[Rumour] Dowbiggin is reporting a new head of hockey ops

[sun]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

This whole 'hockey guy' thing is so ridiculous. Do you ask your surgeon if he enjoyed cutting up animals as a kid? Do you care if your aco####ant had a lemonade stand after school?

Haha this is an amazing accountant misspell.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by sun

Haha this is an amazing accountant misspell.

Ha! All my bitter old man rumblings should be that colourful.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Also, I really object to "Has Ken King even played ice hockey?" stigma. He is a president. Once again, how long does someone have to be involved in hockey before they can be considered a 'hockey guy'? Do they need to make it to a certain level? Is it necessary for them to have been NHL players? AHL? ECHL? Major Junior? AAA? When is the cut-off?

Hockey guy has just become a term to describe a guy who knows the game of hockey from a more technical standpoint, such as understanding how the game is played and having the ability to evaluate hockey talent. Hockey players are generally seen as hockey guys because players typically know when they see a good player, but that doesn't mean they make good scouts because scouting is all about the ability to project a player. I've answered you many times it's about learning the trade and developing the skills required for the position. Ken King is a hockey executive who has to know the trade by now. But I bet that if a coach, scout, or player starts talking about the finer aspects of hockey such as hockey strategy King would be lost. So you can watch the Flames play hockey 80+ games a year for the past 25 years and not be a hockey guy. You can be the team's physician for 30 years and not be a hockey guy. You can negotiate contracts and be the team's capologist and not be a hockey guy. But an equipment manager who has made the extraordinary effort to learn the game from the coaching staff might be in a better position to coach or scout than say Ken King or Jay Feaster.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Cliff Fletcher never made it past Junior C. He's in the Hall of Fame as a builder.

If you like some ancient history, Tommy Gorman never played hockey at any level, but won seven Stanley Cups as GM of four different teams — some of which he also coached. He's in the HoF, too. (By the way, like Ken King, he was a newspaper man before he went into hockey management.)

It's a safe bet that Jay Feaster will never be in the Hall of Fame, but his lack of personal experience playing hockey is not the reason. He just isn't a good enough manager.

As Vulcan pointed out, Fletcher worked as a scout and Gorman has scouting and coaching experience. He didn't just sit in his office delegating.

The President of a hockey team not being a hockey guy is generally no where near as being as big of a problem as a GM not being a hockey guy. But accusations of meddling aside, King has been the President of a team who has been unsuccessful for many years and who have gone through GM hirings without much of an interview process. That's a problem. Owners hire GMs without much of an interview process all the time, but the smarter ones without much in the way of hockey knowledge generally have a consultant or advisor helping them with the process.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

This whole 'hockey guy' thing is so ridiculous. Do you ask your surgeon if he enjoyed cutting up animals as a kid? Do you care if your aco####ant had a lemonade stand after school?

Some people should honestly take a step back and realize what utter #######s they sound like talking so bitterly and arrogantly about an organization and a business they are customers of not knowledgeable about (and some probably not even that).

It's stunning sometimes.

I would make sure that my surgeon is a certified surgeon with experience performing surgeries. I don't want my surgeon to be someone trained to clean surgery rooms or even a medical doctor who spent years running his own practice.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

This whole 'hockey guy' thing is so ridiculous. Do you ask your surgeon if he enjoyed cutting up animals as a kid? Do you care if your aco####ant had a lemonade stand after school?

Some people should honestly take a step back and realize what utter #######s they sound like talking so bitterly and arrogantly about an organization and a business they are customers of not knowledgeable about (and some probably not even that).

It's stunning sometimes.

Word.

[metroneck]

Originally Posted by FAN

I would make sure that my surgeon is a certified surgeon with experience performing surgeries. I don't want my surgeon to be someone trained to clean surgery rooms or even a medical doctor who spent years running his own practice.

Would 20 years experience in the Medical Field be enough?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

I would make sure that my surgeon is a certified surgeon with experience performing surgeries. I don't want my surgeon to be someone trained to clean surgery rooms or even a medical doctor who spent years running his own practice.

