Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
You know as well as I do that the offseason is the period with the most opportunity to shape your team for the upcoming season. Pinning that on Feaster who came in as a caretaker just looks opportunistic.
I also love the line of argument that Sutter saved the team which is completely devoid of context. The rebalancing of the league with two incredibly important drivers did way more than save the Flames than Sutter trading for Kiprusoff ever did.
If the Sutter as Saviour argument is to hold then why aren't the Oilers in need of saving? Arguing that Sutter saved the Flames implies that his deft moves resulting in on-ice success turned the financial fortunes of the team around when the team was at risk of leaving town. The counter factual would be that in Edmonton after 8 years of unprecedented failure they would have to be on the verge of financial and spiritual collapse. But they aren't. They're in pretty good shape financially. So if you can drive a team into the ground without the need for saving then maybe, just maybe, the on ice product that people like Sutter were directly responsible for wasn't the real reason for the franchise to be saved.
The bottom line is two fundamental levers changed the economics for the Flames a) the Canadian dollar and b) the salary cap. Sutter was just the guy fortunate enough to be sitting in the captain's chair when the winds picked up. We all swooned at his ability to sign free agents and trade for people like Tanguay. Luxuries guys like Coates were never allowed. You can't hold that against Coates just as much as you can use it to praise Sutter.
|
Except Sutter changed the fortunes of the team
prior to those economic changes. The building was empty in 2002 and full by the end of 2004.
It is completely fair to say that the economic changes would have saved the franchise regardless (as they did in Edmonton), but that doesn't negate his accomplishments.