[Kent Wilson Article] “self-satisfied mediocrity”

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

7 years ago.

I was specifically talking about a GM right now.

The question asked was why Conroy took the Calgary GM job if Edwards likes to interfere.

My answer was because they were the only one offering him a GM job.

I never suggested he was unemployable.

A. How many jobs were there anyway? Who needed a GM then?

B. Edwards "interferes" only as much as any owner (or in some cases POHOs) as far as I can see.

C. Any AGM would take a GM position if offered, no matter who the owner is.

[Erick Estrada]

I don't believe Edwards is any more meddling on a day to day basis as any other owner but there's clearly evidence that he doesn't like to give full autonomy to his GM's as Treliving had to fight for it on his second contract and it certainly appears Conroy doesn't have it with information that ownership nixed the Markstrom trade. When it comes to trading a legacy player or bringing in a player with a large salary, I can totally see why an owner may want input but when it comes to a move like trading Markstrom it's really not ideal that the owner would get involved. Clearly it was a deal the GM wanted to make because he thought it would strengthen the organization and the player was asked to move his NMC. If he doesn't trust Conroy enough to make his own trades I would question why he hired him in the first place but this is the way Edwards operates as he doesn't trust those below him when it comes to running the Flames unless it's Darryl Sutter.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Vancouver gifted them Tkachuk. The Flames were super lucky there. If we land Juolevi the team is not very good. Then they also got pretty lucky with Gaudreau. What are the odds we find another Gaudreau in the later rounds in the next few seasons? Probably not very high. Which is exactly why you need high picks so you increase your odds of finding elite stars and then hopefully you get some luck like they did with a Tkachuk or Gaudreau to help put your team over the top.

You have to get lucky no matter what, draft lottery and all

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't believe Edwards is any more meddling on a day to day basis as any other owner but there's clearly evidence that he doesn't like to give full autonomy to his GM's as Treliving had to fight for it on his second contract and it certainly appears Conroy doesn't have it with information that ownership nixed the Markstrom trade. When it comes to trading a legacy player or bringing in a player with a large salary, I can totally see why an owner may want input but when it comes to a move like trading Markstrom it's really not ideal that the owner would get involved. Clearly it was a deal the GM wanted to make because he thought it would strengthen the organization and the player was asked to move his NMC. If he doesn't trust Conroy enough to make his own trades I would question why he hired him in the first place but this is the way Edwards operates as he doesn't trust those below him when it comes to running the Flames unless it's Darryl Sutter.

This, this and this. The timeline horizon for Murray the Meddler is after the arena has been built and his investment is realized. I've tried to point this out in the past. Franchises that win in any sport must first have an ownership group that wants to win, a little luck and the right people in drafting, development and coaching.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't believe Edwards is any more meddling on a day to day basis as any other owner but there's clearly evidence that he doesn't like to give full autonomy to his GM's as Treliving had to fight for it on his second contract and it certainly appears Conroy doesn't have it with information that ownership nixed the Markstrom trade. When it comes to trading a legacy player or bringing in a player with a large salary, I can totally see why an owner may want input but when it comes to a move like trading Markstrom it's really not ideal that the owner would get involved. Clearly it was a deal the GM wanted to make because he thought it would strengthen the organization and the player was asked to move his NMC. If he doesn't trust Conroy enough to make his own trades I would question why he hired him in the first place but this is the way Edwards operates as he doesn't trust those below him when it comes to running the Flames unless it's Darryl Sutter.

Well this very much reflects my own views, but I sometimes wonder if we blame Edwards for a lot of stuff unfairly.

The GM has to have goals and objectives in place and he also has to sell the plan. Now we know that Treliving, did a lot of work on his own, and as suggested maybe didn't really lean on the management team; So when we look at some of Treliving's moves, acquiring players only to ship them back out again, bringing players that didn't really work for the team, James Neal to Edmonton for Lucic because we needed to do something with that bad contract. Paying several coaches not to coach. I would imagine some of these flops would give Edwards cold feet, and make it hard for him to not get involved. We certainly can't blame Edwards for the players, or the coaches that were brought in.

It just seems like every time there's a little bit of a block, "that must be Edwards fault" , and "that guys maybe a terrible owner". The guy takes a rap for a lot of things but doesn't say much.

[Paulie Walnuts]

It's been noted by a bunch of reporters that the Carolina vacancy is tough to fill at the moment, because the job of the GM is to negotiate and do the work but the final call is the owners. They have zero autonomy to make a deal, sign a player etc.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't believe Edwards is any more meddling on a day to day basis as any other owner but there's clearly evidence that he doesn't like to give full autonomy to his GM's as Treliving had to fight for it on his second contract and it certainly appears Conroy doesn't have it with information that ownership nixed the Markstrom trade. When it comes to trading a legacy player or bringing in a player with a large salary, I can totally see why an owner may want input but when it comes to a move like trading Markstrom it's really not ideal that the owner would get involved. Clearly it was a deal the GM wanted to make because he thought it would strengthen the organization and the player was asked to move his NMC. If he doesn't trust Conroy enough to make his own trades I would question why he hired him in the first place but this is the way Edwards operates as he doesn't trust those below him when it comes to running the Flames unless it's Darryl Sutter.