Right. On the other hand, do you particularly care if the hospital administrator is a certified surgeon?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

As Vulcan pointed out, Fletcher worked as a scout and Gorman has scouting and coaching experience.

Yes, and Fletcher got that scouting job without ever having played high-level hockey. Gorman's first job in hockey was recruiting players for the 1916-17 Ottawa Senators. The very next season, he was not only the GM of the team, but part owner as well. Feaster had ten years' experience in hockey management when he got his first NHL job, including eight years as GM of the Hershey Bears.

Some people keep talking as if Feaster had never seen a hockey puck before Tampa Bay gave him the keys to the front office. Some people seem to think he still hasn't seen one.

Sometimes I wonder if the people shouting loudest for Feaster's head aren't just a bunch of bitter ex-jocks who can't bear the thought of an outsider playing in their sandbox.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, and Fletcher got that scouting job without ever having played high-level hockey. Gorman's first job in hockey was recruiting players for the 1916-17 Ottawa Senators. The very next season, he was not only the GM of the team, but part owner as well. Feaster had ten years' experience in hockey management when he got his first NHL job, including eight years as GM of the Hershey Bears.

Some people keep talking as if Feaster had never seen a hockey puck before Tampa Bay gave him the keys to the front office. Some people seem to think he still hasn't seen one.

Sometimes I wonder if the people shouting loudest for Feaster's head aren't just a bunch of bitter ex-jocks who can't bear the thought of an outsider playing in their sandbox.

Really doubt it.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Any level above Peewee

What do I consider a hockey guy - a guy who grew up in a world where hockey is a 2nd instinct, not a job. Someone who outside of their job function, will catch a game if they got a few hours before they go to sleep (I believe it is said that Jay Feaster doesn't scout any amateaur games, didn't watch Cervenka before signing him, etc). Someone who will talk endless hours of hockey at night, every night because its like a religion to them. Someone who, for them, hockey is a way of life, not just a job. Can you have that kind of burning passion where you watch every ounce of hockey you can because you love it so much (hell, maybe even midget not just for scouting but because you love it so much)... or can you not be bothered catch a junior hockey game because you are put in 50 hours in for work already this week? I just can't see a guy who never really thought about hockey till it was his job, to have that kind drive; but I think you need to have it if you're going to be one of the best GM's in the league, and if the Flames want to be the best in the NHL, we need to hire the best.

Alright, so you feel that someone has had to play the game competitively for some time.

Feaster does scout. I have no idea how often he scouts, but he does. I remember an interview where he said he would be going out east for 3 days or so to do some scouting. Doesn't mean he is any good, doesn't mean he is bad - just means that he does scout 'x' amount of time (and I would personally assume it would be lower than the average as compared to other GM's - but just an assumption).

As for the 'living and breathing' thing - how do you or anyone else know that Feaster or King don't live and breathe hockey? How do you know they don't PVR and watch as many games as possible?

I am not here defending Feaster - I for one have never really liked him much. However, he has been involved in hockey now since 1988 apparently - longer than a large portion of NHL hockey players now. He never did play hockey, but he seemed to love the sport enough to want to continue in this field. After he left Tampa, he did some blogging for a while about hockey - seems to have enough love for the game to do that rather than return to his law practice (or maybe he did, but still loved hockey enough to try and remain in the game somehow).

I would much rather the Flames bring in a better GM (I don't particularly like most of his moves, and his constant drivel in the media I find a bit much), but when people throw out the terms: "not a hockey guy" or use the "newspaper man" when talking about Ken King, I just kind of scratch my head at times. I do think that the Flames should hire the best guys available, but that to me doesn't necessarily mean being a hockey guy. If it was, Lowe, Tambelini and Milbury would not be the huge flops that they were. Conversely, Bowman and Lamoriello wouldn't be seen as so brilliant (though they both played competitive hockey, none played close to the level of the 3 aforementioned).

