How/Why does Tod Button still have a job?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FAN

I suppose you can excuse Feaster a bit since he has no idea how to evaluate talent.

Right you are, Fan. When Feaster was GM of the Hershey Bears, most years, they had a roster roughly half filled with the parent team's prospects, and the other half filled with guys on AHL contracts recruited by Feaster himself. Since Feaster has no idea how to evaluate talent, the Bears sucked every year during his tenure. QED.

Oh, wait....

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FAN

The people in charge are responsible for performance of those who are under their supervision. When you keep the same scouting staff it's assumed you are happy with their performance. When you make scouting changes, it is assumed you are making improvements.

GMs and scouting DO go together. So do guys who head scouting departments. For example, Poile was great at drafting defensemen in both Washington and Nashville (albeit he did bring some of his scouting staff over). Lombardi's drafting has also been good in both San Jose and LA. Ottawa was one of the best scouting teams when they had Jarmo Kekalainen and Trevor Timmins. Kekalainen and Timmins have increased their reputations since then. There are teams that keep finding talent from specific leagues/regions and that's in large part due to the scout positioned there. Heck, our scouting of US/NCAA seems to be better and that can probably be attributed to Weisbrod.

Sutter had years to improve this team's scouting the same way Feaster had years to improve the Lightning's scouting. They both suck at drafting, but I suppose you can excuse Feaster a bit since he has no idea how to evaluate talent.

100% true.

It just takes some time. I have absolutely no idea who was working under Feaster in his tenure there - and no idea what changes he made (or didn't) to try and improve.

With Sutter, he had a tiny scouting staff, but over the years he did start to make changes until it did start to get better. Do I give Sutter an "A" for scouting? Absolutely not. I would give him a 'D' over the entire tenure. An "F" for the first half of his tenure, and a 'C' for the last half (while I would like to give him a B+ for the 2010 draft).

My point was it takes time to make changes, and it takes time to see the end result of those changes. It is tough to gauge especially new GMs who you don't have previous results to gauge for. We can certainly gauge Button, and it does seem like he has improved - especially if we ignore all other factors like GM in charge and additional scouting staff surrounding him.

It takes a couple of seasons at least to start seeing if your picks were positive or negative for the most part - at the very least, your mid-late round picks. Then you make organizational changes and then have to see once again what those changes affected 2-3 years down the road at least (once again, for the late round picks). For a GM with no prior experience at the draft, and without an existing number of scouts he has learned to trust over the years, perhaps Sutter was better than we thought.

For instance, Poile and Lombardi did probably bring some scouts they trusted and brought with them that would make that transition easier, but someone like Sutter who probably didn't have that luxury, it would be more of an uphill climb, especially when you factor in the current state of the scouting department when he took over. Was it his responsibility? Most definitely it was. Was drafting a weakness under his tenure? Once again, most definitely it was. However, he did start to get it right (or at least, started improving) towards the end of his tenure, and that was my point only.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

It would be interesting to note who really identified "hockey IQ" as being the seemingly most important trait - was it Sutter? Todd? Was it another scout? It definitely started coming about from the 2010 draft, as I never once heard it coming from Calgary before that (and at the time, thought it might just be a 'smokescreen' to try and make the picks sound sexier than they were). Seems to be a good move in the right direction as a drafting philosophy for the Flames lately.

They've talked about doing analysis of where things went wrong in previous drafts and they realized teams made the biggest mistakes in regards to skating and size. Players with hockey sense can overcome deficiencies and improve in their weak areas but players with weak hockey sense often just won't make the NHL regardless of how good their skills and physical attributes are.

When did they do this analysis? Who knows. Who drove it? No idea. But their drafting did really seem to turn around when they started emphasizing hockey IQ.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FAN

Sutter had years to improve this team's scouting the same way Feaster had years to improve the Lightning's scouting. They both suck at drafting, but I suppose you can excuse Feaster a bit since he has no idea how to evaluate talent.

In fairness to both, the Lightning have always been a budget team, and the back half of Feaster's time in Tampa was under a gongshow of an ownership group. Sutter joined a Flames organization that was likewise cheaping out on many avenues, and it took time to build up the organization when the Cup run gave ownership the impetus to spend more. Though that doesn't forgive his first round blunders.

The premise of your post - especially the quoted paragraph - is contradictory, however. The team's drafting has shown a marked improvement over the last several seasons. So who gets the credit for that - Sutter or Feaster?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There was also the fact that the Flames were operating on a budget of half nothing when Button joined them. Not only did they skimp on scouting, they also skimped on player salaries. I remember people in the organization telling the media that they wanted to target WHL players in the draft because they would be more likely to sign here for a price the Flames could afford.

Basically, they restricted their draft pool mostly to players who might give the team a hometown discount. This was a bush-league plan, and worked out about as well as you'd expect.

