[Rumour] Garrioch: "Ken King will be moving on"

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is there a role for Brian Burke here?

I think so, yes.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...58&postcount=1

[Tinordi]

Anyway, it's an interesting schism between this thread and the Tambellini thread. Where those who are quick to throw Lowe in the bus (deservedly so) are then here rising up and defend King who has the same role as Lowe and has presided over a similar amount of failure. Cognitive dissonance?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Here's the thing: replacing or promoting Ken King does not change this. If people feel Edwards is too hands on, and King acts on the owner's behalf, guess what his replacement is going to do? Be too hands on.

People thinking/hoping that replacing King changes this dynamic are deluding themselves.

they traded away iginla, bouwmeester, for picks. tried doing the same with kipper.

the "change" is already visible. Are they superficial?? We'll find out in the upcoming months, but i'm happy to assume the focus has changed.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

I once shook Ken Kings hand, I am pretty sure my hand is still recovering from his God like grip.

LOL had the same experience with him a couple of times. It was like shaking the hand of Chewbacca.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What mattered is the cap and the Canadian dollar, things King had nothing to do with. If you want to say he's the reason you have to then say that the business man in front of EVERY Canadian team in the past 10 years is a genius as well.

Such a lie. The most success he has had as president was when there was still no cap and a weak dollar. He brought in Darryl and let him build his team, they set the record for best wins-to-player cost ratio under Ken and Darryl and turned the team around BEFORE the lockout. He took over in 2001 and navigated the business through it's toughest years, there is no debating whether or not he is a good businessman because he clearly is. The team has tripled in value since he took over and just posted it's highest operating income ever

[mrdonkey]

Another vote for Feaster as president and Weisbrod as GM. Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath.

[Phil Russell]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Mike Holditch has been with the Flames since 1994. Would you comfortable with him making hockey decisions for the team?

My scouting report on Mike Holditch: sat behind him in math class at Beaverbrook in '84. Smartest kid in our graduating class. Excellent math skills.

[kyuss275]

The only parts of his article that i believe is that Weisbrod was scouting MacKinnon and Drouin hard and that Feaster will stay on.

No chance they let go of KK. The man is the golden goose for the owners. At best/worst he gets a promotion.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Just my suspicion. But based on comments on this very board there is no municipal money coming for that arena. Who dropped the ball there?

You are assuming they were expecting municipal money. Can you show me where this was the case?

The general view is that the Flames took a wait and see attitude, watching what the Oilers were doing. There is no indication that the team was going in expecting to receive money, though they would obviously take anything offered.

[Gunkle]

Originally Posted by bettman

This was the rumour last week at Saddledome. He can take his henchmen with him..Rollie Cyr and the other geeks that have tainted the organization.

Rollie a 'henchman'??!??!? Really???

I have found Ken King, Rollie, and the others to be great professionals. Very easy to speak with and get access to. There have been numerable time when I have seen them show enormous generosity to children. I have watched KK make and serve popcorn and hotdogs (death missiles).

Of course King was never a 'hockey guy'. He is a media guru, and a manager of people and systems. If there have been some shortsighted decisions, why lump them solely at King's feet? We have a very active ownership here, and King has a boss....he's not the ultimate authority on matters.

My only gripe, is that there is too much of 'hockey is entertainment' and that a full house is indicative of client satisfaction. I think of myself more as a fan, than as a client of the Flames. I really like winning, or at least competing. Having tasted of the excitement that surrounds playoff hockey - I really miss it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

they traded away iginla, bouwmeester, for picks. tried doing the same with kipper.

the "change" is already visible. Are they superficial?? We'll find out in the upcoming months, but i'm happy to assume the focus has changed.

Sure, the on-ice focus may have changed. By my comment was addressing the argument that replacing King ends the so-called meddling from the president's office.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are assuming they were expecting municipal money. Can you show me where this was the case?

The general view is that the Flames took a wait and see attitude, watching what the Oilers were doing. There is no indication that the team was going in expecting to receive money, though they would obviously take anything offered.

The general view? ie. your view? Can you show me where your general view is the case?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Anyway, it's an interesting schism between this thread and the Tambellini thread. Where those who are quick to throw Lowe in the bus (deservedly so) are then here rising up and defend King who has the same role as Lowe and has presided over a similar amount of failure. Cognitive dissonance?

To use an idiotic CP meme, "intellectual honesty".

King inherited a franchise widely thought to be on the verge of relocation, especially if the league didn't get a good CBA. He quickly targeted and hired a coach/GM that took the team to the Finals and produced several seasons in the playoffs, while his business sense helped the team rebuild its image and create a local sporting empire.

The Oilers have never made the post-season since Lowe has been their President, and have in fact endured the worst three-season period in the history of North American major professional sport. Perhaps someone more in tune with Edmonton can correct me if wrong, but I don't think he's accomplished anything really notable on the business side either.

