The players he moved out were not part of the future. He has not made any significantly bad trades, has restocked our cupboards and has not mortgaged the future in doing so. I like how he is always actively looking to improve by any means available.
Feaster has done well here. This is just the beginning..
The players he moved out were not part of the future. He has not made any significantly bad trades, has restocked our cupboards and has not mortgaged the future in doing so. I like how he is always actively looking to improve by any means available.
Feaster has done well here. This is just the beginning..
I highly suspect that Jay Feaster is just the PR guy and that this team is run by Brian Burke, John Weisbrod and Murray Edwards.
People would say that I have no proof of this and that is very correct I dont have any proof.
However it would be very hard for a friendly, amiable beta male who talks too much to be the guy who calls the shots in a group that includes 3 abrupt, aggressive and dominant alpha males.
It would be like Leonard from the Big Bang Theory trying to boss around a team consisting of Dr. House, Dirty Harry and Donald Trump.
I highly suspect that Jay Feaster is just the PR guy and that this team is run by Brian Burke, John Weisbrod and Murray Edwards.
People would say that I have no proof of this and that is very correct I dont have any proof.
However it would be very hard for a friendly, amiable beta male who talks too much to be the guy who calls the shots in a group that includes 3 abrupt, aggressive and dominant alpha males.
It would be like Leonard from the Big Bang Theory trying to boss around a team consisting of Dr. House, Dirty Harry and Donald Trump.
Or, each one is paid to do his job to the best of his abilities?
You forgot to mention Ken King. Where does he fit into your 'Alpha-male' based speculation?
Do you really think Feaster - a lawyer - is unable to have a backbone and argue his points and thoughts? How many lawyers do you know are 'meek', quiet, and subservient?
We can speculate all we like regarding the structure of the team, but NONE of these guys are fools. Do you really believe that someone of Edwards' background and track record would want to hire a bunch of yes men to help run his organization, just so he could control it better? Do you really believe that business people are successful running organizations in this manner? Do you not think that they appreciate being challenged and having people actually improve their bottom lines with new ideas? Highly doubtful that Edwards has come this far by relying on putting such people in high positions, don't you think?
We can speculate all we want on how things 'really' work behind closed doors. How about we just listen to what they say, and think about it in a business-like context (or a team-like context)?
How about we take some comments at face value - like the comments Ken King and Jay Feaster shared with respect to ownership meddling - that ownership has never blocked a move, nor have they ever forced a move in their tenures. They could have easily danced around the subject, or answered it in some vague way as a generalization, but they met that question head-on, and they answered it head-on. They are both 'talented' enough to dance around questions like that.
Does the ownership group get a bit frustrated and call a meeting when things aren't going right? Why wouldn't they? They have to make sure that the people they put into place are actually performing, and when they feel they are not, they want to know why. If any of their companies were doing poorly for whatever reason, don't you think they would be holding the same meetings? Giving out the same mandates? I think it is fair to assume there is always a certain level of interest by ownership groups into the affairs of the team. By the sounds of it in Calgary - the ownership group really wants to win, and they challenge their management team at times with the answers that are brought to them, and want to be in the loop with what happens organizationally. Sounds like a competent management structure more than 'interference' or 'meddling' to me.
However, whose to say that boundaries don't get crossed? Sure, it can happen - and probably has. I just don't think you can point at the management group and say one guy is a yes man, with 3 (or more) alpha males running the show. You are not giving enough credit to a man who has built an empire essentially. Edwards would probably have no use to a guy who he sees as just agreeable, and Feaster would probably never have attained the status of a GM at any level if that is all he was. He did, in fact, leave an organization to which he lost the ability to make decisions. This might be his last kick at the can, so perhaps he is 'different' now, but his track record thus far states that he is not just a mindless sheep. He is very much a wolf just like the rest of them, and just like every other GM I would bet.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Or, each one is paid to do his job to the best of his abilities?
You forgot to mention Ken King. Where does he fit into your 'Alpha-male' based speculation?
Do you really think Feaster - a lawyer - is unable to have a backbone and argue his points and thoughts? How many lawyers do you know are 'meek', quiet, and subservient?
