Would you take any of these players who have been bought out.

[Ace Rimmer]

Lecavallier stated he only wants to play in the east, didn't he?

 

[Calculon]

Jay "No-longer-targeting-post-apex-players" Feaster? I don't get the logic that if a GM has a certain strategy at one time, he will apply that strategy every season regardless of the team's situation. All of management has recognized that the situation has changed, and the strategy has also changed.

If we were getting Lecavalier, it would not be long-term, because we are a rebuilding team and that wouldn't help our rebuild strategy.

Getting a guy like Jones instead of picks/prospects doesn't help the rebuild either, but there you go. Someone like Jones could have easily been had in the FA, i.e. Ryder, Clarkson, Horton, or through trade, Clutterbuck, Cole, etc.

And I didn't say the Flames should, or will try to sign Lecavalier longterm, rather that's what he's looking for.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Imagine if we add Richards, Lecav as our 1-2 centers, then they go out and add a top-4 d and try to make the playoffs lol.

And while we're add it, let's try and get St. Louis back

Was it Feaster that signed Vinny to that horrible contract in the first place? If so, he needs to call him up and give him the ol': "Yo remember that fly ass beach house you bought?"

 

[Lunatik]

The only I would welcome to the Flames is Lecavalier, but only on a short term contract.

 

[TheHudlinator]

And while we're add it, let's try and get St. Louis back

Was it Feaster that signed Vinny to that horrible contract in the first place? If so, he needs to call him up and give him the ol': "Yo remember that fly ass beach house you bought?"

No ownership negotiated and tried to force Feaster to sign it and he quit.

 

[Anglesmith]

Getting a guy like Jones instead of picks/prospects doesn't help the rebuild either, but there you go. Someone like Jones could have easily been had in the FA, i.e. Ryder, Clarkson, Horton, or through trade, Clutterbuck, Cole, etc.

And I didn't say the Flames should, or will try to sign Lecavalier longterm, rather that's what he's looking for.

First off, Tanguay (33) + Sarich (34) for Jones (28) + O'Brien (30) absolutely helps the team get younger, and fills an organization need for the time being. Secondly, saying that Feaster should have gotten high picks instead is like saying that I should have bought all my groceries for free this afternoon. Yeah, it would have been great, but it relies on that offer being made.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

No ownership negotiated and tried to force Feaster to sign it and he quit.

Ah, I see. I wasn't sure of the exact details, but I knew the timeline between him quitting and Vinny's contract were very close.

Anyways, I really wouldn't see the point of him being here. We're nowhere near being contenders so him signing here for 2-3 years wouldn't really accomplish anything. And quite honestly, I see him as one of those "post apex" players Feaster was talking about.

 

[Calculon]

First off, Tanguay (33) + Sarich (34) for Jones (28) + O'Brien (30) absolutely helps the team get younger, and fills an organization need for the time being. Secondly, saying that Feaster should have gotten high picks instead is like saying that I should have bought all my groceries for free this afternoon. Yeah, it would have been great, but it relies on that offer being made.

Yeah, that's not how negotiating works.

It's a business. GM's are competing against each other. What on earth makes you think any GM worth their salt would start by bidding high on a player? You realize the most basic, fundamental point of negotiating is the concept of bidding high or low, relative to a position?

It's Feaster's job to get the most out of any deal. It's the other GM's job to pay the least. Unfortunately, it seems like Feaster and co. are far, far, too stupid to understand that another GM's first offer isn't a final one.

If Colorado isn't offering a second right off the bat, then it's Feaster's job to demand one. If they still say no, it's his job to create and find leverage to get them or another team to give one up. And if they still can't get someone to give up a pick, then it's okay for the Flames to say, fine, then we're not trading the player and wait until circumstances or the situation improve. And even if the situation never gets better, it's still fine because trading for a cap dump isn't exactly hard.

You're grocery store comparison is flat out wrong because trading doesn't occur at fixed prices. What Feaster and co. do is the equivalent of going to a used car dealership and buying an old clunker at sticker price.

