Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Are people getting their pitchforks out just to.. get them out?
Ken King:
Everyone keeps saying the same two things about him:
1) He is 'meddling' in hockey ops
2) He is a 'newspaper man', not a 'hockey guy'
Let's address the first. Is there a single shred of proof that exists showing that Ken King is meddling? Has any ex-coach stated he is meddling? What is his role? He is responsible for the business side, and hockey ops reports INTO him, correct? He reports directly to the owners. If the owners have something to say, it gets channeled through him, no? Does this constitute meddling? There is NO PROOF that he is 'meddling' and telling people what to do in hockey ops. Sure, I am positive that a big trade impacting a large amount of dollars has to go through him, perhaps big long-term contracts as well - as I am sure the owners are interested in where their money is going. Again, is this meddling? I can't think of a team out there that doesn't have this same structure (unless the President and GM are the same person).
As for "He is just a newspaper man"... Seriously? Ok, the guy has probably been a hockey fan just like us for most of his life. Sure, he never played the game. However, how long has he been part of the Flames. When does a non-hockey guy become a hockey guy? They are obviously not born with it. It is not inherited down from your father, is it? At what level of play is a 'hockey guy' a hockey guy? As long as he played Bantam? AAA? As long as he got drafted once by an NHL team? As long as he played in the AHL? As long as he played in the NHL? Exactly what do you learn along the way that makes you capable of being a hockey manager? Of running a hockey team? Of making hockey-related decisions?
I just see people picking up those phrases over and over again when talking about Ken King (meddling and not a 'hockey guy'), and just repeat it verbatim over and over like it is some mystical chant and focusing on it as the reason why this organization is not successful on the ice.
At least question it. Does it make sense? What makes Hartley a good coach - good enough that he won at every level he has ever coached at (and don't bring up the 'stacked team' in Colorado - Crawford couldn't win it). I mean, sure Hartley played hockey, but he was just a 'factory worker', no? How dare this organization hire brainless factory workers in any kind of a leadership position!!
People become too fixated on irrelevant stuff like this.
You know why this team is not successful?? You really want to know the 'big secret'?
It just isn't a good team. There is no 'blue print to guaranteed success', and almost always the team that is put together fails to get it down, and you have to change it. Arming yourself with pitchforks and trying to find the virgin sacrifice will not appease the hockey gods, and the next iteration of the Calgary Flames may still fail!
I just think people are looking too hard to place blame where it can make sense for them to do so, regardless of what the truth is or not.
At the end of the day, the Flames have an ownership group that wants to win and have no qualms about spending money to do it. If there are management personnel that are keeping the Flames from doing it, I am sure they will have no trouble replacing them, as they have in the past. The owners are not scared of losing a few bucks. If they were, this would not be a cap team season after season.
At the very least, the Flames are one of the few teams in the league with VERY stable ownership who are committed to winning. Without it, a team has ZERO chance of being successful on the ice (outside of a lucky year or two).
|