Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
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. |
Ok, I am not an idiot and of course I see the difference between being in IT and hockey. I of course wasn't comparing the specific job functions, but comparing the level of skill and experience. Surely, you can make the leap there.
I am not defending Feaster. Re-read my posts please. I am asking a simple question - what makes a hockey guy, a hockey guy. I think I have asked this question about 100 times on this board, and I can't remember getting a single definitive answer in return. How long does it take a non-hockey guy to work in the industry before he is graduates into one? Obviously you are stating one needs to have played the game - then at what specific level has one to play the game until he is considered a hockey guy.
Also, Ken King is considered a non-hockey guy in this forum. Wasn't Darryl Sutter his recommendation for coach? As far as I recall, it was King who went and spoke to Sutter about coming on as a coach in Calgary. Seemed to work out pretty damn well for the next few years anyways.
I am not in support of Feaster - not because he isn't a 'hockey guy' - I actually consider him a hockey guy now that he has been around hockey for what.. 20 years? I just don't think he is a very good manager, that's all. It isn't about the Flames trying to 'outsmart' everyone else (well, EVERY organization tries to outsmart everyone else - it is a competition) - it is about the Flames trying to do their best in having the right people in their jobs. Last I checked, Lowe is the epitome if a 'hockey guy', and I can't think of anyone else I would rather NOT have work for the Flames.
Given enough time in the business, scouts, coaches, and managers tend to get better with experience - regardless of what their background is. Shanahan is not more or less likely to be a better president than King was just because he was a very notable player.
Maybe a definition of what a 'hockey guy' is would be a good start, as it seems a lot of posters are so adamant that any executive in the organization HAS to be one.