[News] Friedman: Feaster/Flames are not going to blow it up

[Fischy13]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

When did this happen?

This was Glencross' recent extension/contract. In the paper, with quotes from KK I believe.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Walter Reed

While I can understand why you might say this, it seems like he is simply a figurehead in the guise of a GM. Most media, both local and national, viewing the Flames organization suggest King and ownership are inordinately active when it comes to on-ice personnel strategies and decisions. That said, maybe they are so engaged because they lack confidence in Feaster. I don't imagine a GM such as Burke would tollerate for such interference. You could be right ....

Not that I don't agree, but I found myself seeing ironing in my mind when we spend our time pointing out how your GM takes orders from his superior.

Lol

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

it's how the Glencross contract was done.

Jesus h Christ... Never mind the obvious implications, but how about the fact that this is the best contract on the team?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Walter Reed

While I can understand why you might say this, it seems like he is simply a figurehead in the guise of a GM. Most media, both local and national, viewing the Flames organization suggest King and ownership are inordinately active when it comes to on-ice personnel strategies and decisions. That said, maybe they are so engaged because they lack confidence in Feaster. I don't imagine a GM such as Burke would tollerate for such interference. You could be right ....

This is what I get for stating the same thing as you. Something well known around the NHL circles yet still some Flames fans remain in denial. Just goes to show that Oilers fans aren't the only ones guzzling Kool-aid.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Wow. And it's not often I get to talk to an anonymous Flames insider who gets his info from the radio. What an honor!

The truth of the matter is you don't know any more than the rest of us, and we don't know anything. But go ahead, enjoy your inside-track that you get from Twitter and talk shows. I'll stay under my rock and recognize that I don't know jack-$hit that goes on behind the scenes, and oddly enough I'll know just as much as you do.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Jesus h Christ... Never mind the obvious implications, but how about the fact that this is the best contract on the team?

Best contract (and fact he wants to stay here because of his ranch/chuckwagon passion), but being relied to do a role he's not suited to perform. He's a grinder type player that unloads shots when he has the chance. He should be a 3rd line winger, rather than on the 2nd line/PP.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by 868904

Claude Julien thinks so, called them a contender, I see no reason for him to say so if he didn't mean it.

I certainly don't see any other coach calling the Flames a contender, usually you just pay lip service to the opposition and say they are good but Julien called the Leafs a "legit contender".

Plus their play on the ice and record suggests so as well.

We'll see. I saw this movie last year and their schedule the second half is tougher this year. I still don't buy their goaltending and their defense is still, meh. They've been doing a lot with little out of Kessel and more out of Kadri, but I'm still waiting to see.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...48/?cmpid=rss1

[moon]

I don't think it is that big a deal that the President went for a horse ride with Glencross to finish a deal.

If King had identified Glencross, started pursuing him and then signed him with no input from Feaster then it may be a big deal but this appears to be Feaster deciding to re-sign him and working out the details and King just there at the last minute.

Seems far from meddling in day to day hockey operations.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Do people still question that Ken King and the ownership group are interfering with hockey decisions?

Ken King went for horse back ride with one of for players and negotiated the contract with him while our GM was not around...if that is not a clear sign of interference I don't know what is.

Several posters through-out this and similar, recent threads are still questioning this. It's pretty ridiculous to ignore all the evidence at this point. It's been brought up by a member of basically every major media source in the country at some time in the past year or so - to deny that simply because you don't want to be true is just folly.

That's why I'm truly hoping these Burke rumors are true. I don't like the fact that he's not very progressive and is very old-school, but if he's hired he certainly isn't going to be a puppet. He's been outspoken about that in the past and doesn't need a job that badly that he'd be against his principles with-in a couple months of being fired.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think it is that big a deal that the President went for a horse ride with Glencross to finish a deal.

If King had identified Glencross, started pursuing him and then signed him with no input from Feaster then it may be a big deal but this appears to be Feaster deciding to re-sign him and working out the details and King just there at the last minute.

Seems far from meddling in day to day hockey operations.

It is odd to have a president court a player by himself but I will say at the time Feaster was still relatively new to the team and King and Glencross may have a solid relationship so it may have made sense for them to hash out the contract. It was probably the best contract the Flames have signed any player to in recent history so not a lot to complain about. However if this sort of think is common place then it's definately different than how most teams operate.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Do people still question that Ken King and the ownership group are interfering with hockey decisions?

