Darryl Sutter new head coach

[conundrumed]

10 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I've been listening on their podcast and Rhett gives some great insight early in the show. 
 

they go on about LA's team and how short their retool was.

I wonder if we are

going to have to do a few more years of this, as we just won't be able to fill the roster with contracts. 
 

rhett also talked about chemistry and building a team where guys grow together creating relationships. The old guys coming in on UFA's aren't in that mindset.
 

for

me, I think It works when the team is further along and a real contender. 
 

but they also talk about how we hardly insert the youth in the lineup. Right now we have 5 homegrown players. 
 

I really hope we can start to build a team that allows natural turnovers. I'm more than willing to go through a build that takes about 3 years and focus on the draft. 

I've gotten that far but the Sting game's on TV so I'll finish after they destroy Owen Sound. 2-0 and counting.

Agree about LA, they've looked great for a while now. Love the Korpisalo add.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

You can Youtube the entire show. 

 

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Guys on Barnburner were on fire today. For sure stocking the fuel around players aren't happy here but they, in particular Rhett, also offered some really good insight. 

 

should go and listen after this clip. Rhett goes into how he figured that Sutter winning the Adams was a bad thing and how he felt he was going to overdo it this year. Also talked about Darryl wants teams to be player led and this one clearly isn't. 

 

the changes are obvious but it's just really interesting to hear the insight from someone who played for him (and speaks highly of him usually). 

 

Disclaimer: it's not an uplifting chat for a fan of the Flames. 

 

All I can say after watching the full one specific to Huberdeau (mostly full maybe - 5 minutes long) was WOW.  

That's some pretty harsh stuff, and I know they are sometimes shock jocks, but WOW.

So, I guess some of the criticisms said by some here are shared by others outside the forum.

It makes us look even more messed up.  To the outside world.

If any reporter asks him about it, expect a lot of hostility or pointing fingers.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I've been listening on their podcast and Rhett gives some great insight early in the show. 
 

they go on about LA's team and how short their retool was.

I wonder if we are

going to have to do a few more years of this, as we just won't be able to fill the roster with contracts. 
 

rhett also talked about chemistry and building a team where guys grow together creating relationships. The old guys coming in on UFA's aren't in that mindset.
 

for

me, I think It works when the team is further along and a real contender. 
 

but they also talk about how we hardly insert the youth in the lineup. Right now we have 5 homegrown players. 
 

I really hope we can start to build a team that allows natural turnovers. I'm more than willing to go through a build that takes about 3 years and focus on the draft. 

 

100%.  Not to mention the best captains aren't usually available in UFA and even if they are, likely won't want to come to Calgary. 

 

The next team captain(s) has to be developed in house.  Get a bunch of kids together and lose together.  Get in the trenches together.  Learn to win together.  This is how we got Iginla.  This is how we got Giordano.  This is how we will get our next captain.  There are a lot of social obstacles to veteran coming into a brand new team and environment and then be designated the captain.  It just doesn't work that way when you are the new guy.  Works the same in the real work places.  Works the same in hockey... at least the new guys has to be around for several years.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not sure it's a question of who. Before they hired Burke would you not assume he would have been the guy? Now my understanding is he did wrestle away a fair bit, just not all the way.  I'm skeptical there is a name because would the owners look at someone who is going to challenge them? That's the question I have. 

 

I'm still very interested in Mike Gillis. 

 

Why Mike Gillis?  As a GM, he made so many enemies that the Canucks ran out of trade partners and he had to go... but he did build that Canucks Cup Finals team from the ground up and almost won the whole thing.

 

As a POHO, I wouldn't know but he brings experience from all sides.  He's a former player, former agent, former GM, and former President of the Canucks.  Do you think he could reign in the owners and convince them to go cruise the world and come back after 3 years?  Could he talk sense to the owners and stop them from meddling? 

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

You can Youtube the entire show. 

 

I liked what Boomer said in regards to the fans lately, "the opposite of love is not hate.  The opposite of love is indifference."  and that's bang on from what we are seeing around the city these days.  The fan base couldn't care less.  I go out with friends and family and nobody is talking about the Flames.  Nobody even cares.