We can speculate all we like regarding the structure of the team, but NONE of these guys are fools. Do you really believe that someone of Edwards' background and track record would want to hire a bunch of yes men to help run his organization, just so he could control it better? Do you really believe that business people are successful running organizations in this manner? Do you not think that they appreciate being challenged and having people actually improve their bottom lines with new ideas? Highly doubtful that Edwards has come this far by relying on putting such people in high positions, don't you think?
We can speculate all we want on how things 'really' work behind closed doors. How about we just listen to what they say, and think about it in a business-like context (or a team-like context)?
How about we take some comments at face value - like the comments Ken King and Jay Feaster shared with respect to ownership meddling - that ownership has never blocked a move, nor have they ever forced a move in their tenures. They could have easily danced around the subject, or answered it in some vague way as a generalization, but they met that question head-on, and they answered it head-on. They are both 'talented' enough to dance around questions like that.
Does the ownership group get a bit frustrated and call a meeting when things aren't going right? Why wouldn't they? They have to make sure that the people they put into place are actually performing, and when they feel they are not, they want to know why. If any of their companies were doing poorly for whatever reason, don't you think they would be holding the same meetings? Giving out the same mandates? I think it is fair to assume there is always a certain level of interest by ownership groups into the affairs of the team. By the sounds of it in Calgary - the ownership group really wants to win, and they challenge their management team at times with the answers that are brought to them, and want to be in the loop with what happens organizationally. Sounds like a competent management structure more than 'interference' or 'meddling' to me.
However, whose to say that boundaries don't get crossed? Sure, it can happen - and probably has. I just don't think you can point at the management group and say one guy is a yes man, with 3 (or more) alpha males running the show. You are not giving enough credit to a man who has built an empire essentially. Edwards would probably have no use to a guy who he sees as just agreeable, and Feaster would probably never have attained the status of a GM at any level if that is all he was. He did, in fact, leave an organization to which he lost the ability to make decisions. This might be his last kick at the can, so perhaps he is 'different' now, but his track record thus far states that he is not just a mindless sheep. He is very much a wolf just like the rest of them, and just like every other GM I would bet.
In the business world Alpha Male personalities vs Beta Male personalities isn't speculation its a fact. Given your very candid and well thought out response to my post I would suspect that you are very business minded and experienced with different types of people so I bet if you looked around you would notice that too.
I know being a young business professional now that I definitely gravitate to and learn alot more from the more dominant leaders and bosses I have had than the meeker quieter ones.
Where does Ken King fit in you ask? Well you know I couldnt think of a funny reference example for him so I just left him out. If I were pressed I would say that he is an Alpha Male to but alot more engaging than the other 3 Alphas in the group. He is what he is a very well organized business man who is extremely engaging charismatic and very good with people. I've had the good pleasure of meeting Mr. King, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Burke at different times in my life. Brian Burke was actually extremely nice to talk too and a very engaging person, he really does come accross larger than life and you almost feel intimidated talking to him and hes not even trying to be.
Your right none of these guys are fools, you dont get to be where they are if they are fools. In fact Kevin Lowe isnt a fool either neither is Charles Wang or Mike Milbury. The peoples court is very cruel and with todays media age it will only get worse.
Your right again of course Mr. Edwards didnt get to where he is now by relying on yes men. In an organization you are only as strong as your people and you should always have strong charismatic leaders within your organization who can provide expertise and insight on all aspects of your business. You dont higher yes men, you higher men and women with opinions and good insight which comes with experience and young youthful people who want to grow and do the best that they can. You become a great leader by fostering a corporate atmosphere that grooms other great young leaders.
I actually never said that people were meddling in my post and I agree that holding meetngs to go over all areas of your business and to keep tabs on things is definitely not meddling, its good management. And yes people have been highered to be experts at their given jobs. I'd be interested in hearing your insight as to what you believe Brian Burkes, Jay Feasters, John Weisbrods and Ken Kings roles are. I have my own ascertations but want to hear yours. I never said meddling again and I am in full agreement with you that what has been done is not meddling.
I better darn well give Mr. Edwards enough credit he built an empire in CNRL and has been extremely good at dealing with the Calgary Flames behind the scenes and not being a front and center owner like some of them are.
You have to be a wolf to be a GM if you are a sheep you will be eaten alive sometimes perception is reality even if it isnt does that make sense? And Jay Feaster just does not seem like a wolf to me, but you know what no I dont know him beyond interviews so who the expletive am I to make those judgements.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hockeyboy2 For This Useful Post:
