Tampering. But no big deal.
- Pen15

No worries. His argument is already flawed.

He says what Lebrun says is speculation, and not a fact so we can't listen to it.

So that means he cant listen to Dreger or BobMac.

He's contradicting himself, and it's hilarious.

No worries. His argument is already flawed.

He says what Lebrun says is speculation, and not a fact so we can't listen to it.

So that means he cant listen to Dreger or BobMac.

He's contradicting himself, and it's hilarious.
- jbold

Game....



























over.

It's okay. He just proved he's as good as a Canucks fan now.
- Two_For_Truth

...and you're worse

Well, he couldn't do anything but for fear of the aforementioned tampering. He is still, of course, an employee of the maple leafs organisation. Maybe if he was not employed by them anymore, then he would (could?) have been more upfront.
- lumlums

2:44.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.

2:44.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.
- Two_For_Truth

....And then 15 seconds later....

2:44.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.
- Two_For_Truth

Winner....

2:44.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.
- Two_For_Truth

I didn't remember that bit, I just remembered him saying about tampering. Thanks for the vid.

2:44.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.
- Two_For_Truth

And then 15 seconds later he basically says he doesn't know why he was fired.. And says to ask ownership if that was one of the reasons..

Just because it wasnt said to him, doesn't mean that wasnt one of the reasons.

Like Lebrun said, Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu and ownership wanted him to.. But clearly you know a lot more than Lebrun.

"...but certainly it was not said to me that this is one of the reasons..."

But maybe that's still speculation.
- Two_For_Truth

So in that very quote, Burke indirectly concedes that not pulling the Luongo trigger is a 'reason'.

Thanks for clarifying....

What do you guys think the over/under is on when the 'why Burke got fired' debate will abate...I'm thinking 2017

And then 15 seconds later he basically says he doesn't know why he was fired.. And says to ask ownership if that was one of the reasons..

Just because it wasnt said to him, doesn't mean that wasnt one of the reasons.

Like Lebrun said, Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu and ownership wanted him to.. But clearly you know a lot more than Lebrun.
- jbold

Yeah, because when you get fired over something so massive like not getting Luongo, it's usually left out of the explanation.

Excellent logic.

What do you guys think the over/under is on when the 'why Burke got fired' debate will abate...I'm thinking 2017
- Zezel

You should go with the under because it's already over right now, in 2013. Burke already said it himself. Case closed. Although, there will be those who will refuse to accept reality. To those select few, have fun playing with each other.

Yeah, because when you get fired over something so massive like not getting Luongo, it's usually left out of the explanation.

Excellent logic.
- Two_For_Truth

Also when you're a professional you likely don't run to the press and tell the whole truth about the boardroom conversation

You should go with the under because it's already over right now, in 2013. Burke already said it himself. Case closed. Although, there will be those who will refuse to accept reality. To those select few, have fun playing with each other.
- Two_For_Truth

Reality is for those who can't handle drugs

Yeah, because when you get fired over something so massive like not getting Luongo, it's usually left out of the explanation.

Excellent logic.
- Two_For_Truth

The truth will set Burke free, if indeed Luongo ends up here for a package of youth. It will be very apparent that it was the suits that wanna play hockey God's, have their way. You'd think that they were playing NHL 13 or something? Eat another pop tart, you morons in the board room!

Also when you're a professional you likely don't run to the press and tell the whole truth about the boardroom conversation
- Zezel

And Burke didn't do that either. Burke didn't divulge the exact reasons that were given to him but he did deny certain things that weren't discussed like it being "personal issues" or the Luongo rumors.

He pretty much didn't say what it was but also did say what it wasn't as confusing as that may seem.

Also when you're a professional you likely don't run to the press and tell the whole truth about the boardroom conversation
- Zezel

Its called a confidentiality clause. As long as they're paying him, he can't say anything. It would be a breach of contract and ethics, if he were to do so.

The truth will set Burke free, if indeed Luongo ends up here for a package of youth. It will be very apparent that it was the suits that wanna play hockey God's, have their way. You'd think that they were playing NHL 13 or something? Eat another pop tart, you morons in the board room!
- PrinceLH

With or without Burke, Luongo was on the radar.

With or without Burke, Luongo was on the radar.
- Two_For_Truth

He may have been, but it wasn't for promising young players or valuable assets. If either of those go for Luongo, then it was the board who approved this!

Its called a confidentiality clause. As long as they're paying him, he can't say anything. It would be a breach of contract and ethics, if he were to do so.
- PrinceLH

Yep, and especially when the Luongo deal is still an ongoing issue, he sure isn't going to really confirm or deny what's going on inside MLSE

He may have been, but it wasn't for promising young players or valuable assets. If either of those go for Luongo, then it was the board who approved this!
- PrinceLH

And Nonis already said that wasn't going to happen.

It's already been said by credible people, both Burke and Nonis, both of them, wanted Luongo but didn't want to pay the price. Whether Burke was fired or not doesn't really change the price on Luongo. The negotiation for him was going to continue the price was going to go up or down depending on who got desperate first.

Yep, and especially when the Luongo deal is still an ongoing issue, he sure isn't going to really confirm or deny what's going on inside MLSE
- Zezel

If he did, it would cost him millions, in unpaid salary. It may come out, once the Leafs aren't paying him any more.

And Nonis already said that wasn't going to happen.

It's already been said by credible people, both Burke and Nonis, both of them, wanted Luongo but didn't want to pay the price. Whether Burke was fired or not doesn't really change the price on Luongo. The negotiation for him was going to continue the price was going to go up or down depending on who got desperate first.
- Two_For_Truth

If Nonis is smart, he plays the first 10 games, before making a decision. If the Leafs start 2 and 8, like I predict, then we won't need him regardless. The season will be over. If they're 5 and 5, then it gets scary, because it may cause them the false hope of a playoff series and they get stupid upstairs. If they get out to a 6 - 3 - 1 start, then it'll be due to our young goalies and Luongo will be forgotten. Here's hoping for 1 and 9, out of the gate!

If Nonis is smart, he plays the first 10 games, before making a decision. If the Leafs start 2 and 8, like I predict, then we won't need him regardless. The season will be over. If they're 5 and 5, then it gets scary, because it may cause them the false hope of a playoff series and they get stupid upstairs. If they get out to a 6 - 3 - 1 start, then it'll be due to our young goalies and Luongo will be forgotten. Here's hoping for 1 and 9, out of the gate!
- PrinceLH

Actually, it's the opposite. The worse the Leafs do, the more they feel they need to shake things up and get a goalie. The better the Leafs do, the less they feel they need something.

Either way, it shouldn't matter. If they are 0-10 or 10-0, Luongo should either rot in Vancouver or end up somewhere else. Just doesn't make sense. Not even for free.