Ken King went for horse back ride with one of for players and negotiated the contract with him while our GM was not around...if that is not a clear sign of interference I don't know what is.

Lots of people.

That king and owners would be involved is natural.

Where that starts and stops, how much is truth and legend, when its appropriate and not, I don't think anyone has any idea. Mostly people take snippets of truth and wrap the conclusions they want around them, like all good myths.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think it is that big a deal that the President went for a horse ride with Glencross to finish a deal.

If King had identified Glencross, started pursuing him and then signed him with no input from Feaster then it may be a big deal but this appears to be Feaster deciding to re-sign him and working out the details and King just there at the last minute.

Seems far from meddling in day to day hockey operations.

At the same time it shows that they aren't just sitting by the side and giving the GM full autonomy.

They likely aren't sitting there telling Feaster exactly who should dress, and what the line combos should be but they are certainly giving their input on the big decisions for this team.

And that is their prerogative, if I spent millions on a hockey team I would likely want some input too, but you have to wonder if that is the best thing for the team.

[indes]

Maybe the guy just wanted to try his hand at horseback riding?? Jesus cp should work for the NHL next lockout as their 'spin doctor'

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

At the same time it shows that they aren't just sitting by the side and giving the GM full autonomy.

They likely aren't sitting there telling Feaster exactly who should dress, and what the line combos should be but they are certainly giving their input on the big decisions for this team.

And that is their prerogative, if I spent millions on a hockey team I would likely want some input too, but you have to wonder if that is the best thing for the team.

King would HAVE to at least in the loop on who Feaster wants to keep. Is it unreasonable to assume he was helping Feaster?

[JiriHrdina]

To address the validity of the Burke rumor - it remains just that - a rumor. We have no reason to distrust the posters, but at the same time, there wasn't much to go on to validate it as something legitimate.

So it probably makes sense to continue discussing it as part of all the other possibilities, but nothing more than that.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

To address the validity of the Burke rumor - it remains just that - a rumor. We have no reason to distrust the posters, but at the same time, there wasn't much to go on to validate it as something legitimate.

So it probably makes sense to continue discussing it as part of all the other possibilities, but nothing more than that.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Are people getting their pitchforks out just to.. get them out?

Ken King:
Everyone keeps saying the same two things about him:
1) He is 'meddling' in hockey ops
2) He is a 'newspaper man', not a 'hockey guy'

Let's address the first. Is there a single shred of proof that exists showing that Ken King is meddling? Has any ex-coach stated he is meddling? What is his role? He is responsible for the business side, and hockey ops reports INTO him, correct? He reports directly to the owners. If the owners have something to say, it gets channeled through him, no? Does this constitute meddling? There is NO PROOF that he is 'meddling' and telling people what to do in hockey ops. Sure, I am positive that a big trade impacting a large amount of dollars has to go through him, perhaps big long-term contracts as well - as I am sure the owners are interested in where their money is going. Again, is this meddling? I can't think of a team out there that doesn't have this same structure (unless the President and GM are the same person).

As for "He is just a newspaper man"... Seriously? Ok, the guy has probably been a hockey fan just like us for most of his life. Sure, he never played the game. However, how long has he been part of the Flames. When does a non-hockey guy become a hockey guy? They are obviously not born with it. It is not inherited down from your father, is it? At what level of play is a 'hockey guy' a hockey guy? As long as he played Bantam? AAA? As long as he got drafted once by an NHL team? As long as he played in the AHL? As long as he played in the NHL? Exactly what do you learn along the way that makes you capable of being a hockey manager? Of running a hockey team? Of making hockey-related decisions?

I just see people picking up those phrases over and over again when talking about Ken King (meddling and not a 'hockey guy'), and just repeat it verbatim over and over like it is some mystical chant and focusing on it as the reason why this organization is not successful on the ice.

At least question it. Does it make sense? What makes Hartley a good coach - good enough that he won at every level he has ever coached at (and don't bring up the 'stacked team' in Colorado - Crawford couldn't win it). I mean, sure Hartley played hockey, but he was just a 'factory worker', no? How dare this organization hire brainless factory workers in any kind of a leadership position!!

People become too fixated on irrelevant stuff like this.

You know why this team is not successful?? You really want to know the 'big secret'?

