D
Its fairpoint. EIG were notoriously bad at raising cash, accruing interested investment, or lobbying for the same. albeit with credit to Nichols who had to work very hard to get much investors interested in this horse. But alas at a time when the economy was just bad here.
All that said its possible that EIG would have developed a pointman somewhat better than Cals kick tires approach.
Although I could be dreaming there. Few would match Katz salesmanship savvy. But that's what he is a buyer and seller of fortune. Hockey being a sometimes amusing pastime.
E.I.G. were guys who don't come from the corporate world that Katz comes from, with the same amount of money to do and say what you want. You can read books about business, marketing, sales, but until you have money, then negotiations and marketing and all of that becomes easier.
E.I.G. also had Nichols and Laforge who after the Pronger fiasco became P.R. nightmares. They had a sympathetic fanbase because of financial restraints, but they would have kept an old core going forward and had a 20th place hockey club.
Another comment is that a related "Peter Principle" is that "change is good donkey" actually operates. Changing something, anything, offers the appearance of doing something. New managers change, reset, go with their own guys. This does not equate to better, it equates to change for change sake. But the illusion is progress, performing, making meaningful decisions. The delta change differentiation between Nelson and McLellan is not meaningful.
meanwhile, the players, who have had a new coach virtually every year were made to have new coaches when guys like Krueger, Nelson, were incumbents that weren't the problem.
Troubleshooting, as a rule, should be about fixing problems, filling leaks. Not fixing what was working.
The thing that you left out is not having a plan. Plain & Simple.
We heard about you need 5 years for a rebuild, and it didn't start till here. Then you had sympathizers say MacT had to fix Tambellin's mess, and much more the same now with Chia.
Is being patient or being proactive a better approach. Brian Burke is an example of someone who will be very proactive and it works somewhat but then other times not. He had the Ducks roster win a cup largely with Brian Murrays drafted players, he also had T.O. in the basement, he was really good in Van, but they drafted well enough with the Sedins/Kesler getting Luongo.
If you look at CBJ another team that has traded many players Nash, Brassard, Gaborik, Johansen are names just off the top of my head, and they are where they are still.
When Feaster came to Calgary he drafted really well imo (Monahan, Ramo, Gaudreau and others) don't say Jankowski haha
I think it's dumb to outline deadline, timelines to the public. or say your looking to trade or do this, that or the other.
You shouldn't have group think tanks. The Oilers and many teams, and many companies do, but i have noticed being in that situation, and call me old nostalgic it's usually one guy that knows better than everyone -- it's the classic Cliff Fletcher knowing Brett Hull will be good
This is more to expound on the fact that as a scouting staff your evaluating over time who has the best insight and who sees the most results. I like the old scout for Tom Brady (sadly passed on) He always said Brady that was my guy (only one guy on the Patriots staff who said he's my guy)
It's also to break down hierarchy at all levels in your company by just saying Stu Macgregor knows better than everyone else. It's why the Oilers will draft guys from the Oil Kings or the W, instead of looking at Europe, or college, or other levels. Within the Oilers brass there comfortable with doing the status quo (I guess it is worse when they used to go off the deep end with picks)
Change usually means that they aren't any more progressive than someone else they just look here instead of there; especially when it relates to scouting, drafting, player development.
Analogy is like when you go ask your stock broker about some stocks he likes the energy sector. Another one will tell you biotech, pharmaceuticals. Neither tells me what at the time is better there telling me what they pick - basically what there comfortable with
Change also never deals with what is working and what's not working. Woodcroft has sucked this year why wouldn't he look at what made the Oiler's successful with another coach. It's why you have to cringe at coaches they all could learn alot from one another and yet it's really a gated community.