Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Thing about Feaster - not only did he not play, he had no business management experience, and precious little legal experience (which was his training) before he walked into an AHL GM job (which was not only managing the team but also the building). Then he joined TB and sort of fell into the GM role by attrition after Demers and Dudley built the team and Torts took it off the ground.
|
I am 100% familiar with Feaster's background. IMO, I think he basically backstabbed his way into being the GM in Tampa, and I said that he would probably do the same thing here, and he sort of did (and I really thought it was extremely distasteful in kicking up dirt in the face of Darryl after Darryl 'resigned'). I don't like Feaster. I don't think he is a competent GM, and he strikes me as the "slimy used car salesman type" whenever I listen to him. I am not giving Feaster any praise here.
I do, however, disagree on his cup win. He was already GM since 2002, and though Dudley deserves a lot of credit for building that team, Feaster deserves some as well. In fact, I argue that if Feaster didn't hire Torts, that team wouldn't win the cup that year. Whether it is through sheer luck, or some kind of a talent in hiring coaches, I do think Feaster is very competent at that aspect of his role. I am not sure he is competent in many other areas, however.
At any rate, my post isn't to discuss the merits of whether or not Feaster is a competent GM. That's an irrelevant discussion point to me. My intent is all about the "hockey guy" label. I will include Feaster as being part of this 'hockey guy fraternity', citing that he has been involved in hockey since 1988 (roughly - doesn't say when he became the Assistant to the GM in Hershey, after which in 1990 he became the GM). So roughly 25 years of being a hockey executive making decisions (he was fired here in Calgary in 2013). He still is involved in hockey, though from a grass-roots level promotional gig, helping to attract more participation in the sport.
That was my point/question. I would say that after winning two championships as a GM in two different leagues - A Calder Cup and a Stanley Cup - and spending that much time in hockey, does it not make him a 'hockey guy' by now? What really makes someone a hockey guy? I would imagine the list of GMs in the league who have won a Stanley Cup and a Calder Cup as a GM is really short. By now, he has to be included as a 'hockey guy', no? Or does the term come down to playing hockey up to a certain level and have a certain level of games played? What is this arbitrary line?