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

re: 2004 -

 

In some ways, I think that 2004 is a curse for this hockey club for exactly the reason that you said - it proved that anything can happen. The second problem is that Darryl Sutter's LA Kings won as the eighth seed.

 

In my opinion, very difficult decisions should have been made about this team weeks ago, and it could be argued even longer than that, but certainly before the trade deadline. I believe it's the two factors cited above that keep the wheels perpetually spinning.

 

Such a frustrating season, Man.

 

Love.

 

This team is signature "reactionary" and there is no plan.  Even during our rebuild, we beat the Canucks in the playoffs and then "BOOM let's switch plans! We aRe So ReAdY tO wIn tHe CuP!!"

 

If you don't know where you are going then keep driving.  You will eventually get there.

[travel_dude]

21 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

100%.  Not to mention the best captains aren't usually available in UFA and even if they are, likely won't want to come to Calgary. 

 

The next team captain(s) has to be developed in house.  Get a bunch of kids together and lose together.  Get in the trenches together.  Learn to win together.  This is how we got Iginla.  This is how we got Giordano.  This is how we will get our next captain.  There are a lot of social obstacles to veteran coming into a brand new team and environment and then be designated the captain.  It just doesn't work that way when you are the new guy.  Works the same in the real work places.  Works the same in hockey... at least the new guys has to be around for several years.

 

Perhaps had we named a C instead of just talking about cup wiinners, we might have had one last year and maybe they stay.  When was the last C every traded the same year he's made one?  Never?  Tkachuk wasn't my first choice, but it's his pesty side that grated me.  It's not the only thing he did.  He, like Gaudreau, carried the team some games or dragged them into the fight.  

 

Who is left now that embodies those qualities that Gio and Iggy had?  Backlund?  He may be on his way out or on his way to being a lesser player.  And what, we sign him to another 6 years?

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

This team is signature "reactionary" and there is no plan.  Even during our rebuild, we beat the Canucks in the playoffs and then "BOOM let's switch plans! We aRe So ReAdY tO wIn tHe CuP!!"

 

If you don't know where you are going then keep driving.  You will eventually get there.

 

To be fair, wasn't that the emergence of 18 year old Sam Bennett TM ?

And after getting Dougie, we still would draft high for 2 years.

Missed on Barzal, but hit on Ras.

Really the drafting of Tkachuk was the end of the rebuild.

 

[The_People1]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Perhaps had we named a C instead of just talking about cup wiinners, we might have had one last year and maybe they stay.  When was the last C every traded the same year he's made one?  Never?  Tkachuk wasn't my first choice, but it's his pesty side that grated me.  It's not the only thing he did.  He, like Gaudreau, carried the team some games or dragged them into the fight.  

 

Who is left now that embodies those qualities that Gio and Iggy had?  Backlund?  He may be on his way out or on his way to being a lesser player.  And what, we sign him to another 6 years?

 

Sean Monahan was suppose to be our next captain.  It's too bad his body broke down and we had to move on from him.  I mean, you preferably want to select a leader from the young group that we are rebuilding around.  He was the guy.  More mature than Tkachuk.  I never liked Tkachuk as a captain.  It should've been Monahan.

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Sean Monahan was suppose to be our next captain.  It's too bad his body broke down and we had to move on from him.  I mean, you preferably want to select a leader from the young group that we are rebuilding around.  He was the guy.  More mature than Tkachuk.  I never liked Tkachuk as a captain.  It should've been Monahan.

 

They had the chance, but admittedly so Monahan was also the quiet guy.

Tkachuk had changed a lot last year.

Less me, more we.

He took responsibility and said the thing we figured the room was thinking.

Not saying he was the best choice, just a choice.

Better than no choice.

Not a young guy who hasn't earned anything other than name brand.

Maybe Tanev was a better choice....for Vancouver.

If you limit to drafted players, you have a short list.

Players that will be here is 3-5 years?  Shorter.

 

Simply put, the coach feels if a player earns it, he will name them.

That's going to be rough.

Who earns it under Sutter?