Frankly, that's one thing I forgive Sutter for. People in Calgary don't want to admit that this isn't exactly a AAA destination for NHL players. We'll have to overpay to bring (or keep) free agents here. Not as bad as Edmonton. But we're not far behind. So drafting and signings guys who would find Calgary attractive for reasons other than $$$ makes sense.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Frankly, that's one thing I forgive Sutter for. People in Calgary don't want to admit that this isn't exactly a AAA destination for NHL players. We'll have to overpay to bring (or keep) free agents here. Not as bad as Edmonton. But we're not far behind. So drafting and signings guys who would find Calgary attractive for reasons other than $$$ makes sense.

The problem is, it doesn't work. If the Flames restrict themselves to drafting WHL players, they're cutting out about 80 percent of the talent pool — but all 29 other teams are drafting from 100 percent of the pool. Nobody else is going to stay out of the Flames' back yard just because the Flames choose to stay in it.

You can see a similar problem with the Montreal Canadiens' coaches over the years. They have, to be quite frank, hired a number of bozos to coach that team just because they were francophones. There are plenty of great francophone coaches, but all 30 teams are competing to hire them. So you get Vigneault in Vancouver and New York, Julien in Boston, etc. Even Hartley came to Calgary rather than sign with Montreal. The Habs ended up having to rehire a coach they had fired once already.

When you're catching and keeping the very same fish that you caught and threw back once before, you know you need to fish in a bigger pond.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

If you ever heard/saw the guy talk in detail, you'd know he is a very knowledgeable guy. Tod Button, kind of like Stan Bowman, comes from a hockey family... I don't think its that he is "learning" on the job, I think its more about opportunity and number of staff. A lot of stuff goes into how a player turns out. Look at some of the players that came through Calgary, faltered, went on somewhere else and had success. My best bet is scouting isn't the problem, its development (thats what Darryl sucked at most, not drafting).

I disagree the Flames didn't even have their own farm team when Darryl first took over and he pushed hard for one, so I'd say he helped the development system more than he hurt it.
The development system was brutal way before Darryl was around. I'd blame Tod's brother for the shape it was in before I would Sutter.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

I disagree the Flames didn't even have their own farm team when Darryl first took over and he pushed hard for one, so I'd say he helped the development system more than he hurt it.

Sadly, I think you're right.

When Craig Button was running the show, the Flames' development system was rated .

Under Sutter's tenure, the system was upgraded to . (Yes, that's an upgrade. I just don't know how to draw -2 stars.)

These ratings are absolutely official, of course. They were produced by an independent panel of world-renowned hockey experts, which I happened to pull out of the same place the comes from. But I think you get my drift.

[sureLoss]

Thought I would throw this in here... The Bruins have fired their Head of Amateur Scouting Wayne Smith

Smith, who was one of Peter Chiarelli’s first hires after he took over as Bruins GM in 2006, was hired as a scout, then became head scout a year later and oversaw a department that had done a strong drafting job and signed key college free agent Torey Krug, who was an integral piece of the roster that came within a late meltdown of going to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup final.

It seems rather odd, given that Chiarelli admits that Smith is his good friend and is a very good scout. Their prospect list was solid, ranking them 12th among NHL organizations in THN’s Future Watch edition in 2013.

“We wanted to freshen up our amateur scouting and shift things a little bit and we felt this was the way to do it,” Chiarelli said. “Wayne has done a good job and I’ll give him a good reference, but we wanted to inject some new life.”

Changes such as this one are rarely made unless there is a good reason, though. Word among people in the scouting community is that Smith, who has a long history of scouting both in the Ontario League and the NHL, is a very good evaluator of talent and a hard worker, but is more suited to be a regional scout than someone running a scouting department with a multi-million dollar budget and scouts all over the world. (A phone call and email to Smith were not immediately returned.)

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...-odd-move.html

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Thought I would throw this in here... The Bruins have fired their Head of Amateur Scouting Wayne Smith


http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...-odd-move.html

Sounds like a solid evaluator that maybe couldn't juggle all the tasks of head scout? Would be nice if the Flames could snag him for the OHL region and Quebec league.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Sounds like a solid evaluator that maybe couldn't juggle all the tasks of head scout? Would be nice if the Flames could snag him for the OHL region and Quebec league.

Don't we already have a guy out there? They guy that led to us picking Poirier, Culkin and wasn't he even the first guy in our org to sniff out Jankowski?

Jury is still out on all three of them, but if they end up anywhere as good as they're expected to be I'd say the O/Q scout is doing ok.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So who gets the credit for that - Sutter or Feaster?

Feaster for letting Button evaluate the on talent and not necessarily measurables or positions of need.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Feaster for letting Button have more input.

Agreed, and not only for that, but for bringing in Weisbrod who revamped the Flames entire scouting philosophy, re-ranked the desired traits for evaluating players, and put a firm definition on what he calls "hockey sense".

