Lombardi was told not to hire Sutter in L.A.

[Loyal and True]

I think the core players Sutter put (or kept) in place here were all good enough to be a cup contender at the time... Iginla, Kipper, Bouwmeester, Regehr, Phaneuf, Langkow, Bourque, Jokinen, Giordano ... high paying contracts (often with NMCs) designed to keep a strong core together until about 2012 before the window starts closing.

But they didn't perform up to expectations and the window seemed to rapidly close in 2010 and Darryl became desperate in trades hoping to make the playoffs.

Biggest problem was coaching. Darryl never found the right replacement for himself. If he had stayed (or returned) as coach he might have been able to get more out of his core players. Playfair, Keenan and Brent weren't doing the job. Darryl should have stepped in to coach and hired an assistant GM earlier.

At the end of the day getting the right coach is a huge part of the GM job. That's a large reason why Lombardi looks so good in June 2014 vs Jan 2012 when his job was on the line. He finally picked the right coach for his players.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

That's the thing that Simmons is glossing-over. Lombardi was on the cusp of being fired. His team was out of the playoffs. Saying if he's wrong, it'll cost him his job was right. The comment was made 2 and a half years ago. It was correct. Simmons is trying to paint it in June of 2014 after 2 cups as some outrageous thought.

Who ever stated Lombardi's job was on the line at any point since he was hired in LA? That is simply not true.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Lombardi did an okay job assembling talent but he was missing on his coaching hires as Crawford was a terrible choice and Terry Murray stifled the team offensively. I don't buy that he is garbage at all as he assembled a two time Stanley Cup winner from the ground up without once picking first overall and it simply took a matter of getting the right coach. No different than when the Hawks hired Quenneville.

Terry Murray was the perfect coach for a team early in a rebuild. He has an expiration date for sure, but his demeanor and patience with young players, along with his ability to create confidence in players even when wins aren't coming was a good fit. Sutter's job was easier because of the defensive structure instilled by Terry Murray. Any team rebuilding should be giving a serious look at Terry Murray as a three year building coach, then hand the reigns over to a coach who can fire up a team and show them how to play on an edge and aggressive without unnecessary risk. Even in hindsight, there's no way anyone in the Kings organization sees Murray's hiring as a mistake. I want to say Murray has a cup ring at the request of the Kings. I'd have to double check that to be sure.

Crawford on the other hand, along with Cloutier, I can't speak to because I've never heard Lombardi discuss that situation.

I'll also add, Lieweke never interfered in hockey decisions. Lombardi has never been denied funding or told what moves to make. It was a requirement for taking the job because of what Dave Taylor went through as GM. That article seems to be pure rubbish.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Ice

Who ever stated Lombardi's job was on the line at any point since he was hired in LA? That is simply not true.

I recall Helene Elliot of LA Times saying this on the airwaves when Sutter was hired.

Not exactly a reach. Obviously whenever a coach (Murray) is fired the next one on the firing line is likely the GM.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ice

Who ever stated Lombardi's job was on the line at any point since he was hired in LA? That is simply not true.

It was stated by virtually every talking head who could grab a mic here in Canada. Maybe that didn't filter down to LA that much. But here is an article by Scott Burnside for ESPN that spells it out pretty clearly:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/73...ed-calculation


Also features a cameo column by Lebrun that says: "This could be Lombardi's last coaching hire in Los Angeles. So, with his own job on the line, Lombardi reached out to someone he trusts."

It wouldn't take much digging to find plenty more like these two I don't think.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

I recall Helene Elliot of LA Times saying this on the airwaves when Sutter was hired.

Not exactly a reach. Obviously whenever a coach (Murray) is fired the next one on the firing line is likely the GM.

I did a bit more digging. Here is the Helene Elliot article where she states that Lombardi could be out of a job by season's end.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/spor...rrray-nhl.html

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by Ice

Who ever stated Lombardi's job was on the line at any point since he was hired in LA? That is simply not true.

Then you don't recall the first half of the 2011-12' season. The team was supposed to be a contender but was out of the playoffs. There was a ton of heat on Lombardi. Virtually everyone was saying his job was in jeopardy.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Cole436

05-06 is the only year in my opinion that we shouldn't have lost.

06-07 we weren't well coached and lost to against a very strong Wings team

07-08 the Sharks series went to a game 7

08-09 had us missing Giordano and Regher. Langkow was playing with two broken hands, Phaneuf could barely skate, and Bourque was still injured.