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

This team is signature "reactionary" and there is no plan.  Even during our rebuild, we beat the Canucks in the playoffs and then "BOOM let's switch plans! We aRe So ReAdY tO wIn tHe CuP!!"

 

If you don't know where you are going then keep driving.  You will eventually get there.

Well if it's somewhere famous, "the tourists steal all the signs and stuff, and it's all guys on the bus, so we drove another 3 hours before we finally asked somebody where we was".

[cross16]

13 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Why Mike Gillis?  As a GM, he made so many enemies that the Canucks ran out of trade partners and he had to go... but he did build that Canucks Cup Finals team from the ground up and almost won the whole thing.

 

As a POHO, I wouldn't know but he brings experience from all sides.  He's a former player, former agent, former GM, and former President of the Canucks.  Do you think he could reign in the owners and convince them to go cruise the world and come back after 3 years?  Could he talk sense to the owners and stop them from meddling? 

 

That is not what I understand happened, nor have I ever heard that. Canucks fell apart at the end because Acquillin got more hands on, told Gillis to hire Torts and it all fell apart because Torts didn't really want to be there. He pissed off Luongo and then the rest is history.  As a GM he ran a really good franchise IMO. 

 

He's brash so he does rubs some the wrong way but I think he's got a really innovative mindset to running a hockey team. When he was the GM he was ahead of salary cap changes, managed the cap well, created an environment that encouraged players to take less and he invested in sports science. When he was the GM the Canucks really dove into the analytics, the mental side of the game and had even sleep doctors that would monitor how the team performed and in what conditions they performed best. It all sounds hokey but IMO that is the future of sports and if you are a small market club I think you need to be innovative, Gilils is. 

 

As I said before I don't think the question is can he (or anyone) control the owners the question is would the owners hire someone who would challenge them. Gillis has already said publicly he would only be interested in working in the NHL again if there is total alignment from top to bottom, so basically he won't even take a job unless the owners gave him the flexibility to do it his way. But again, question is are these owners interested in hiring someone like that?

[tmac70]

Really where there is smoke there is fire, no pun intended.  What I dislike is don't play this out in the public, Fing pansies. Walsh's comments, Kadri this falls on Trevling now. This should have never made it past closed doors. We all know Kadri can be a loudmouth, and he can act like a spoiled child, he should have been demoted based on his irresponsibility of puck management, attitude, and penalties the last few games.  You are paid to be an impact player on the ice, not have a negative impact on the ice and in the locker room. We all know Sutter is not a high-praise coach and by the sounds of it needs some major work in communication skills.  IMHO Sutter's attitude is you get paid for doing your job, why do I need to pat you on the back for it? Now that's old school, today's pampered pussies need to be stroked and told WOW that stop and start was out of this world, the giveaway that caused the loss hey forget about it, let's just focus on the positives here. The facts are you not getting that from Sutter, but I do agree that change has to happen on both sides to find a common ground or major changes should happen

 

 Where this gets dicey for me is the inmates running the asylum scenario. There has to be accountability on both sides. I have no issue with getting rid of Sutter, but you better have a far better alternative in place beforehand. If you're doing it because the players are pissy then you have just put this club back to where it was culture-wise once again. 

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

Really where there is smoke there is fire, no pun intended.  What I dislike is don't play this out in the public, Fing pansies. Walsh's comments, Kadri this falls on Trevling now. This should have never made it past closed doors. We all know Kadri can be a loudmouth, and he can act like a spoiled child, he should have been demoted based on his irresponsibility of puck management, attitude, and penalties the last few games.  You are paid to be an impact player on the ice, not have a negative impact on the ice and in the locker room. We all know Sutter is not a high-praise coach and by the sounds of it needs some major work in communication skills.  IMHO Sutter's attitude is you get paid for doing your job, why do I need to pat you on the back for it? Now that's old school, today's pampered pussies need to be stroked and told WOW that stop and start was out of this world, the giveaway that caused the loss hey forget about it, let's just focus on the positives here. The facts are you not getting that from Sutter, but I do agree that change has to happen on both sides to find a common ground or major changes should happen

 

 Where this gets dicey for me is the inmates running the asylum scenario. There has to be accountability on both sides. I have no issue with getting rid of Sutter, but you better have a far better alternative in place beforehand. If you're doing it because the players are pissy then you have just put this club back to where it was culture-wise once again. 