The way he "meddles" is the constraints on the organization. It's nobody move, nobody gets hurt.

Edwards mandate as I see it is break even on operations while spending to the cap. Everything else flows from this.

1. Field a strong enough team to keep the building full for "the playoff push"
2. Be a low cost operator in every other facet
3. Make everyone else pay for the big expenses so you don't have too.

My evidence of 1 - 3.

1. The last 30yrs of hockey operations and all of our "just get in" campaigns (Edwards joined as co-owner in 1994)

2. This is CNRL's mantra, and it works in resources where your product is fungible and short/medium term inelastic. Unfortunately low cost entertainment where the business demands top dollar for services, but spends little on constantly improving their own product are not the top of people's list to support. The fan experience at the Dome has seen very little change in 10yrs+.

3. The Flames didn't have to let their hockey facilities sink to the worst in the league. They could have built a campus or a practice facility like many other teams do. The fact they don't even have their own office space away from the Saddledome blows me away. Zero capital expenditure as a strategy is hard to argue against.

How does this type of meddling hurt the team, while spending to the cap. Well the draft in North American sports asymmetrically rewards the worst teams. The CBA rewards tax havens and has capped financial reward offers, so other factors have begun to be the incentive. Even being a fan and capturing more of a fans wallet, requires a different approach to what was employed 10yrs ago, and engagement.

Our business and operating model is not taking advantage of any of the currently overpowered strategies to win.

Unless the owner can move the team, the fans generally win in a fight with ownership. Other options are to wait it out and hope the roulette wheel of sport comes up Flames eventually. I'm personally younger and in better health than the guy, so I've got a chance.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

The way he "meddles" is the constraints on the organization. It's nobody move, nobody gets hurt.

Edwards mandate as I see it is break even on operations while spending to the cap. Everything else flows from this.

1. Field a strong enough team to keep the building full for "the playoff push"
2. Be a low cost operator in every other facet
3. Make everyone else pay for the big expenses so you don't have too.

My evidence of 1 - 3.

1. The last 30yrs of hockey operations and all of our "just get in" campaigns (Edwards joined as co-owner in 1994)

2. This is CNRL's mantra, and it works in resources where your product is fungible and short/medium term inelastic. Unfortunately low cost entertainment where the business demands top dollar for services, but spends little on constantly improving their own product are not the top of people's list to support. The fan experience at the Dome has seen very little change in 10yrs+.

3. The Flames didn't have to let their hockey facilities sink to the worst in the league. They could have built a campus or a practice facility like many other teams do. The fact they don't even have their own office space away from the Saddledome blows me away. Zero capital expenditure as a strategy is hard to argue against.

How does this type of meddling hurt the team, while spending to the cap. Well the draft in North American sports asymmetrically rewards the worst teams. The CBA rewards tax havens and has capped financial reward offers, so other factors have begun to be the incentive. Even being a fan and capturing more of a fans wallet, requires a different approach to what was employed 10yrs ago, and engagement.

Our business and operating model is not taking advantage of any of the currently overpowered strategies to win.

Unless the owner can move the team, the fans generally win in a fight with ownership. Other options are to wait it out and hope the roulette wheel of sport comes up Flames eventually. I'm personally younger and in better health than the guy, so I've got a chance.

I believe you're spot on with your analysis of Edwards M.O.

RCR operates the exact same way.

Behind the curtains of the CSEC corporate, it operates the same way.
They run a lean tight ship. Any decently sized decision has to run all the way up.

[ResAlien]

Maybe we get lucky and Edwards runs into a Donald Sterling situation

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Yamer

The guy who wrote an entire article about the "Kulak miscalculation"? Didn't he also announce his "retirement" regarding Flames journalism at some point?

Pass.

He didn't permanently give up Flames journalism he just quit the Athletic to focus on his RV snap pad business. He started a smaller substack blog he still runs. Then more recently Postmedia contacted him to get him to write articles.

I don't remember the Kulak thing but the decision could be questioned. Certainly not some horrible mark on his record for liking Kulak lol. Guy is playing in the SCF so

[FireGilbert]

While there is something to say about Canadian markets encouraging mediocrity, this isn't specific to the Flames and I don't see how comparisons to Edmonton have influenced Calgary.

The Flames have built two contenders in the last 20 years. The Sutter team traded too many picks and made increasingly desperate win now moves. The Treliving team traded too many draft picks and failed to hit on a big move to take the next step.