And younger =/= better.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I'm guessing TO, the Habs or STL get him.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yeah, that's not how negotiating works.

It's a business. GM's are competing against each other. What on earth makes you think any GM worth their salt would start by bidding high on a player? You realize the most basic, fundamental point of negotiating is the concept of bidding high or low, relative to a position?

It's Feaster's job to get the most out of any deal. It's the other GM's job to pay the least. Unfortunately, it seems like Feaster and co. are far, far, too stupid to understand that another GM's first offer isn't a final one.

If Colorado isn't offering a second right off the bat, then it's Feaster's job to demand one. If they still say no, it's his job to create and find leverage to get them or another team to give one up. And if they still can't get someone to give up a pick, then it's okay for the Flames to say, fine, then we're not trading the player and wait until circumstances or the situation improve. And even if the situation never gets better, it's still fine because trading for a cap dump isn't exactly hard.

You're grocery store comparison is flat out wrong because trading doesn't occur at fixed prices. What Feaster and co. do is the equivalent of going to a used car dealership and buying an old clunker at sticker price.

And younger =/= better.

Well, sure, Feaster could tell the league collectively that the offer wasn't good enough. And when no one is willing to give more, we stick with Tanguay and Sarich? Where did that get us, and how is that more helpful than making this trade?

I pointed out that you were baselessly assuming that Feaster accepted the first offer out there, and you countered with the fact that your actual baseless assumption (which apparently is supposed to be more justifiable) was that he didn't negotiate. Feaster is a businessman, of course he would have asked for more. That doesn't mean that the other side will cave. For all we know, Colorado's first offer was a fifth. I'm not into making assumptions about things we don't know, if you hadn't gathered.

 

[Calculon]

Well, sure, Feaster could tell the league collectively that the offer wasn't good enough. And when no one is willing to give more, we stick with Tanguay and Sarich? Where did that get us, and how is that more helpful than making this trade?

Absolutely. The idea that Sarich and Tanguay are lookerroom cancers? Baseless speculation and assumption made entirely on petty and petulant little biases.

Again, it comes down to basic asset management. If no team can give a good offer, and the Flames actually did their due diligence by waiting for a better opportunity instead of rushing to make the trade, then there's a reason as to why they might receive a bad return. And in that situation, they'd be no worse off than they are now; it's not hard to trade for cap dumps.

And why can we say the Flames rushed this? It's been all of 3 months since the trade deadline when the rebuild began. If they actually waited until the trade deadline next season, one might be able to say management actually put some work and thought into this.

On the other hand, we have a former teammate of O'Brien calling him out for thinking more about a trip to Los Vegas than his on-ice performance while the team languished at the bottom of the standings. But let's keep ignoring that Jones and O'Brien played a role in the Avs finishing 2nd last in the league last season. Or being a part of them finishing the bottom five almost consistently in the last little while.

I pointed out that you were baselessly assuming that Feaster accepted the first offer out there, and you countered with the fact that your actual baseless assumption (which apparently is supposed to be more justifiable) was that he didn't negotiate. Feaster is a businessman, of course he would have asked for more. That doesn't mean that the other side will cave. For all we know, Colorado's first offer was a fifth. I'm not into making assumptions about things we don't know, if you hadn't gathered.

No, no, you make plenty of baseless assumptions on your own. You assume, with no proof, that Feaster did his homework and took the best offer. You assume that since he's a businessmen, he did everything right. You assume everything.

What I look at on the other hand, is history and use that to form my opinions. When one looks at the previous moves made by Feaster and co. it shouldn't be hard to see a pattern of underwhelming trades, ridiculously poor asset management and general, wholesale incompetence. But because you so willingly and blindly assume that any move made by a Flames GM is a good one, there's no basis for an objective thought process anymore.

 

[Anglesmith]

And why can we say the Flames rushed this? It's been all of 3 months since the trade deadline when the rebuild began. If they actually waited until the trade deadline next season, one might be able to say management actually put some work and thought into this.

