: News Article:
Sutter and Flames Part Ways
View Single Post
04-12-2012, 07:54 PM
unholy acting talent
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Error 503
I thought Bob McKenzie, Darren Dreger and Aaron Ward covered the Flames' situation pretty well in the
. Pertinent summarized quotes:
The Flames were not going to offer Sutter a new contract. Team was not interested in making directional changes Sutter was seeking, who was responded with 'that's fine; I probably wouldn't accept a new contract without these changes.'
Does that mean the Flames are not going to move towards a rebuild and flirt with the idea of trading Iginla? Or does it mean they might still be considering that idea but don't want Sutter leading the way? Don't read into it either way.
Of all the Canadian teams in the NHL, it's widely perceived that no ownership group led by Murray Edwards and Ken King have as much say in the direction the hockey operations department goes in. All owners have some input into how the club goes about its business but in Calgary, that emphasis is much greater from ownership, than it is from the general manager.
It was naive of people to think the ownership group would suddenly embrace a rebuild or they would make sweeping changes because of three years of no post season games. After all, this same ownership group led the team through a 7 year drought and still had no inclination to build through lottery picks. Secondly, it's widely known that this ownership is highly concerned over it's perceived image in Calgary - from that perspective, letting go of Sutter, regardless of the direction they were going to take, was a necessity. Selling a coach that failed to meet the minimum requirements, i.e. make the playoffs, wasn't something they could do easily.
Finally, the quote by McKenzie is pretty illuminating; it's becoming increasingly evident that Feaster may be no more than a 'yes man' setup to front the direction the owners want to go in.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Calculon