Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal and True
Noteworthy that Grant Pollock suggested Sutter should be let go. A few people agreed but many held the view that his good moves outweighed his bad ones at the time. Most acknowledged that Sutter had made errors but that all GMs do.
|
As one of the first critics of Sutter on this board, I'm well aware how unpopular an attitude that was at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole436
Because he inherited an absolutely god awful team and built it into one which won and challenged for a division title each and every year.
|
I give Sutter full credit for revamping the lineup he inherited and making the Cup run. He made some deft moves to round out that squad.
Post-lockout and CBA, he was able to make moves and signings that his predecessors simply couldn't because of the handicap small-market Canadian franchises operated under. He was operating under fundamentally different conditions than Coates and Button, who, like the GMs of Ottawa and Edmonton, had resigned themselves to being little more than development teams for the deep-pocketed franchises in a cap-less league.
The Flames competed for division titles because they had two superstars, and could spend to the cap. Sutter inherited one of those superstars, and brought in the other. He had nothing to do with the increased resources at his disposal - the Canadian dollar and booming energy sector get the credit there.
After Sutter left Calgary, there was no chance another NHL would hire him as a GM. By the merciless arithmetic of professional sports he was a failure - teams that have veteran superstars and spend to the cap are expected to win playoff rounds. And he left the franchise with the worst collection of under-26 talent in the NHL - a terrible situation in a capped league that relies on young and cheap skaters making a difference. But I'm glad he got another shot at being a coach, because he's great at that job.