Bouma sits dows with King?

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

He's the president and CEO of the Calgary Flames organization. That extends far beyond the hockey operation. There's a million decisions that the Flames need to make that have little to do with the actual on-ice product. Advertising, new arena location, beer sponsors, urinal cake scent. He's in the position to oversee everything. If he doesn't have the experience or knowledge to deal with hockey operation it's his responsibility to hire people who do, namely the GM. That doesn't require him to be involved in the hockey operation.

Horse Poop. A president is accountable to the owner in terms of revenues AND on ice results which is the largest contributor to revenues. Obviously a hockey team comes with tones of decisions which have nothing to do with the roster, I get it. But if you have a President of a hockey team who is not involved with hockey operations, you don't have a President, you have a guy who is in charge of a bunch of minutia that no one cares about (hmmmmm, should we fill the beer cups from the top or from the bottom?)

Now, I am talking about the kind of involvement as it relates to the OP. Obviously, I don't expect to see King working the phones on draft day, seeing if Joe Thornton is available for three first round picks, but to be a part of exit meetings? Getting a feel for your employees and their mental makeup, that is involvement I have no problem with.

[moon]

Originally Posted by browna

Does King not trust Feaster to carry out the end of season talks, so he wants to sit down with each of them formally as well?

but King getting in front of every player?

Did I miss something where did it say he was sitting down with every player?

[Sakari]

Obviously related to the Illuminati.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I said it before, and I will say it again - I will never understand what makes a 'hockey guy'. Is it some degree you earn? Does it come from reaching at least a certain level of hockey? Does it require that you have played 'x' number of years in the NHL.

At what point does a non-hockey guy become a hockey guy?

Feaster was definitely not a 'hockey guy' - but he has been involved with hockey for longer than some people here have existed I think. Is he never eligible to become this fabled 'hockey guy'?

What about Ken King. When does he (if ever) get to join the club?

These people have all been around for a long time, and have shown they can make good decisions (and bad ones). They learn. They evolve. I am sure Darryl Sutter would do a much better job his second time around as a GM after his first stint. He was a hockey guy, but yet got fired.

I don't really care what the background is. You are either a good planner and decision maker, or you are not. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a president sitting down with guys way down the chain. It either puts pressure on those guys to get their act straightened out, or it shows how much value the organization places in those individuals.

Hilarious post on the first page btw - "NBA Guy"!!! hahahahaha When you combine vitriol with ignorance you get an ignoramus Fricken made me laugh!!!!

[FacePaint]

At a season ticket holder meeting KK mentioned that a player indicated during end of season "sit down" that the Saddledome should have nicer opposition dressing rooms so that free agents might have a better impression of the Dome. I would think this would be appropriate discussion with the President. This thread seems to be overreaction.

[Northendzone]

I think that king er only sits down with the core guys.

[Erick Estrada]

There is a very good chance this team misses the playoffs next season which would mean 5 straight years of failure under King's watch. The only other involved president in the league afforded such luxury to keep his job while the team misses the playoffs over and over works up the highway. Maybe the rest of the league is on to something by putting a cap on how many tries a group gets and the Alberta teams are just a little slow to adopt this radical new way of doing business where failure is not acceptable?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by browna

WTF, so does King sit down with every roster player before leaving for the summer?

...

Question is, why is he doing this...to what end as President can justify that? Ridiculous.

I think you're overreacting. I'm not trying to use the "we don't know" excuse as a universal defense here, but in this case, we don't know King's role in this sitdown. King is the President and CEO of the Calgary Flames and a prominent face of the franchise. Maybe he's in there to give thanks on behalf of the Calgary Flames for the work they put in this year, or to encourage certain players to take the next step because they see a bright future for him in the Flames organization, or maybe King is in there to evaluate Feaster's performance.


Regardless, I think fans need to differentiate the difference between what King can do and what we fans hope he would do. What King can do, given the blessings of the owners, is to be as involved in hockey operations as he wants. As the President and CEO of the Calgary Flames, he is the head honcho of the Calgary Flames. This gives him the authority to veto anything Feaster wants to do and sit in any meetings he wants to sit in. This is very much his team. Let's just get that out of the way.


