With Sutter getting fired in Calgary, if he doesn't get another NHL job would he be back as the Rebels GM next year? I think it is safe to say he won't coach in Red Deer again.
With Sutter getting fired in Calgary, if he doesn't get another NHL job would he be back as the Rebels GM next year? I think it is safe to say he won't coach in Red Deer again.
I'd be surprised if he's not coaching in the NHL next year. Not neccessarily in October, but definitely next season.
With Sutter getting fired in Calgary, if he doesn't get another NHL job would he be back as the Rebels GM next year? I think it is safe to say he won't coach in Red Deer again.
Dreger saying that it sounds like Brent wanted to move towards rebuilding, management didn't agree. I've got a bad feeling about this...
Not what he said:
Quote:
Had quick chat with Brent Sutter. Said decision made this am. Amicable end to relationship. Didn't share same view of direction of team.
For all we know the Flames are rebuilding and Sutter doesn't want to be the fall guy for when the team doesn't succeed. I'm not saying it won't end up being what you said, but people need to stop posting their interpretation of a twitter source as fact.
Coaching change is fine, as long as it is accompanied with player movement.
Um - wasn't it Eric Francis who said that the winds were blowing towards Sutter coaching in Edmonton next season? I think it was on a Hotstove segment a couple of months back...
For all we know the Flames are rebuilding and Sutter doesn't want to be the fall guy for when the team doesn't succeed.
Isn't Sutter on record as saying he likes working with younger players? He has run (And will probably run again) a majour junior hockey team. From what little I know of the guy I think he'd be OK with a rebuild. It would be a chance to get some players he wants to develop, coach and run with.
For all we know the Flames are rebuilding and Sutter doesn't want to be the fall guy for when the team doesn't succeed. I'm not saying it won't end up being what you said, but people need to stop posting their interpretation of a twitter source as fact.
Coaching change is fine, as long as it is accompanied with player movement.
On the actual TSN segment, not Twitter, Dreger said that Sutter felt serious changes were required and that it might be beneficial to at least start talking about trading Jarome. Not too much to interpret there.
On the actual TSN segment, not Twitter, Dreger said that Sutter felt serious changes were required and that it might be beneficial to at least start talking about trading Jarome. Not too much to interpret there.
Brent has been moaning about not having the pieces in place to play a certain way for a long, long time. Maybe Feaster was sick and tired of his excuses? It's not as if his roster has not changed dramatically over the three seasons he has been here.
Core player's have been moved out. Who's know what exactly happened, maybe Brent said that it's either him or Iginla. I know who I would pick. I would never guarantee trading my captain away..ever. If the right offer was to present itself however you make the trade, regardless of who is the coach.
People can argue all day about the what if's, but in reality we have no clue as to what exactly was discussed between these two parties.
Obviously there is a small disconnect between Brent and the management/ownership group or he would have been renewed. However, I don't think it's as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be.
Like I said in the other thread, if Iggy/Kipper stay, I want Sutter gone. If Iggy/Kipper go, Sutter SHOULD stay. He is good with young players. The fact that Sutter is gone, means that Iggy/Kipper are staying.. IMO. I'm not happy about that.
I'm looking at ownership and Ken King now. Iggy/Kipper sell tickets = they stay.
I thought Bob McKenzie, Darren Dreger and Aaron Ward covered the Flames' situation pretty well in the TSN segment. Pertinent summarized quotes:
Dreger:
Quote:
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.'
McKenzie:
Quote:
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.
McKenzie:
Quote:
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.
Like I said in the other thread, if Iggy/Kipper stay, I want Sutter gone. If Iggy/Kipper go, Sutter SHOULD stay. He is good with young players. The fact that Sutter is gone, means that Iggy/Kipper are staying.. IMO. I'm not happy about that.
I'm looking at ownership and Ken King now. Iggy/Kipper sell tickets = they stay.
FML.
This is EXACTLY why I have a bad feeling about this. This is all opinion, but I think we're stuck competing for 8th every year until Iggy retires now. I feel like a Leafs fan.
I thought Bob McKenzie, Darren Dreger and Aaron Ward covered the Flames' situation pretty well in the TSN segment. Pertinent summarized quotes:
Dreger:
McKenzie:
McKenzie:
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.
That's what pisses me off about this organization. If Ken King wanted to control every little move, maybe he should have made himself the GM. Get out of the office and let Jay do his work. The guy obviously knows what he's doing, so let him do it properly.
It's about time this organization was free from Sutter tyrrany. ****ing took long enough! There should be a rule in the NHL that doesn't allow nepotism in an NHL team. Hell, at one point there was the GM, the coach, the prospect, the scout, and the player developer. It was like we were owned by a Sutter mob! Well, it's now completely over and thank god too.
Based on Feaster's comments, it's pretty clear why Sutter felt like he had so much say in this organization. Only in a friendly atmosphere do you have enough balls to go up to your boss and demand all new players or else your walking. Coaches need to shut their damn mouth and do their job. I'm disappointed that Feaster let their relationship become any more than business.
That's what pisses me off about this organization. If Ken King wanted to control every little move, maybe he should have made himself the GM. Get out of the office and let Jay do his work. The guy obviously knows what he's doing, so let him do it properly.
Didn't Feaster just say that he's never had any barricades getting things done from ownership?
Feaster would be pretty stupid to think he was going to pull a trigger on a full rebuild without ownership approval, when Feaster himself hasn't proved anything to this organization. That's like me starting at a new company, and the first day I'm firing all the employees who've helped build the company over the years.
I think Feaster can do his job within his job title, but owners' need to protect their interest from giving him a free pass to do whatever he wants.