Modern management would suggest that you don't trash an employee only.

You give praise when due and you correct when not done.

He acted like a dick and the players didn't like it.

Thought he was being cute.

Trashed the team as being low skill.

Called out the top players in a loss, specifically the F.

Rarely said anything negative about the goalie.  His goalie that is.

 

The criticism about gameplay or systems come with losing.

No captain named, so there is no buffer.

Players only meeting will be rough because you have the outspoken Lucic.

Sorry bud, you are part of the problem.  What you suggest works both ways.

And you are not part of the future.

 

Anyway, the coach search doesn't need to be solved before the draft.

There will be available coaches after the season ends and the playoffs are done.

I'm also not a fan of a coaching search while you still have the head coach.

If you are making the change, keeping him while you look makes no sense.

Right now would be appropriate.

He hasn't earned a return next year.

Waiting until we are basically out of the playoff chances to make changes shows lack of ability to adapt.

Le the interim coach throw things out and allow the players to come together.

 

[tmac70]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

Modern management would suggest that you don't trash an employee only.

You give praise when due and you correct when not done.

He acted like a dick and the players didn't like it.

Thought he was being cute.

Trashed the team as being low skill.

Called out the top players in a loss, specifically the F.

Rarely said anything negative about the goalie.  His goalie that is.

 

The criticism about gameplay or systems come with losing.

No captain named, so there is no buffer.

Players only meeting will be rough because you have the outspoken Lucic.

Sorry bud, you are part of the problem.  What you suggest works both ways.

And you are not part of the future.

 

Anyway, the coach search doesn't need to be solved before the draft.

There will be available coaches after the season ends and the playoffs are done.

I'm also not a fan of a coaching search while you still have the head coach.

If you are making the change, keeping him while you look makes no sense.

Right now would be appropriate.

He hasn't earned a return next year.

Waiting until we are basically out of the playoff chances to make changes shows lack of ability to adapt.

Le the interim coach throw things out and allow the players to come together.

 

The fact that terrible employees can be replaced based on poor performance makes this a different animal, you have contracts in place, not a simple removal. Like I stated Sutter IMHO in this is what you signed up for this is your role, so do your job. Now, could his comments be watered down, sure, but take it for what it is. If you are that thin-skinned you are in the wrong profession. Hell should put you on the golf course around some crowds, their comments would make 98% leave in tears, lol. 

 

As I stated more than once, if you're replacing him fine, but nobody has even suggested an individual which is better for the role, how about Mr, Rodgers he seems to be less offensive. I understand your points and I am just going off of what has been stated in the media and also on stats.

 

1 goal game- 41

Losses by 1 goal -26

Overtime/ Shoot out Losses -15

Posts hit -77

3rd-period comebacks -0

Losses by outshooting opponents by 10+ shots- 21 

 

What I see is one more goal, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch lower or right or left, average goaltending, and how many more points we have. Goaltending alone has cost us 10 points, score one more goal, add another 4 points, and win a few OT shootouts 3 more points, for an easy total of 17 more points.  Take those stats into consideration about the coaching staff, in your assessment, not just a personality difference. The personality clash could be addressed and is a fixable entity, and I agree Sutter needs to address his flaws just like everyone else. Sutter needs to readapt, but it's a two-way street, the players need to adapt as well.  As Lanny said figure it out. 

 

If your basing his removal based on his personality its not like he was not like this when he was hired. GM needs to step in and address the issue, its not a public debate IMHO. I will agree Sutter needs to change some of his ways of communication, that's his issue, not his hockey knowledge. 

 

 

[cross16]

This concept that someone players who don't/can't play well under Sutter are therefore complainers and babies is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. 

 

What a stupid and out of touch discussion that is. 