What most fans here wants King to do is for him to leave the hockey decisions to the GM of the team because King, presumably, isn't trained in hockey operations management. But make no mistake, it's King's responsibility to evaluate this team as well. He should certainly evaluate the team with his own eyes (not just have blind faith in his GM), be informed of the team's direction (to make sure he's comfortable with it), and evaluate management's performance (a major responsibility of a President from a fan's perspective).


Let's face it, Ken King is not some sort of absentee boss. I'm pretty sure everybody player in the Flames organization has met him. So the fact that King is there to meet up with the players should not be a surprise or cause for alarm without knowing more.

[sergei_makarov]

The OP's post is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There is a very good chance this team misses the playoffs next season which would mean 5 straight years of failure under King's watch. The only other involved president in the league afforded such luxury to keep his job while the team misses the playoffs over and over works up the highway. Maybe the rest of the league is on to something by putting a cap on how many tries a group gets and the Alberta teams are just a little slow to adopt this radical new way of doing business where failure is not acceptable?

It would seem Edwards is loyal to a fault. He likely hates admitting that he made a mistake or that things aren't working. Perhaps he lacks humility that Harley seemed to have an abundance of. Things are starting to change though.

Edmonton is worse though. They appear not to be changing at all. It is like groundhog day with them. In this case, it is not loyalty through the stubborness of businessmen, it is hypnosis through the whimsy of nostalgia.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Now, I am talking about the kind of involvement as it relates to the OP. Obviously, I don't expect to see King working the phones on draft day, seeing if Joe Thornton is available for three first round picks, but to be a part of exit meetings? Getting a feel for your employees and their mental makeup, that is involvement I have no problem with.

If you read my previous posts, we're on the exact same page. Now we're going to be close to arguing semantics, but the concern that others have is King is too involved in hockey operations. Keenan has accused him of it before so others are using this as evidence but without knowing what the actual sitdowns entailed it's heavy speculation at best. And I agree, no real cause for concern.

But back to your previous post of "So long as King is President, he should be involved in hockey ops because the operations of a hockey team is what he is the president of." It's going to simply come down to how you define hockey ops. If it's hiring a GM, no one is concerned with King doing that - it's his job. Hiring or firing a coach though? Different story and room for argument.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I said it before, and I will say it again - I will never understand what makes a 'hockey guy'. Is it some degree you earn? Does it come from reaching at least a certain level of hockey? Does it require that you have played 'x' number of years in the NHL.

At what point does a non-hockey guy become a hockey guy?

Feaster was definitely not a 'hockey guy' - but he has been involved with hockey for longer than some people here have existed I think. Is he never eligible to become this fabled 'hockey guy'?

What about Ken King. When does he (if ever) get to join the club?

I think one can become a hockey guy but you have to learn those skills along the way. I think part of what makes one a hockey guy is talent evaluation. It's hard to evaluate hockey talent when you haven't played the game because for one you don't know hockey fundamentals. Can talent evaluation skills be learned? Yes. Did King learn it? Doubtful. Did Feaster? A lot of us watched a lot of hockey games over the years too. Does that mean we are as good of a talent evaluator as Feaster? Sure Feaster is a good administrator and some say all he needs to do is to be a good delegator but does that mean I can be a GM, hire someone like Feaster to be the delegator, and then sit there making informed decisions because I'll be listening to everyone? Kind of ridiculous.


Not every GM has a scouting background, but you hear GMs go on scouting trips all the time. Some more than others. Have you heard of Jay Feaster going on a scouting trip? I certainly haven't. He's always talking about what his scouts have told him. So what do you think Feaster? Oh wait you have never seen those players play yourself right? Maybe you have watched a few videos? What if the Flames are clearly headed towards the #1 overall pick and Feaster was in a Taylor vs Tyler situation and the scouts were divided including Button and Weisbrod. You really want King and Feaster making an "informed decision" based on a wild guess of which side is right? Or maybe you want King and Feaster to comb through some videos themselves to see which side they side with.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

There is every chance Ken was involved in '04 player meetings. 'Cause he was.

