Flames' Management Structure

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by redforever

If you become too top heavy in management, then you become like AHS, and their track record has been abysmal to say the least.

Yes, because AHS and the Flames are essentially the same thing

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by AcGold

because of the Bouwmeester, Iginla and Phaneuf botched trades is why. Need someone with the overall status of the team to moderate the short term in case the GM is trying to trade our bluechip star players for nothing (Bouwmeester/Phaneuf) or in the opposite scenario a GM won't trade a star player when his value is plummeting (Iginla) because he's afraid of losing his job. We should have had atleast 3 major assets out of those three guys and we don't. Also in case the GM is trying to make offer sheets that get us nothing and lose us assets.

Holding star players too long can be just as detrimental in getting value back. At least Burke should be able to talk to ownership about the real status of the team and not some pipedreams.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Parallex

It's not being in the job forever that I fear, nothing lasts forever... it's being in the job too long and the resulting long-term harm it could cause.



I've no other choice really. But that's not going to stop me from having trepidation and doubt about this whole management structure in general.

Meh.. the Flames have spent about 15 of the last 20 years being poorly managed. Trying something new can't hurt.


This is basically how its done in every medium/large business in the world. The top guys set out the vision and strategy and hire the middle managment guys to follow their it and put the rest of the employees in place who can fill the roles. Its not like this is some kind of crazy system that came to Ken King in a dream one night... its common practice in business and becoming more common in sports.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

Holding star players too long can be just as detrimental in getting value back. At least Burke should be able to talk to ownership about the real status of the team and not some pipedreams.

Not sure what your issue is bud, try reading more closely then typing.

[Rick M.]

So, pal, are you saying we should have signed these guys to another long-term deal? If so, we are not in accord. What is your issue?

[Komskies]

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but did anybody attend Brian Burke's luncheon today? Would be cool to see if there was any new info regarding the Treliving hire.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

This is basically how its done in every medium/large business in the world. The top guys set out the vision and strategy and hire the middle managment guys to follow their it and put the rest of the employees in place who can fill the roles. Its not like this is some kind of crazy system that came to Ken King in a dream one night... its common practice in business and becoming more common in sports.

But the only thing that seems different is that they're trying to turn the GM from one of the "top guys" to "middle managment" and installing the means for there to be less accountability at the top.

The way it seems to me if Treliving fails then Treliving will be held accountable which is all fine and good but who's held accountable if Burke fails? From the sounds of things (unless the new GM is really strong at office politics) it'll be Treliving.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I believe the "theoretical" reason it's supposed to be better would be something like this:

- By adding the layer of "President of Hockey Operations" it puts someone who's primary strength is managing the "on ice product" (said another way, the playing performance and success of the team) in a more stable and less volatile position. This person "theoretically" should not be held or feel as responsible for the short term success or failures of the teams on ice performance. Rather, this person should be held accountable to the longer term vision and goals of the club.

In plain English, it should "theoretically" make the club less likely to fall victim to "short" term hockey decisions that are made by desperate GM to protect his job, or stave off his own execution.

In the more common management structure, the GM title is often the last stop up the ladder that a true "hockey expert or hockey management professional" holds. Above him, are usually traditional "non hockey guys" like Owners and Presidents who have achieved their success through business savvy, not assembling winning sports teams. The problem comes with this structure, is when the pressure is on in the interim to win, and the GM is being held accountable for both the long and the SHORT term success of the club. For example, if the GM might feel like his job is in jeporady if the playoffs are missed, he may make some moves that are long term damaging, to hold off his dismal in the short term. A survival mechanism, fix the short term, deal with the long term later and fix it then.

Impacts of a move like that might not hurt or be realized until some years after. Problem being, that in the moment, the non hockey President or Owners of the club, are the only ones truly potentially concerned about the long term impacts, are reliant on their GM to advise them on the hockey impacts of said decision. But in this case, the GMs bigger motivation is to win in the short term, convince owners it will be re-coverable long term and they should go for it.

If you insert a "President of Hockey Ops" like the Flames have, it should prevent the above "short term decisions making" that often hurts teams. He will not be able to be "convinced" that long term impacts of certain moves aren't as harmful, and will force the team to stick to a plan that is consistent with the long term vision. Something he can do because it's not his job on the line (no survival decision making) and because he is also a hockey expert and understand the moves being made.

I'm sure the relationship is not as adversarial as I'm describing above between GM and President, in a functional relationship it should work much more collaboratively. But in a Nutshell, the above would be the benefit of the structure IMO.

Perhaps the owners felt victimized by Darryl's short-term-mentality GMing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Buster

Perhaps the owners felt victimized by Darryl's short-term-mentality GMing.

Which is why the franchise exhibited a short term mentality prior to and following his tenure as GM?

I don't buy it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Buster

Perhaps the owners felt victimized by Darryl's short-term-mentality GMing.

What if that mentality came down from the top (get Iggy a Cup)?

The president position isn't just to project ownership from short-term thinking by GMs; it's to protect ownership (and Ken King) from meddling in hockey operations. I get the feeling that at some point in the last couple years, it dawned on the ownership group that they and Ken King were part of the problem. At least I hope they realized that.