I just think being a 'hockey' guy is less and less important as you move up the organization. I think it is definitely a 'plus' that Shanahan was a great player who played the game for a while, but what is more important to the Flames to him being president is his competency at being a president in the organization, not a scout or an evaluator of talent. That is simply not the job of a president I would think, but I do agree it adds value.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FAN

Hockey guy has just become a term to describe a guy who knows the game of hockey from a more technical standpoint, such as understanding how the game is played and having the ability to evaluate hockey talent. Hockey players are generally seen as hockey guys because players typically know when they see a good player, but that doesn't mean they make good scouts because scouting is all about the ability to project a player. I've answered you many times it's about learning the trade and developing the skills required for the position. Ken King is a hockey executive who has to know the trade by now. But I bet that if a coach, scout, or player starts talking about the finer aspects of hockey such as hockey strategy King would be lost. So you can watch the Flames play hockey 80+ games a year for the past 25 years and not be a hockey guy. You can be the team's physician for 30 years and not be a hockey guy. You can negotiate contracts and be the team's capologist and not be a hockey guy. But an equipment manager who has made the extraordinary effort to learn the game from the coaching staff might be in a better position to coach or scout than say Ken King or Jay Feaster.

The first bolded point - how do you know he would be lost? He grew up in Canada, and his work with the Sun and Herald could have very well put him in contact with lots of great players and coaches. He may very well have picked the brains of many and he might be a pretty knowledgeable hockey guy by this definition, right? This was his 'dream job' - so obviously he was a huge fan of hockey to begin with, and he could very well have gone along much like the equipment manager in your example.

My point is there is no 'degree' of hockey. You watch some guys come up through the ranks of the NHL, retire, and then join the front office. Some are absolutely amazing personnel that do a tremendous job. Others are just.. well.. horrible. The greatest player in the game made a horrible coach. A guy that never played beyond minor hockey has been the best coach in history.

All I am saying is that it seems people throw out the 'hockey guy' thing out quite a lot, and I see two things wrong with it:

1) There is no clear cut definition of it. A lawyer is a lawyer once he completes his degree. When is a hockey guy a certified hockey guy? There is no consensus on this.

2) Plenty of hockey guys have been successes and absolute failures. What does it really matter in the end?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by metroneck

Would 20 years experience in the Medical Field be enough?

You're kidding me right? Would you trust a family doctor who has 20 years experience as a family doctor perform say heart surgery?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

You're kidding me right? Would you trust a family doctor who has 20 years experience as a family doctor perform say heart surgery?

The comparisons here are beginning to go beyond silly and into gonzo.

First off, nobody is going to die on the operating table if Jay Feaster screws up.

Secondly, there is no certification process for NHL executives. Much as some people dislike the fact, you don't have to play the game for X number of years to get your Ph.D. in Being a Hockey Guy.

Thirdly, even on its very limited merits, the analogy doesn't work — as I tried to point out earlier, evidently without success. Feaster is not one of the men on the ice or even in the dressing room. He isn't the surgeon operating on the patient; he's the administrator of the hospital, who doesn't need to be a surgeon or even an MD and usually isn't.

If Murray Edwards decided tomorrow to pull a Harold Ballard and hire (say) his pool boy to run the Flames, he would be perfectly within his rights. Neither the fans nor anyone else could sue him (or the pool boy) for malpractice. All you can ever do is stop buying tickets or watching games on TV — or not. This is just a teensy bit different from open-heart surgery.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The comparisons here are beginning to go beyond silly and into gonzo.

Don't quote me. I didn't bring up the comparison. Thanks.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

Don't quote me. I didn't bring up the comparison. Thanks.

You were the one who took it from silly into gonzo, by bringing family doctors and heart surgery into it.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, and Fletcher got that scouting job without ever having played high-level hockey. Gorman's first job in hockey was recruiting players for the 1916-17 Ottawa Senators.