[travel_dude]

42 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

The fact that terrible employees can be replaced based on poor performance makes this a different animal, you have contracts in place, not a simple removal. Like I stated Sutter IMHO in this is what you signed up for this is your role, so do your job. Now, could his comments be watered down, sure, but take it for what it is. If you are that thin-skinned you are in the wrong profession. Hell should put you on the golf course around some crowds, their comments would make 98% leave in tears, lol. 

 

As I stated more than once, if you're replacing him fine, but nobody has even suggested an individual which is better for the role, how about Mr, Rodgers he seems to be less offensive. I understand your points and I am just going off of what has been stated in the media and also on stats.

 

1 goal game- 41

Losses by 1 goal -26

Overtime/ Shoot out Losses -15

Posts hit -77

3rd-period comebacks -0

Losses by outshooting opponents by 10+ shots- 21 

 

What I see is one more goal, 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch lower or right or left, average goaltending, and how many more points we have. Goaltending alone has cost us 10 points, score one more goal, add another 4 points, and win a few OT shootouts 3 more points, for an easy total of 17 more points.  Take those stats into consideration about the coaching staff, in your assessment, not just a personality difference. The personality clash could be addressed and is a fixable entity, and I agree Sutter needs to address his flaws just like everyone else. Sutter needs to readapt, but it's a two-way street, the players need to adapt as well.  As Lanny said figure it out. 

 

If your basing his removal based on his personality its not like he was not like this when he was hired. GM needs to step in and address the issue, its not a public debate IMHO. I will agree Sutter needs to change some of his ways of communication, that's his issue, not his hockey knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

Well, I for one care what people think and don't insult them in public.

That would be like a boss publishing a story about how lousy an employee you are.

 

You bring up stats that we all know about.  What is less understood is how many games we lost due to poor coaching.  No idea, because the coach only ever says "somebody didn't score or we didn't get a PP goal or we didn't get that timely save".  

 

I don't know, maybe play a LW on LW and not simply say it doesn't matter?

Pull a goalie when you still have time to do something about it?

Not use some magic formula for ratio of starter vs backup?

Perhaps not put out 4th line against a top line just because that's the way you roll lines?

Maybe hold vets to the same standard during the season?

 

In a season like this there are typically one of two results, sometimes a bit of both.

1) coach is blamed and fired - reasonable expectation that a poor record means you failed

2) identify the problems and make trades/buyouts

 

We lose a bunch of UFA's as it is, so there is some natural turnover.  We have cap issues that will require some work and possible trades.  As well, we have to maximize cap by using young players on ELC deals.  I would prefer to have a couple of Ruzicka/Pelletier/Zary/Coronato to one Ritchie.  Having the right coach for prospects is essential.  Do we have the right one now?

[tmac70]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

Well, I for one care what people think and don't insult them in public.

That would be like a boss publishing a story about how lousy an employee you are.

 

You bring up stats that we all know about.  What is less understood is how many games we lost due to poor coaching.  No idea, because the coach only ever says "somebody didn't score or we didn't get a PP goal or we didn't get that timely save".  

 

I don't know, maybe play a LW on LW and not simply say it doesn't matter?

Pull a goalie when you still have time to do something about it?

Not use some magic formula for ratio of starter vs backup?

Perhaps not put out 4th line against a top line just because that's the way you roll lines?

Maybe hold vets to the same standard during the season?

 

In a season like this there are typically one of two results, sometimes a bit of both.

1) coach is blamed and fired - reasonable expectation that a poor record means you failed

2) identify the problems and make trades/buyouts

 

We lose a bunch of UFA's as it is, so there is some natural turnover.  We have cap issues that will require some work and possible trades.  As well, we have to maximize cap by using young players on ELC deals.  I would prefer to have a couple of Ruzicka/Pelletier/Zary/Coronato to one Ritchie.  Having the right coach for prospects is essential.  Do we have the right one now?

That comment works both ways by the Coach and players, which as I said should have never been made in public. I don't go out of my way to insult either, but I don't take offense to an opinion unless it's from someone I respect. 

 

See the facts are you and everyone else constantly BTC about crap that we already knew about when the man was hired. He rolls four lines speaks his mind calls players out regardless of status, plays a certain style, demands lots, praises little, and calls a spade a spade.  With all that information, history, and background at everyone's disposal, he was still hired and they signed contracts, it's not like anything should be a mystery here.

