Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Well, I feel that the role of any president is to be the liaison between the owners (or whatever stakeholders they may be) and lower management. What matters most in that position (in my opinion) is how you set the tone for the organization to be run and hire the most competent people you can below you.
I guess it all comes down to how much 'meddling' really goes on, and if they take King's and Feaster's words for the absolute truth when they came out and said that here is no meddling.
It all depends on how King has been. I am in IT, and I have worked for managers who were IT illiterate. Sometimes they would question my decisions - I would sit with them and explain why I thought 'such and such' was the right approach, and why 'such and such' was the wrong one. I had to 'sell' that manager on what I felt was the right way. How difficult is it to convince King? How often would he say no? How often would he have his own idea as to what was the right way, and force his ideas (or those of the ownership group) down through the pipeline?
I personally just don't think the 'braintrust' was good enough for the last 20 or 30 years. This organization is only finally catching up to other successful organizations now with the scouting and development, and the addition of some executives. I am not convinced that ownership is meddling outside of the occasional "Hey, WTF is going on here? Why do we suck?" now and then. Feaster came out and basically told everyone that he was able to make his decisions without the ownership group blocking him. He even commented on how he called the owners to ask permission to send Kotalik down, and their response was: "Sure, no problem. If you need to, feel free to send Hagman and Stajan down as well."
I think when a rumor starts, it goes around and around. All of a sudden, someone hears it from two different sources, and now the rumor has 'legs'. Someone more legitimate reports on it, and then the rumor has 'merit'. Doesn't mean it is any more true. That is why I just don't buy into the 'ownership is very meddling' in Calgary when these guys are very professional executives and owners who know how to run a business properly - hire good people to manage it for you.
Adding Shanahan (or any other good executive) will only help to reinforce ownership's confidence in the management they hired to run this business. I doubt a good executive would take the job or stay long-term if he felt he was unable to be more than just a messenger back and forth with no powers.
|
Surely you see the difference between your situation and hockey?
As for what level - ANY level that you are trying to win (i.e. any level they actually bother to keep score). I'll take junior or NCAA, sure. Even AAA. There are tons of stories out there from former players, just see the thread about building a team of winners. Look at Dean Lombardi interviews. We can keep trying to think we are outsmarting everyone else by showing the world we can get by with a team full of non-hockey people... but look where it got us? From a playoff team to bottom feeder. Tampa Bay tried to show the world they could get by with a non hockey guy, and within 4 years of winning a cup, they were last place in the NHL.
Is it possible that you can be a good GM without knowing crap about hockey until you are an adult? Its possible, anything is possible. Jay Feaster isn't an example of it though. But given the stakes for such a important position and a billion dollar franchise, I probably wouldn't try and outsmart everyone and prove we can win with a non-hockey GM. Its not working out very well for us right now.