[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by fotze

I really, really want to know where the belief that this team was 'close' came from, these past many years. As much as Tinordi thinks he was the only one, I think most people here saw it, most people I have talked to saw it, most fans of other teams saw it, and most hockey commentaters saw it.

I think that viewpoint and how we carried out actions/trades/signings based on it was irrational. Not just a difference in opinion, but decidedly irrational. I think the belief the team was good is so irrational that not more than one or two people could have possibly held it and if they did, it was not an opinion they came to themselves, rather it was foisted upon them.

Believing this team was good and convincing others in the whole team could only have been done in one direction. i.e. if King or Feaster or Sutter believed this team was good, there is no way they could have convinced Edwards to go with what was done. The other way, totally.

I have seen completely confident, successful men turn into absolute p^%%ies when their boss walks in the room and will do whatever they are told to do.

It was obvious when Feaster was brought in, that this was a slap in the face of Sutter. He was being told that he hasn't been a good boy, they eventually brought in a guy that will do what he is told, plus the goodwill Sutter had earned due to the run was dried up by then, so no ownership backlash would come.

The problem is that the hockey world is the most secretive, closed world in sport. You do not speak out against ownership, ever, if you want to get a job anywhere near hockey ever again, its the way it has always been.

King and feaster probably are not be the problem, but maybe it would signal the ownership group has snapped out of it.

I've quoted several times that I believe ownership may be the problem, in particular, Murray Edwards.