 

I have ZERO empathy for any of the players who signed and are somehow surprised at what's going on, NONE.  Control what you have control over which PLAY BETTER. Spend your time more productively and find ways to improve instead of pointing fingers in the opposite direction. 

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

That is not what I understand happened, nor have I ever heard that. Canucks fell apart at the end because Acquillin got more hands on, told Gillis to hire Torts and it all fell apart because Torts didn't really want to be there. He pissed off Luongo and then the rest is history.  As a GM he ran a really good franchise IMO. 

 

He's brash so he does rubs some the wrong way but I think he's got a really innovative mindset to running a hockey team. When he was the GM he was ahead of salary cap changes, managed the cap well, created an environment that encouraged players to take less and he invested in sports science. When he was the GM the Canucks really dove into the analytics, the mental side of the game and had even sleep doctors that would monitor how the team performed and in what conditions they performed best. It all sounds hokey but IMO that is the future of sports and if you are a small market club I think you need to be innovative, Gilils is. 

 

As I said before I don't think the question is can he (or anyone) control the owners the question is would the owners hire someone who would challenge them. Gillis has already said publicly he would only be interested in working in the NHL again if there is total alignment from top to bottom, so basically he won't even take a job unless the owners gave him the flexibility to do it his way. But again, question is are these owners interested in hiring someone like that?

 

I vividly remember Mike Gillis offer sheeted David Backes his first week on the job.  Pissed off the whole league.  The Blues matched the offer sheet and then immediately offer sheeted Steve Bernier in retaliation.  

 

Aside from that, I think his biggest fumble was the Anson Carter situation which, in my opinion, would've won them the Cup during that run they had if only they extended him.  Both sides were off by about $500k or something.  Carter was too greedy and the Canucks wouldn't budge.  Carter left and the Canucks were never able to find the Sedins their big RHS RW after that.  Literally struggled to find a replacement for the next 10 years which is a huge fail in my opinion, although, look at Treliving.  Can't find that RHS RW his entire 10 years here.

 

And lastly, Gillis inherited a lot of the team that went to the Cup finals.  If i'm not remembering wrong, then the Canucks already had the Sedins, Kesler, Jovanovski, Bieksa, etc.  Yes, finishing touches are always important too and he did well there.  I'm not sure the Flames are in a situation that needs finishing touches.  We need a full blown rebuild and a new core of young players.

 

Anyways, Gillis left the Canucks because the Canucks owners got too involved.  I think he wouldn't enjoy it here either.

[The_People1]

Kadri is having a very Kadri-season.  Very career average for him and what almost everyone expected out of him.  I don't think he's underperforming or anything (with last season being the anomaly).  Kadri is a 25G and 55Pts guy.  Sutter is getting what is expected out of Kadri so I don't see where the problem is unless you wanted a 87-point player making $7-mil-per.

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=96553

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I vividly remember Mike Gillis offer sheeted David Backes his first week on the job.  Pissed off the whole league.  The Blues matched the offer sheet and then immediately offer sheeted Steve Bernier in retaliation.  

 

Aside from that, I think his biggest fumble was the Anson Carter situation which, in my opinion, would've won them the Cup during that run they had if only they extended him.  Both sides were off by about $500k or something.  Carter was too greedy and the Canucks wouldn't budge.  Carter left and the Canucks were never able to find the Sedins their big RHS RW after that.  Literally struggled to find a replacement for the next 10 years which is a huge fail in my opinion, although, look at Treliving.  Can't find that RHS RW his entire 10 years here.

 

And lastly, Gillis inherited a lot of the team that went to the Cup finals.  If i'm not remembering wrong, then the Canucks already had the Sedins, Kesler, Jovanovski, Bieksa, etc.  Yes, finishing touches are always important too and he did well there.  I'm not sure the Flames are in a situation that needs finishing touches.  We need a full blown rebuild and a new core of young players.

 

Anyways, Gillis left the Canucks because the Canucks owners got too involved.  I think he wouldn't enjoy it here either.