I think the idea was to trade Tanguay before the season, so I don't know if that was really an option. He does have a no-trade as well, so maybe he was able to force Feaster's hand to get him to one destination and one destination only. I do believe, though, that the NTC was Feaster's doing.

On the other hand, we have a former teammate of O'Brien calling him out for thinking more about a trip to Los Vegas than his on-ice performance while the team languished at the bottom of the standings. But let's keep ignoring that Jones and O'Brien played a role in the Avs finishing 2nd last in the league last season. Or being a part of them finishing the bottom five almost consistently in the last little while.

Tanguay was a part of the Flames finishing as low as they did, and the Flames played some of their most inspired hockey after Tanguay was shut down for the season. For me, that's kind of a wash. Tanguay was impressive in previous seasons, but this year he seemed to cause as many goals in his defensive zone as he did in his offensive zone. Which is backed up by his +/-, I believe.

No, no, you make plenty of baseless assumptions on your own. You assume, with no proof, that Feaster did his homework and took the best offer. You assume that since he's a businessmen, he did everything right. You assume everything.

What I look at on the other hand, is history and use that to form my opinions. When one looks at the previous moves made by Feaster and co. it shouldn't be hard to see a pattern of underwhelming trades, ridiculously poor asset management and general, wholesale incompetence. But because you so willingly and blindly assume that any move made by a Flames GM is a good one, there's no basis for an objective thought process anymore.

I see a whole lot of "I know you are, but what am I?" here. I will not assume that Feaster did anything, but I would need proof to accept that he didn't do his job, because that's a completely asinine accusation, in my opinion. I think it is ridiculous that Feaster somehow trying to undermine the Flames' organization through a series of lazy and irresponsible deals, ignoring the advice of his assistants and advisers and a lack of negotiation (in other words, as clear and unacceptable dereliction of just about all of his duties) is the more reasonable position, when there are enough people above him in the organization to put a stop to that if it were going on. Feaster has proven in past tenures that his goal is to win, not sabotage.

 

[Calculon]

I think the idea was to trade Tanguay before the season, so I don't know if that was really an option. He does have a no-trade as well, so maybe he was able to force Feaster's hand to get him to one destination and one destination only. I do believe, though, that the NTC was Feaster's doing.

Tanguay's NTC was limited. He had to provide a list of teams, (something like 7 or 12), that he would not accept a trade to.

Tanguay was a part of the Flames finishing as low as they did, and the Flames played some of their most inspired hockey after Tanguay was shut down for the season. For me, that's kind of a wash. Tanguay was impressive in previous seasons, but this year he seemed to cause as many goals in his defensive zone as he did in his offensive zone. Which is backed up by his +/-, I believe.

The team was at it's best when they had nothing to play for. Same old story as every year. And the team was a mess defensively; from goalies to the actual defensemen.

I see a whole lot of "I know you are, but what am I?" here. I will not assume that Feaster did anything, but I would need proof to accept that he didn't do his job, because that's a completely asinine accusation, in my opinion. I think it is ridiculous that Feaster somehow trying to undermine the Flames' organization through a series of lazy and irresponsible deals, ignoring the advice of his assistants and advisers and a lack of negotiation (in other words, as clear and unacceptable dereliction of just about all of his duties) is the more reasonable position, when there are enough people above him in the organization to put a stop to that if it were going on. Feaster has proven in past tenures that his goal is to win, not sabotage.

So you will continue to assume whatever you want, without proof, because you feel like it, based on faulty reasoning, but decry others when they do so, even if they provide actual reasoning? Seems terribly hypocritical but whatever suits you.

Anyway, if you need proof, try looking at the big picture. You're twisting this into some bizarre witch hunt, when it's really just taking an objective look at things. I'm not saying that Feaster intentionally made things worse, I'm saying he's a terrible GM and wholly incompetent.

I'll spell it out, again, since it's clearly beyond most people here.

Feaster sold himself as the right man to be GM on the basis of making the Flames a playoff team. Every initial move he made was made because he thought it would bring the Flames closer to the playoffs. However, in the reality, the moves he made turned the Flames into bottom feeders.

