Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard
Who ever said he's holding back hockey personnel. It's pretty routine that players want assurances from ownership and management above the GM that they are committed to winning and to the player. This is especially true when signing a long term contract as it's pretty normal for GM's to be replaced every 4-5 years. Just look at how Robyn Regehr met with the Sabres ownership and upper management before agreeing to waive his NTC. A General Manager can only make promises for while he's there. Ownership's support is required if a player wants assurances beyond what a GM can give. Given pretty much all the hockey related stuff we hear Ken King and ownership is involved with is hiring and firing related, I have no reason to believe their involvement goes beyond doing due diligence and helping convince players and staff that the Calgary Flames are committed to them.
Also, there's a significant difference in meddling and approving a deal with conditions. Meddling is ownership telling management what to do, essentially making the manager a puppet. I don't think that's what the Flames ownership does at all. For example, if ownership approved the hiring of Keenan but only on a tight rope, then firing Keenan wasn't meddling but simply part of the conditions of hiring him.
|
What if ownership told Darryl to fix the Flames 9 game losing streak at all cost? Thus the 72 hours of D. Sutter madness?
What if ownership told Feaster we are not selling after Feaster blew a gasket just before trade deadline this year? Especially since it was pretty clear Flames should be sellers at that point?
Before I thought Darryl went crazy. But with Keenan comments and Feaster having to backtrack on what he said, I think it's warranted to truly believe that those above the GM chair are getting too involved by overruling the GM decisions, which has come back to bite us in the ass.
I'm not saying that the president and ownership can't be in any way, shape, or fashion involved in hockey operations. After all they're the highest position people so they should have their say. And their presence in regards to hockey transactions can be an asset at times. But you gotta have faith that your GMs will make the best decisions possible. They're suppose to be the smartest hockey personnel in the whole entire hierarchy. If Feaster thought we should be sellers, let us be sellers rather than overruling him. If you don't trust Feaster word then why is he the GM?
Look what ownership involvement has brought to the Oakland Radiers and Dallas Cowboys.