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Don't we already have a guy out there? They guy that led to us picking Poirier, Culkin and wasn't he even the first guy in our org to sniff out Jankowski?

Jury is still out on all three of them, but if they end up anywhere as good as they're expected to be I'd say the O/Q scout is doing ok.

Well the jury is out on those players and at this point Poirier could be Rene Corbet for all we know. That's the thing about picking a guy at 22 that wasn't regarded by most as a top 50 prospect. There is somewhat of a leap of faith that your scouts have unearthed something that the majority of other teams and scouting groups may have not.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Don't we already have a guy out there? They guy that led to us picking Poirier, Culkin and wasn't he even the first guy in our org to sniff out Jankowski?

Jury is still out on all three of them, but if they end up anywhere as good as they're expected to be I'd say the O/Q scout is doing ok.

Tom Webster, Fred Parker and Bob MacMillan

[Stay Golden]

The Flames management philosophy regarding Button, if you continue to not produce talent at the draft you get unlimited mulligans. Accountability is just a nice sounding word here.
Thanks Tod for your endless success stories at the draft.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

The Flames management philosophy regarding Button, if you continue to not produce talent at the draft you get unlimited mulligans. Accountability is just a nice sounding word here.
Thanks Tod for your endless success stories at the draft.

Button when heavily relied upon for the 2011 draft, had one of the best drafts in the last couple of decades for the flames. (Sven, Granlund, Wotherspoon, Gaudreau and Brossiant.) It was pretty much his draft, unless you think Feaster had good input.

Its also been noted that Sutter did his own thing for first picks when he was in charge and Button took over for latter picks. Don't see to many first round picks working out, but some of the latter picks are going to. (Brodie, Arnold, Reinhart ect)

He also seems to be following Weisbrod's criteria and doing a good job. Not sure why the hate anymore?

[edslunch]

2011 and 2012 are looming good but let's hold the applause until some of these guys spend a few years in the NHL.

[macrov]

We have no idea whether Button should be let go or not because:

1) Scouting does not equal drafting. The GM is responsible for drafting. Apparently Sutter didn't listen to his scouts very much, so you can't pin the poor drafting record on the scouting system.

Take feaster for example. He clearly wants "hockey smarts," "leadership, determination, perseverence and good strong character" and "guys who play strong 2-way games" and guys with "hockey skills."

Sutter looked for "linage / family petigree," "hard nosed players," "big stocky guys," etc.

If Button has put together a team of scouts, and the proper processes such that their scouting division does a great job of scoring and projecting players accurately on 50 attributes, but Feaster or Sutter focuses on some of the wrong attributes at the expense of others, or scores the players differently on the various attributes, that isn't Button's fault.

2) The GM manages the Assistant GM. Both responsible for managing Button, and all 3 together manage the job of managing scouting. So, there is joint responsibility of scouting.
---

This is why I think Feaster and Weisbrod are amazing, and Button's team is doing their job. Feaster and co. clearly know what they're looking for (GM team building thesis), and they seem to be drafting it (so Button is doing his job b/c he is identifying these attributes accurately). And thus far, the results seem pretty good, which suggests the thesis is good. If it continues, then within in 3-4 years this team is going to have a very strong identity, that I for one can be proud of:

- guys who play hard on 200 ft of the ice
- guys with strong character traits
- guys who play for Calgary rather than the name on the back
- guys with skill
- guys with hockey smarts

If players scoring high on these traits do not create a winning team, then Feaster isn't doing his job (poor thesis)

If players the flames are ending up with do not have these traits, and Feaster is listening to his scouts, then Button is not doing his job.

Conclusion - its too early to tell if Button is competent, but the early results look promising.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Button when heavily relied upon for the 2011 draft, had one of the best drafts in the last couple of decades for the flames. (Sven, Granlund, Wotherspoon, Gaudreau and Brossiant.) It was pretty much his draft, unless you think Feaster had good input.

Its also been noted that Sutter did his own thing for first picks when he was in charge and Button took over for latter picks. Don't see to many first round picks working out, but some of the latter picks are going to. (Brodie, Arnold, Reinhart ect)

He also seems to be following Weisbrod's criteria and doing a good job. Not sure why the hate anymore?

pure speculation that has never been confirmed. Button has flat out blown 85% of the drafts he has been responsible for.
Funny how he is only viewed as having 2 decent drafts out of 14 years. Yes 2 out 14 or 12 however long old Button has been screwing up the Flames with his stellar track record.
Button in his stay with Calgary has cost the Flames years and years of bad development.
Button isn't even mentioned on the the Flames website anymore but yet there he is still around lmao.

http://flames.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=40740

http://flames.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=40733



I am delighted when my employees get 2 out of 14 tasks correct. Button is the best Head of Scouting in the NHL. He builds a dynasty.