Verification?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I said it before, and I will say it again - I will never understand what makes a 'hockey guy'. Is it some degree you earn? Does it come from reaching at least a certain level of hockey? Does it require that you have played 'x' number of years in the NHL.

I think you have to have at least laced up a pair of skates before you can evaluation skating. I think you have to have to at least tried throwing a hit and taking a hit before you can evaluate whether a player can physically play in the NHL / your team. I think you should have made a successful pass and been on the receiving end, and have tried actually reading live in a game before you can evaluate hockey sense. Etc etc etc.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think you have to have at least laced up a pair of skates before you can evaluation skating. I think you have to have to at least tried throwing a hit and taking a hit before you can evaluate whether a player can physically play in the NHL / your team. I think you should have made a successful pass and been on the receiving end, and have tried actually reading live in a game before you can evaluate hockey sense. Etc etc etc.

Or you can hire guys to do those things for you like every manager in my building. We all handle multi disciplines and most of us are only an expert in one.

I agree that it has definite advantages but not a deal breaker if you can effectively fill your office with experts.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

Or you can hire guys to do those things for you like every manager in my building. We all handle multi disciplines and most of us are only an expert in one.

I agree that it has definite advantages but not a deal breaker if you can effectively fill your office with experts.

Maybe just me, but I really would prefer the Flames hire the best in the most important position (i.e. the guy putting the roster together)... rather then just getting a bunch of managers and mid-level managers. Sure you could see if you can fill your office with Jim Nill's, but if those guys are good enough, they would rather just get the GM position themselves (and if they are good enough, they get it) rather then get stuck behind some chain of mid-level managers in some overweight, inefficient bureaucratic system all so you can find some way to prove to the world you can have lawyers and businessman run a hockey team.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by browna

WTF, so does King sit down with every roster player before leaving for the summer?

When I ran a manufacturing firm in years past, I would have "coffee with CEO" chats where I'd invite a few people at a time to have an open and honest conversation with me. No other managers were allowed in the room, and what was said in the room stayed in the room. The feedback was extraordinarily valuable. It is amazing the little things that would come up, that were extremely easy to fix, and that made a huge difference to morale.

I still do a yearly review where all the staff anonymously review the management team. It's very powerful if done in a formal, structured way. You don't want people running to you all year when they don't get there way, but you want their direct feedback. You want feedback that isn't skewed or filtered by others. Whenever I have NOT done this, things have gone awry.

I HOPE Ken King talks to the players and all the other staff of the Flames. It doesn't have to be daily, but there absolutely should be a dialog.

[Resolute 14]

^ It also makes sense for somone like King to ask the player what the team can do better from an organizational level. It's not likely that King is critiquing their on-ice play.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think you have to have at least laced up a pair of skates before you can evaluation skating. I think you have to have to at least tried throwing a hit and taking a hit before you can evaluate whether a player can physically play in the NHL / your team. I think you should have made a successful pass and been on the receiving end, and have tried actually reading live in a game before you can evaluate hockey sense. Etc etc etc.

Where does winning the Stanley Cup fit into the equation?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^ It also makes sense for somone like King to ask the player what the team can do better from an organizational level. It's not likely that King is critiquing their on-ice play.

Call me crazy but I figured that it made sense for the president of any organization to examine or discuss with any asset that the company has that is worth $500k - $7m.

A part of King's job should be determining how much money he gives to Feaster to play with as GM. Talking to the players could help his decision as to whether the Flames should spend to the cap next season or stay closer to the cap floor instead.

I wouldn't call that meddling at all, I would speculate that he is doing his job.

[LouCypher]

Hopefully he doesn't have a sit down with the concessions stand workers, I don't think this forum would handle the fall out from that type of meddling.