 

He did but pissed the whole league off? Huge stretch there. There's been offer sheets since and Gillis seemed to have no problem making deals after that for the 6 plus years he had the role. 

 

Timelines is off here. Gillis was hired in 08 and Carter played for the Canucks in 05-06. 

 

Yes he did inherit the Core but he also made a lot of big, and at the time controversial, changes. He didn't re sign Naslund or Morrison, and pivoted to the Sedins as his core (Seems obvious now but at the time there were a ton of doubts that the Sedins were franchise players). Yes it was mostly finishing touches but he did make some key strategic decisions and did also convince many players to take less to keep that team strong. 

 

This doesn't matter because your right I don't think Gillis would want to be here, nor do I think the owners would hire him, but I don't think a President of Hockey ops is the same as the GM. I don't need someone who was a good drafter, that's why they have a GM, director of scouting etc. A President of Hockey ops isn't going to pull the stings they are going to make strategic and investment decisions that dictate the direction the franchise, not decide who to pick in the first round. I think the Flames should be pursuing someone based on their ideas and direction, not their past resume as a GM. They are 2 different roles. 

[travel_dude]

9 hours ago, tmac70 said:

IMHO Sutter's attitude is you get paid for doing your job, why do I need to pat you on the back for it? Now that's old school, today's pampered pussies need to be stroked and told WOW that stop and start was out of this world, the giveaway that caused the loss hey forget about it, let's just focus on the positives here.

 

6 hours ago, tmac70 said:

If you are that thin-skinned you are in the wrong profession. Hell should put you on the golf course around some crowds, their comments would make 98% leave in tears, lol. 

 

5 hours ago, tmac70 said:

I have ZERO empathy for any of the players who signed and are somehow surprised at what's going on, NONE.  Control what you have control over which PLAY BETTER.

 

Ya, that's exactly what they figured they were getting because everyones knows what it's like to play for Sutter.  Who is gonna tell them?  And Huberdeau had the belief that maybe Lindholm could get 50 goals setting him up.  Sutter called Huberdeau the best passer in the NHL.  Yet, he barely got 6 game in with Lindholm.  And he was played more than half the season on RW.  Some of that was just to allow players like Lucic to play there.  Some was to fit Pelletier.  Some was for the other random players that have player on LW with him.  That doesn't seem like smart coaching.  

 

Look I get it.  You blame the players because they don't execute.  The "system" works for the Wtanglers.  Must be a problem with the NHL players.  Not a coaching issue, he has no control about what they do out there.  And if they can't take the criticism, they don't deserve to be here.  Has he ever criticized Lucic harshly?  What about Lewis?  I have heard nothing bad.  "Those guys are pros, they know their role and do it well".  Yeah, I guess getting scored on is their role.

 

Anyway, you want to argue about it, go ahead.  I cheer the team, not the coach.  If they decide to keep him, I will just get used to more of the same.  

[cross16]

I personally think this debate about how players should just "shut up and play" or "they get paid" is missing the point. Like it or not in pro sports today players have a ton of pull. I mean you can laugh about Huberdeau signing up for 8 years to play with Sutter but he also knows damn well that Sutter, even if he was doing a good job, ain't gonna be there through his contract. It's a players game and has been for quite a while. 

 

Good coaches adapt to the environment they are in, the game/changes to the game and to their players. They don't force players into their way and this is a message Sutter clearly hasn't' learned and it's costing him. 

[redfire11]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Like it or not in pro sports today players have a ton of pull. I mean you can laugh about Huberdeau signing up for 8 years to play with Sutter but he also knows damn well that Sutter, even if he was doing a good job, ain't gonna be there through his contract. It's a players game and has been for quite a while.

Huberdeau could walk into BT's office and say I don't like working with Sutter and I want a trade and by this such and such a time I will make it public. Huberdeau knows wherever he plays he will make 10.5 M. 

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, redfire11 said:

Huberdeau could walk into BT's office and say I don't like working with Sutter and I want a trade and by this such and such a time I will make it public. Huberdeau knows wherever he plays he will make 10.5 M. 

 

That would be a dream come true if Huberdeau would waive to go anywhere.