Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan
Now we have a GM who not only talks, but can do so eloquently and give you a clear picture of what their intentions are and where they are headed.
|
Well, I can certainly see why you like listening to him and I (among others) don't.
I don't think Feaster is that eloquent or a clear communicator. I'm not sure if this is more because he often has no clear idea where the team is heading, or because he's just a windbag. My gut feeling is that it's a bit of both. It could just be that he is just too often trying to be open in situations where he really can't say much, but to me this is "talking too much".
More generally I feel that Feaster is unqualified for his job, and that his biggest redeeming quality is that he knows this and tries to put himself in a position where as many decisions as possible are made by someone else, people who actually know their hockey. Or you know, "surrounding himself with hockey people".
This is not all bad, but the problem is that I don't see how Feaster is going to evaluate his hockey people if he himself doesn't know enough about hockey. Also, what does Feaster himself bring to the organization?
At this point I have pretty much just tuned him out, because listening to him is IMO pointless. I want to see results, and so far I have real trouble finding much positives. The team is the worst it has ever(?) been, asset management in general has not looked good, and it's too soon to say anything about the prospects overall.
I'm still waiting for a reason why we should keep him as a GM. Surely we could do better?
Quote:
|
Sure, he has little catch phrases that drive everyone crazy, but that's like watching a trailer for a movie and assuming it's a bad movie without actually seeing the movie.
|
Well if a trailer is bad, the movie is almost is usually terrible, so I see no fault in that logic