Exactly. Those two are poor comparisons because they learned how to scout and evaluate talent and trusted their instincts along the way. Feaster relies on others to evaluate talent.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Feaster does scout. I have no idea how often he scouts, but he does. I remember an interview where he said he would be going out east for 3 days or so to do some scouting. Doesn't mean he is any good, doesn't mean he is bad - just means that he does scout 'x' amount of time (and I would personally assume it would be lower than the average as compared to other GM's - but just an assumption).

As for the 'living and breathing' thing - how do you or anyone else know that Feaster or King don't live and breathe hockey? How do you know they don't PVR and watch as many games as possible?

I only have your word that Feaster scouts. All I know is that Feaster prefers to stay home.

http://www.andelman.com/jayfeaster.html

This old article meant to praise Feaster is actually very telling of Feaster's work in the NHL. Feaster did contracts as an assistant GM and when he became GM he hired Barber to tend to the personnel issues while Feaster concentrated on negotiating contracts. As for living and breathing hockey, according to the article, apparently calling Feaster late at night and getting him to travel with the team is being insensitive to his personal life. Oh and I remember a game late this season where the Flames scored a goal and everyone was celebrating and Feaster sat there emotionless up in the press box. He wasn't even watching the game.

And you know how Feaster was saying this was the most important draft in the franchise's history? The team spent 3 days interviewing prospects and Feaster showed up on the last day. What was Feaster doing? Apparently preparing for the draft.

[BurningSteel]

I always thought a President was elected to a 4 year term and could only serve 2 terms?????

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

Exactly. Those two are poor comparisons because they learned how to scout and evaluate talent and trusted their instincts along the way. Feaster relies on others to evaluate talent.

Actually, they aren't comparisons. I'm not saying that Feaster is comparable to either Fletcher or Gorman; that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that the people who say you have to play pro hockey to be a good GM are demonstrably wrong. If being a successful GM required some mysterious juju that only pro hockey players can have, some of the best GMs in the history of the game would never have made it.

There would be more point in this whole discussion if we could flush the bickering about who is or is not a hockey guy, and consider managers on their merits. I happen to think Feaster's merits as a GM are not great, but he's not as bad as some ex-players I could mention.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, they aren't comparisons. I'm not saying that Feaster is comparable to either Fletcher or Gorman; that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that the people who say you have to play pro hockey to be a good GM are demonstrably wrong. If being a successful GM required some mysterious juju that only pro hockey players can have, some of the best GMs in the history of the game would never have made it.

There would be more point in this whole discussion if we could flush the bickering about who is or is not a hockey guy, and consider managers on their merits. I happen to think Feaster's merits as a GM are not great, but he's not as bad as some ex-players I could mention.

I can't speak for other people, but I have frequently concentrated argued the need to be a talent evaluator. The Flames has someone who lacks the ability to confirm the work of his employees or doesn't confirm the work of his employees. That's been my argument.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The comparisons here are beginning to go beyond silly and into gonzo.

First off, nobody is going to die on the operating table if Jay Feaster screws up.

Secondly, there is no certification process for NHL executives. Much as some people dislike the fact, you don't have to play the game for X number of years to get your Ph.D. in Being a Hockey Guy.

Thirdly, even on its very limited merits, the analogy doesn't work — as I tried to point out earlier, evidently without success. Feaster is not one of the men on the ice or even in the dressing room. He isn't the surgeon operating on the patient; he's the administrator of the hospital, who doesn't need to be a surgeon or even an MD and usually isn't.

If Murray Edwards decided tomorrow to pull a Harold Ballard and hire (say) his pool boy to run the Flames, he would be perfectly within his rights. Neither the fans nor anyone else could sue him (or the pool boy) for malpractice. All you can ever do is stop buying tickets or watching games on TV — or not. This is just a teensy bit different from open-heart surgery.

Okay I thought when he became GM, he's an administrator, a lawyer who will take care of crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's but he can't even do that properly by checking if ROR is eligible to be signed to an offer sheet as a RFA without going through waivers. He's just lucky his disastrous move didn't cost us.