It just isn't a good team. There is no 'blue print to guaranteed success', and almost always the team that is put together fails to get it down, and you have to change it. Arming yourself with pitchforks and trying to find the virgin sacrifice will not appease the hockey gods, and the next iteration of the Calgary Flames may still fail!

I just think people are looking too hard to place blame where it can make sense for them to do so, regardless of what the truth is or not.

At the end of the day, the Flames have an ownership group that wants to win and have no qualms about spending money to do it. If there are management personnel that are keeping the Flames from doing it, I am sure they will have no trouble replacing them, as they have in the past. The owners are not scared of losing a few bucks. If they were, this would not be a cap team season after season.

At the very least, the Flames are one of the few teams in the league with VERY stable ownership who are committed to winning. Without it, a team has ZERO chance of being successful on the ice (outside of a lucky year or two).

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Are people getting their pitchforks out just to.. get them out?

Ken King:
Everyone keeps saying the same two things about him:
1) He is 'meddling' in hockey ops
2) He is a 'newspaper man', not a 'hockey guy'

Let's address the first. Is there a single shred of proof that exists showing that Ken King is meddling? Has any ex-coach stated he is meddling? What is his role? He is responsible for the business side, and hockey ops reports INTO him, correct? He reports directly to the owners. If the owners have something to say, it gets channeled through him, no? Does this constitute meddling? There is NO PROOF that he is 'meddling' and telling people what to do in hockey ops. Sure, I am positive that a big trade impacting a large amount of dollars has to go through him, perhaps big long-term contracts as well - as I am sure the owners are interested in where their money is going. Again, is this meddling? I can't think of a team out there that doesn't have this same structure (unless the President and GM are the same person).

As for "He is just a newspaper man"... Seriously? Ok, the guy has probably been a hockey fan just like us for most of his life. Sure, he never played the game. However, how long has he been part of the Flames. When does a non-hockey guy become a hockey guy? They are obviously not born with it. It is not inherited down from your father, is it? At what level of play is a 'hockey guy' a hockey guy? As long as he played Bantam? AAA? As long as he got drafted once by an NHL team? As long as he played in the AHL? As long as he played in the NHL? Exactly what do you learn along the way that makes you capable of being a hockey manager? Of running a hockey team? Of making hockey-related decisions?

I just see people picking up those phrases over and over again when talking about Ken King (meddling and not a 'hockey guy'), and just repeat it verbatim over and over like it is some mystical chant and focusing on it as the reason why this organization is not successful on the ice.

At least question it. Does it make sense? What makes Hartley a good coach - good enough that he won at every level he has ever coached at (and don't bring up the 'stacked team' in Colorado - Crawford couldn't win it). I mean, sure Hartley played hockey, but he was just a 'factory worker', no? How dare this organization hire brainless factory workers in any kind of a leadership position!!

People become too fixated on irrelevant stuff like this.

You know why this team is not successful?? You really want to know the 'big secret'?

It just isn't a good team. There is no 'blue print to guaranteed success', and almost always the team that is put together fails to get it down, and you have to change it. Arming yourself with pitchforks and trying to find the virgin sacrifice will not appease the hockey gods, and the next iteration of the Calgary Flames may still fail!

I just think people are looking too hard to place blame where it can make sense for them to do so, regardless of what the truth is or not.

At the end of the day, the Flames have an ownership group that wants to win and have no qualms about spending money to do it. If there are management personnel that are keeping the Flames from doing it, I am sure they will have no trouble replacing them, as they have in the past. The owners are not scared of losing a few bucks. If they were, this would not be a cap team season after season.

At the very least, the Flames are one of the few teams in the league with VERY stable ownership who are committed to winning. Without it, a team has ZERO chance of being successful on the ice (outside of a lucky year or two).

if the answer was "yes" would your post have been shorter?

[The Fonz]

The ownership is committed to winning, but they do not know how to build a winner. That is the problem, and everyone but ownership and a select group of fans can see it.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Keenan basically said it was Edwards and King that fired him. He also claims Darryl Sutter said as much.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/04...flames-hatchet

I remember him saying this on the fan as well.

[MissTeeks]

I went to the Stamps Fan Fest last week, and on at least two different occasions Stamps management came out to say that Flames ownership was in no way is meddling with their operations.

Now, this is a different team, but I thought it was interesting how many times they came out and said this, especially without being specifically asked about it.