Calgary Flames General Manager Ranking - #3

[Oling_Roachinen]

Sutter was also a victim of his own success. We weren't just satisfied with making the playoffs, he built a team that we thought should have won some rounds after the run. He's disappointing because he was able to exceed what Treliving has done, we just wanted more.

He still had the team making the playoffs for five years in a row (would have been six), and because of that it's alleged he had a mandate from the owners to continuously be in a win-now mode until after they should have moved away from that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You can't just judge a GM by on-ice success. The GM's job is to manage the overall asset base of the organization and the long-term health of that asset base. In that regard, Sutter was average at best. So my evaluation is on that basis.

That is too binary for me. It's the reason they play the game and GM is in charge of putting together the on ice product. It is absolutely a critical component of evaluating a GM's performance IMO.

The state of the organization's prospects is another significant element. Management of financial resources, including the salary cap or budget, another key element.

edit: read your post again. You did say "just" which is an important distinction. I still don't like diminishing the importance of on ice success though. No GM has ever been fired for icing successful NHL teams.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The way I view Sutter is that he had one good year, 2006.

2004 was a fluke.

2006 was solid, then exceedingly disappointing in the playoffs.

Everything else was utter rubbish.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. Sutter was the GM of the flames from Apr 2003 to Dec 2010. The only season where he started the year as GM and the team didn't make the playoffs was the last year where he got fired stepped down.

If you are calling his entire tenure, minus 1 year rubbish, then how can you consider any GM, other than Fletcher not something much worse than rubbish?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You can't just judge a GM by on-ice success. The GM's job is to manage the overall asset base of the organization and the long-term health of that asset base. In that regard, Sutter was average at best. So my evaluation is on that basis.

I don't disagree. GM is the CEO of the overall on ice product over a generation (not a single season), and drafting, development, asset management, cap/salary cost management vs success, all fall into that.

However, on ice success is 1 performance indicator of the job. I would actually argue that it is by far the most vital performance indicator when grading a GM's performance. A GM could be great at EVERYTHING, but if he can't build a team that evolves to a year in year out playoff team, and at some point, a true contender, it all doesn't matter, and they'll be kicked to the curb.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That is too binary for me. It's the reason they play the game and GM is in charge of putting together the on ice product. It is absolutely a critical component of evaluating a GM's performance IMO.

The state of the organization's prospects is another significant element. Management of financial resources, including the salary cap or budget, another key element.

Which is why I said you can't JUST judge the GM by on-ice success.
Certainly it is a factor. An important one. But not the only one.

[rogermexico]

I think that by the time you get to number three on a list like this, you're into "Someone who had some success but also had flaws," and that to me is Darryl Sutter. I agree with the folks who think that Darryl had a big part in turning the franchise around, and that he made a lot of shrewd moves over the first part of his run that led to our greatest team successes since Fletcher. I also agree with the folks who point to his terrible drafting record, his under-valuing of picks as assets, and his catastrophic exit. For me he makes sense in either this three or four spot, and for me the good slightly outweighs the bad, so I'm voting for him here.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Which is why I said you can't JUST judge the GM by on-ice success.
Certainly it is a factor. An important one. But not the only one.

Yep see my earlier edit. My mistake for missing JUST in your post.

[Erick Estrada]

Under Lowe the Oilers made the Stanley Cup final and along the way did make some good moves. Of course the wheels fell off in spectacular fashion with some absolutely head scratching desperation moves similar to what happened to Daryl. There's no way you can convince me that Lowe was a good GM even if they did make the playoffs a few times and made a cup final under his time. I believe Daryl was a better GM than Lowe but you have to judge a GM by the condition he left the organization after he was let go and both left their organizations in a mess.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The abysmal drafting and treating of 2nd round picks like they were trade currency ruins it for me. He was a horrible amateur talent evaluator and never had a plan past riding Iggy and Kipper into the ground. That said I have him and Treliving are neck and neck and I just think Coates would have done a better job than both of them if he had their resources.

To me, this is what made Sutter good as a manager.



He got a team without the scouting and development system in place to be able to make good decisions for evaluating amateur talent and develop player we picked. Like good self aware managers should do, he recognized the limitations and made the best out of the situation. He invested in the future by building up our scouting and development system. But at the same time knew we did not have the system in place yet, and the good players on the team would not be valuable by the time our system was improved. So instead of wasting picks with the existing bad system, he traded them to get the most value based on what our organization;s strengths were at the time.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. Sutter was the GM of the flames from Apr 2003 to Dec 2010. The only season where he started the year as GM and the team didn't make the playoffs was the last year where he got fired.