I just want a team that practices good asset management including trading expiring assets and collecting draft picks. Just be patient with a few tough years to develop long term sustainable success.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

While there is something to say about Canadian markets encouraging mediocrity, this isn't specific to the Flames and I don't see how comparisons to Edmonton have influenced Calgary.

There was an influence in the 80s, to be sure. The original group of owners gave Cliff Fletcher carte blanche to build a team that could beat the Oilers. The '89 team had one of the highest payrolls in the league, if memory serves, and Hotchkiss & co. would probably have lost money on the season if the team had lost in the first round (which nearly happened).

Nowadays, with a strict cap and so many constraints on trades, no GM really has the freedom Fletcher had, and any particular rivalry has much less influence on a team's plans.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. How many jobs were there anyway? Who needed a GM then?

B. Edwards "interferes" only as much as any owner (or in some cases POHOs) as far as I can see.

C. Any AGM would take a GM position if offered, no matter who the owner is.

My point exactly. He took the job because it was offered. Who wouldn’t?

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by traptor

I believe you're spot on with your analysis of Edwards M.O.

RCR operates the exact same way.

Behind the curtains of the CSEC corporate, it operates the same way.
They run a lean tight ship. Any decently sized decision has to run all the way up.

Agree...and as you ski more mountains, your disappointment in RCR becomes greater and greater.

The guy should not be allowed to have a monopoly on Southern Albertans entertainment the way he does, as it materially hurts the region.

[habernac]

One Cup run in 35 years is pathetic. Both hockey teams I cheer for have been mediocre for almost all of my adult life. I see light in Montreal, they’re building through the draft. It takes time to undo crappy GM moves. Hopefully Conroy is the answer here.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You have to get lucky no matter what, draft lottery and all

Exactly. So give yourself a few chances to get lucky.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There was an influence in the 80s, to be sure. The original group of owners gave Cliff Fletcher carte blanche to build a team that could beat the Oilers. The '89 team had one of the highest payrolls in the league, if memory serves, and Hotchkiss & co. would probably have lost money on the season if the team had lost in the first round (which nearly happened).

Nowadays, with a strict cap and so many constraints on trades, no GM really has the freedom Fletcher had, and any particular rivalry has much less influence on a team's plans.

I do remember an 80s player saying Calgary compensated well financially.

That said, Hotchkiss was just as heavy handed as Edwards when it came to making bucks off the team later on in the SOF says.

I have no doubt that Edwards has the operations running cheaply. That was indeed the RCR tale from staffers (that said, RCR was insolvent before he took it, because Charlie Locke wasn't a great money manager).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

The way he "meddles" is the constraints on the organization. It's nobody move, nobody gets hurt.

Edwards mandate as I see it is break even on operations while spending to the cap. Everything else flows from this.

1. Field a strong enough team to keep the building full for "the playoff push"
2. Be a low cost operator in every other facet
3. Make everyone else pay for the big expenses so you don't have too.

My evidence of 1 - 3.

1. The last 30yrs of hockey operations and all of our "just get in" campaigns (Edwards joined as co-owner in 1994)

2. This is CNRL's mantra, and it works in resources where your product is fungible and short/medium term inelastic. Unfortunately low cost entertainment where the business demands top dollar for services, but spends little on constantly improving their own product are not the top of people's list to support. The fan experience at the Dome has seen very little change in 10yrs+.

3. The Flames didn't have to let their hockey facilities sink to the worst in the league. They could have built a campus or a practice facility like many other teams do. The fact they don't even have their own office space away from the Saddledome blows me away. Zero capital expenditure as a strategy is hard to argue against.

How does this type of meddling hurt the team, while spending to the cap. Well the draft in North American sports asymmetrically rewards the worst teams. The CBA rewards tax havens and has capped financial reward offers, so other factors have begun to be the incentive. Even being a fan and capturing more of a fans wallet, requires a different approach to what was employed 10yrs ago, and engagement.

Our business and operating model is not taking advantage of any of the currently overpowered strategies to win.

Unless the owner can move the team, the fans generally win in a fight with ownership. Other options are to wait it out and hope the roulette wheel of sport comes up Flames eventually. I'm personally younger and in better health than the guy, so I've got a chance.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Stampeders and Flames offer by far the worst fan experiences of all Canadian professional sports teams. The state of the Calgary teams is an embarrassment as it makes the city look 3rd rate compared to cities like Regina and Hamilton.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Yamer

The guy who wrote an entire article about the "Kulak miscalculation"? Didn't he also announce his "retirement" regarding Flames journalism at some point?

Pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/112...ut-to-be-bust/

It's a pretty great article IMO. I hated the trade at the time, even if he was just a 7th D.

Flames are always dealing assets for filler players, instead of keeping the ones they have. Even Conroy has done it once.