I think Sutter did a fine job. Sometimes you just don't win.

How could you conclude after that list that he did a fine job? He was gunning to win the cup and in the last two years (and then some) of trying to do so his teams finished out of the playoffs. The legacy of ineptitude is further cemented with how he left the team. An expensive, entitled group of veterans that consistently killed each coach, up against the cap even with three years out of the playoffs, no young elite players besides maybe Brodie, and a full tear down being in order. Sutter had rightfully made himself a laughing stock throughout the league to the point that we have this thread talking about how much of a gamble it was to hire him as coach.

Now don't get me wrong. I love that the guy has re-established his reputation around the league and I greatly respect him as a hockey person. But what type of cognitive dissonance do you have to engage in to delusionally fool yourself into thinking that he was a good GM? There's literally no evidence to support that claim looking at the body of work.

[neo45]

If you look at what Sutter inherited, and compare it to what he left us with, he is still a good GM. He took a low budget, non playoff team and single handedly made us legitimate cup contenders for 5 seasons, losing one to the lockout.

The wheels came off when Brent was hired, but before that Darryl built a winner, locked up his core to good value long term deals, and took the scouting department from a total mess and built it up to what it is today

[Loyal and True]

A lot of cheap insults thrown around there. Hindsight makes it easy to oversimplify and go overboard in the criticism. I've always had more respect for those that were more fair in their assessments.

I think in 08/09 Sutter made long term committments and locked up core players that made sense at the time. Team underachieved in 2010 but its not easy to get out of the long term deals at that point. It was always going to be about trying win during Kipper/Iggy years with an inevitable rebuilding period to follow.

Fair to say that by 2010 it was fading (earlier than expected) and Sutter chose to risk more future for secondary pieces in a desperate attempt to hold on. Instead of turning the page early he delayed the inevitable rebuild a couple years.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ice

Even in hindsight, there's no way anyone in the Kings organization sees Murray's hiring as a mistake. I want to say Murray has a cup ring at the request of the Kings. I'd have to double check that to be sure.

When offered the job, Sutter himself told Lombardi that he already had a great coach.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Now don't get me wrong. I love that the guy has re-established his reputation around the league and I greatly respect him as a hockey person. But what type of cognitive dissonance do you have to engage in to delusionally fool yourself into thinking that he was a good GM? There's literally no evidence to support that claim looking at the body of work.

He was an active GM who made lots of splashy trades and signings that were entertaining for fans. And his tenure coincided with the dramatic turnaround in the financial fortunes of Canadian NHL franchises. So I can see how some fans have warm memories of Sutter as GM. But by any objective measurement he was a dismal failure, who left the franchise in what was widely regarded as the need for the longest rebuild in the NHL.

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

A lot of cheap insults thrown around there. Hindsight makes it easy to oversimplify and go overboard in the criticism.

It's not hindsight to recall criticisms of Sutter that were made at the time. Not everyone was in love with the guy as a GM. Post-lockout he was already showing a lack of ability to draft and develop youth, and instead fill the depth positions with expensive vets past their best-before date. That proved to be a critical handicap in a league that was increasingly relying on young skaters and the cheap contracts that came with them.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

Then you don't recall the first half of the 2011-12' season. The team was supposed to be a contender but was out of the playoffs. There was a ton of heat on Lombardi. Virtually everyone was saying his job was in jeopardy.

I guess the point I'm making is that media speculation is not fact. Nobody in the Kings organization was even hinting that Lombardi's job was ever in jeopardy. Just like Sutter's job was never in danger this season when media was claiming it was. Sure, these make for good headlines, get more hits to your website, more twitter followers. It doesn't make media gossip any more credible than water cooler gossip.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Ice

Nobody in the Kings organization was even hinting that Lombardi's job was ever in jeopardy.

And they rarely, if ever, do. They organization often gives the public vote of confidence just before the firing.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's not hindsight to recall criticisms of Sutter that were made at the time. Not everyone was in love with the guy as a GM. Post-lockout he was already showing a lack of ability to draft and develop youth, and instead fill the depth positions with expensive vets past their best-before date. That proved to be a critical handicap in a league that was increasingly relying on young skaters and the cheap contracts that came with them.