[nik-]

It's too bad this couldn't have happened when John Davidson was looking for a new home.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The general view? ie. your view? Can you show me where your general view is the case?

Normally I don't respond to questions asked to dodge answering other questions, but here's an example:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...589/story.html

As I said, the general view is that the Flames are monitoring Edmonton, and that article points out that the team hasn't gone to the City for anything as of yet.

Which leads me back to the questions you are attempting to dodge. I am curious to see you show me where something that has not happen as of yet could backfire.

[Tinordi]

He quickly targeted and hired a coach/GM that took the team to the Finals and produced several seasons in the playoffs, while his business sense helped the team rebuild its image and create a local sporting empire.

First clause of that sentence, you missed the 2nd act. He let that coach and GM fail under his watch, and then assumed many of that positions responsibilities to fail further.

Second clause about his the local sporting empire, that's just meaningless marketing speak. Sure he shored up the business good for him, that's his job. He looked great compared to Bremner, so what, Bremner was awful.

What turned the team into a perpetual money maker was the CBA, the Canadian dollar and 2003-04 run which you can ascribe to him in a way, or you can ascribe it to the Al Coates for trading for Iginla or Darryl Sutter for catching lightining in a bottle with Kiprusoff. The team then perpetually got worse, 1 division title, three playoff appearances, zero series wins, 4 seasons out of the playoffs. All under King's watch. If you want to credit the good, you have to credit the bad.

Which is why we're here with King rumoured to be on the way out.

You can have your opinion that King is great, sure good for you. You certainly can't belittle mine based on the evidence that he's not great and deserves to be shown the door.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Feaster as president?! What on earth has he done, exactly, to become president of the organization?

Not sure what people are thinking outside of shuffling deck chairs on the titanic...why wouldn't the organization use this, yet again, another chance to do a search for the best candidate available? I know they blew that the last couple of times with Hartley and Feaster, but you would hope the ownership would take this chance to step back and make some thoughtful decisions

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Normally I don't respond to questions asked to dodge answering other questions, but here's an example:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...589/story.html

As I said, the general view is that the Flames are monitoring Edmonton, and that article points out that the team hasn't gone to the City for anything as of yet.

Which leads me back to the questions you are attempting to dodge. I am curious to see you show me where something that has not happen as of yet could backfire.

That article does not pass your own ridiculous burden of proof standards that you place on positions you disagree with. The author repeatedly states that these are assumptions.

Bur further, this actually could be used to further my point that King dropped the ball by taking the wait and see approach and seeing the debacle unfold in Edmonton. Maybe that's why ownership is upset because wait and see meant not getting your foot in the door for municpal money.

You see, that's the thing people are throwing around ideas. You can disagree with them but unless you know and that's not about posting articles built on a solid foundation of baseless speculation, you're just as likely to be wrong as me.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Feaster as president?! What on earth has he done, exactly, to become president of the organization?

Not sure what people are thinking outside of shuffling deck chairs on the titanic...why wouldn't the organization use this, yet again, another chance to do a search for the best candidate available? I know they blew that the last couple of times with Hartley and Feaster, but you would hope the ownership would take this chance to step back and make some thoughtful decisions

Really if Feaster was promoted to President, we have no right to laugh about Lowe in Edmonton. We'll have our very own "failing up the ladder" moment.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

First clause of that sentence, you missed the 2nd act. He let that coach and GM fail under his watch, and then assumed many of that positions responsibilities to fail further.

You already described the "2nd act" in comparing the views to King and Lowe as team presidents. I was pointing out that you ignored the first act.

Second clause about his the local sporting empire, that's just meaningless marketing speak. Sure he shored up the business good for him, that's his job. He looked great compared to Bremner, so what, Bremner was awful.

Ad hominem fallacy, re: comparison to Bremner. And I was not aware that purchasing the Roughnecks and Stampeders, and building the Hitmen into the top drawing team in the WHL (by a large margin) was "meaningless marketing speak."

What turned the team into a perpetual money maker was the CBA, the Canadian dollar and 2003-04 run which you can ascribe to him in a way, or you can ascribe it to the Al Coates for trading for Iginla or Darryl Sutter for catching lightining in a bottle with Kiprusoff. The team then perpetually got worse, 1 division title, three playoff appearances, zero series wins, 4 seasons out of the playoffs. All under King's watch. If you want to credit the good, you have to credit the bad.

Right back atcha. If you wan to ignore or deflect the team's successes under King, you don't get to lay the faults at his feet either. And that, my friend, undermines your entire position.

Which is why we're here with King rumoured to be on the way out.

You can have your opinion that King is great, sure good for you. You certainly can't belittle mine based on the evidence that he's not great and deserves to be shown the door.

You asked why people were viewing King and Lowe differently. I replied within that context. The fact that you have subsequently chosen to strip that context and cherry pick aspects of my reply to try and create a new narrative that was not offered is a reason to belittle your argument.