If you are calling his entire tenure, minus 1 year rubbish, then how can you consider any GM, other than Fletcher not something much worse than rubbish?

Sutter, for the record, stepped down.

https://www.nhl.com/news/darryl-sutt...lames/c-547579

Flames President Ken King lauded Darryl Sutter's eight years in the organization. Sutter was also the club's executive vice president.

"He was the leader that ignited a renaissance of Flames hockey, moving us from a nonplayoff team to an organization that was viewed as a respected and popular contender each year," King said in a statement.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Under Lowe the Oilers made the Stanley Cup final and along the way did make some good moves. Of course the wheels fell off in spectacular fashion with some absolutely head scratching desperation moves similar to what happened to Daryl. There's no way you can convince me that Lowe was a good GM even if they did make the playoffs a few times and made a cup final under his time. I believe Daryl was a better GM than Lowe but you have to judge a GM by the condition he left the organization after he was let go and both left their organizations in a mess.

I don't agree that Lowe can be used to compare Sutter, at all.

They both share the fact that they had a Stanley Cup cinderella run. Sutter proceeded to GM the team to win the div the next year, and be a division/playoff contender for a period of 4 straight years after.

Oilers failed to make the playoffs the year after their cup run, a pattern that would continue for a decade (Lowe was the GM for 2 seasons after the cup run where they failed to make the playoffs... he got promoted and hired GMs that failed to make the GMs another ~8 years, but I digress, E=ng, etc)....

[getbak]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sutter, for the record, stepped down.

https://www.nhl.com/news/darryl-sutt...lames/c-547579

He "stepped down" because King asked for his resignation and he gave it. They can call it what they want to save face, but he was fired.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by getbak

He "stepped down" because King asked for his resignation and he gave it. They can call it what they want to save face, but he was fired.

But the organization has too much class to not let the second best GM in their history go out on his own terms

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sutter, for the record, stepped down.

https://www.nhl.com/news/darryl-sutt...lames/c-547579

I think Brent had suggested that the team needed to be rebuilt at the end of the 09-10 season. By that point him and Daryl were no longer getting along.

Feaster was in the fold and was a bit of a slick talking yes man. The type who would tell the owner that the team could be rebuilt while still being in the playoffs even though he knew that was unlikely. I doubt Daryl felt the same way as he likely thought you need to try to be making the playoffs or you need to step back and committ to a rebuild. He wasn't the guy to do a rebuild and agreed to leave.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I feel like I am eating crazy pills and would be interested in seeing the demographic of this poll, which I know is not an option

You will get a kick out of this look at Coates’ dismal draft performance

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/06/21/f...ory-al-coates/

There is a reason people regularly use the word Fata and Al Coates brought him to you

[getbak]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

But the organization has too much class to not let the second best GM in their history go out on his own terms

How did he go out on his own terms? King told him he wasn't going to be the GM anymore. That's all that really matters.

How they word it in the press release is just PR. If he had refused to "resign", he wouldn't have stayed on as the GM.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. Sutter was the GM of the flames from Apr 2003 to Dec 2010. The only season where he started the year as GM and the team didn't make the playoffs was the last year where he got fired stepped down.

If you are calling his entire tenure, minus 1 year rubbish, then how can you consider any GM, other than Fletcher not something much worse than rubbish?

When you go scorched earth and trade away every future you have to win now, then the years 2006-2010 were rubbish.

Expectations were FAR higher than simply making the playoffs and he failed miserably.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sutter, for the record, stepped down.

https://www.nhl.com/news/darryl-sutt...lames/c-547579

I'm not sure Daryl was the type of person that would pack his bags and quit. It's clear after the hiring of Feaster that ownership was leaning to firing him and King being a massive Daryl fan was likely trying to make his exit as gracious as possible.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When you go scorched earth and trade away every future you have to win now, then the years 2006-2010 were rubbish.

Expectations were FAR higher than simply making the playoffs and he failed miserably.

Fair enough, that is a fair opinion.

I just want to follow a team where they at least make the playoffs every year. Sutter brought that excitement to a city/franchise. That has gone unparalled to-date.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When you go scorched earth and trade away every future you have to win now, then the years 2006-2010 were rubbish.

Expectations were FAR higher than simply making the playoffs and he failed miserably.

They weren't rubbish. They were disappointing, the playoff results in particular.