Fair enough. Here is a thread after 08/09 season and 4th consecutive 1st round exit. The topic is "what would YOU do if YOU were the GM(President)?" Interesting read.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=73749

Most common suggestions were:
1. Fire coaching staff
2. Somehow get Brent Sutter to leave NJ for Calgary
3. Find a way to sign Jay Bouwmeester under the cap
4. Let Cammalleri walk
5. Find a backup goalie to replace McElhinney

So that's what most people at CP thought a GM (Sutter or whoever)should do at the time.

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.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Six years. I expect he counted the lockout year
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11

Darryl Sutter did not miss the playoffs in 2011. Jay Feaster did.

As you point out, the lockout year doesn't count either. It's a bit of a stretch to blame a man for not winning a playoff series in a year when there were no playoffs.

So we're down to five years, which is still not good. In fact, it's bad enough to condemn the man for, so why not just say five years? What's the point of exaggerating?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Darryl Sutter did not miss the playoffs in 2011. Jay Feaster did.

As you point out, the lockout year doesn't count either. It's a bit of a stretch to blame a man for not winning a playoff series in a year when there were no playoffs.

So we're down to five years, which is still not good. In fact, it's bad enough to condemn the man for, so why not just say five years? What's the point of exaggerating?

Sutter was fired on Dec 28 2010 - after 37 games of the 10-11 season with the Flames having a 16-21 record (with a couple, three of the losses by shootout) and well out of the playoff picture.

So yeah - I'll put that year on Sutter, from a GM perspective.

So 6, no?

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by Ice

I guess the point I'm making is that media speculation is not fact. Nobody in the Kings organization was even hinting that Lombardi's job was ever in jeopardy. Just like Sutter's job was never in danger this season when media was claiming it was. Sure, these make for good headlines, get more hits to your website, more twitter followers. It doesn't make media gossip any more credible than water cooler gossip.

Nobody ever hints anyone's job is in jeopardy though.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How could you conclude after that list that he did a fine job? He was gunning to win the cup and in the last two years (and then some) of trying to do so his teams finished out of the playoffs. The legacy of ineptitude is further cemented with how he left the team. An expensive, entitled group of veterans that consistently killed each coach, up against the cap even with three years out of the playoffs, no young elite players besides maybe Brodie, and a full tear down being in order. Sutter had rightfully made himself a laughing stock throughout the league to the point that we have this thread talking about how much of a gamble it was to hire him as coach.

Now don't get me wrong. I love that the guy has re-established his reputation around the league and I greatly respect him as a hockey person. But what type of cognitive dissonance do you have to engage in to delusionally fool yourself into thinking that he was a good GM? There's literally no evidence to support that claim looking at the body of work.

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.

He was instrumental acquiring and great players post 04 like Tanguay, Hamrlik, and Camalleri, and diamonds in the rough like Bourque, Glencross and Nolan.
During that time he locked up a core which, at the time, were an envy of the league, in Iginla, Kiprusoff, Phaneuf, Regehr, and Langkow.

We didn't win, and yes that is all the history books will say. However Darryl Sutter saved this team and re-established it for a short time again as a premier franchise in this league.

In hindsight did he make a lot of mistakes? Absolutely. He didn't draft well and he couldn't hire a coach for that team. But to say he wasn't a good general manager is foolish and insulting to the overwhelming good Darryl Sutter did not just for the Calgary Flames, but hockey in Calgary in general.

Also you should refrain from personal insults in a conversation. It comes off as childish.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

A reasonable point, but IIRC the trade for Kipper was Sutter reacting to an emergency situation - the injury to Turek and (I think) the backup, as well. Although he had prior experience with Kipper from his days as San Jose's coach, I doubt Sutter realized what a gem he was getting.

If memory serves, this is correct. I believe he stated he wanted a goalie who could backup Turek for a bit and he knew Kiprusoff was underutilized behind Nabokov and Toskala. Sutter said about the trade that Kiprusoff had untapped potential equal to that of a starter but would let that play out in the future.

Little did he know that the future was now.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Darryl Sutter did not miss the playoffs in 2011. Jay Feaster did.

As you point out, the lockout year doesn't count either. It's a bit of a stretch to blame a man for not winning a playoff series in a year when there were no playoffs.

So we're down to five years, which is still not good. In fact, it's bad enough to condemn the man for, so why not just say five years? What's the point of exaggerating?

The sixth year was absolutely Sutter's team and the mess he made of it. Hard to pin that on Feaster.