What Feaster thought were deals that would bring the Flames back to the playoffs, actually brought them to finish 6th last in the league.

What he thought was right, was actually the opposite.

It shouldn't take a genius to see that Feaster hockey knowledge is questionable if not entirely nonexistent. He has a history of this. He took over a cup winning team mostly built by his predecessor and successfully turned it into a 30th place team.

Based on actual events, actual decisions made by Feaster, how on earth can you suggest and defend the idea that he knows what he's doing, when everything he's done so far with the main roster, has been wrong? He's managed to accomplish the exact opposite of what he originally wanted to, but apparently, here anyway in this bubble, that makes him sort of brilliant GM. Bizarre.

 

[Anglesmith]

So you will continue to assume whatever you want, without proof, because you feel like it, based on faulty reasoning, but decry others when they do so, even if they provide actual reasoning? Seems terribly hypocritical but whatever suits you.

Anyway, if you need proof, try looking at the big picture. You're twisting this into some bizarre witch hunt, when it's really just taking an objective look at things. I'm not saying that Feaster intentionally made things worse, I'm saying he's a terrible GM and wholly incompetent.

I'll spell it out, again, since it's clearly beyond most people here.

Feaster sold himself as the right man to be GM on the basis of making the Flames a playoff team. Every initial move he made was made because he thought it would bring the Flames closer to the playoffs. However, in the reality, the moves he made turned the Flames into bottom feeders.

What Feaster thought were deals that would bring the Flames back to the playoffs, actually brought them to finish 6th last in the league.

What he thought was right, was actually the opposite.

It shouldn't take a genius to see that Feaster hockey knowledge is questionable if not entirely nonexistent. He has a history of this. He took over a cup winning team mostly built by his predecessor and successfully turned it into a 30th place team.

Based on actual events, actual decisions made by Feaster, how on earth can you suggest and defend the idea that he knows what he's doing, when everything he's done so far with the main roster, has been wrong? He's managed to accomplish the exact opposite of what he originally wanted to, but apparently, here anyway in this bubble, that makes him sort of brilliant GM. Bizarre.

I just feel like you've changed your argument. I don't have a problem with saying that Feaster is not making the right decisions; that is an interesting discussion. It's the statement that he's not doing his job, or not doing all of the work required to do his job, that I think is a frivolous accusation. That he somehow doesn't negotiate trades or attempt to get the best offers out of teams. I don't feel like what I'm saying is hypocritical. I don't want assumptions being made, but I don't feel like a GM doing a GM's duties is a real assumption, because it's the status quo. In other words, it's a bit of a burden of proof argument.

Anyway, I have always felt that Feaster was in a no-win situation from the very beginning. He inherited a team that was in an absolute mess, and has turned it into a team that is in slightly less of a mess, or at least will be after this off-season. Some of that is because of moves, but some of it is just the natural evolution of time, and the system working. I think that the only thing that could have made him look better was if he'd come out upon his hiring and declared that the team would be horrible for years. However, I highly doubt he had the freedom from ownership to do that.

The team he inherited was, in most fans' opinions, in decline. They have declined. Feaster likely had no chance to stop that. In the year that he promised the playoffs, the team came very close to achieving that goal, and in the stretch run showed that they had the talent and ability to achieve it, but had underachieved for most of the season. He did fail, but hardly by a lot. There's only so much you can control. Since his hire, Feaster has steadily chipped away at making this team younger and setting them up to retool while revamping the scouting system and improving our outlook for the future.

I just don't see what he's done that's so wrong. It's not like he's crippled us for the future because of trying to be competitive. What I have respected about Feaster is that he's gone for it, but he hasn't really sacrificed in order to try to be competitive.

 

[DCDM]

Official, Richards not getting bought out.

 

[Calculon]

I just feel like you've changed your argument. I don't have a problem with saying that Feaster is not making the right decisions; that is an interesting discussion. It's the statement that he's not doing his job, or not doing all of the work required to do his job, that I think is a frivolous accusation. That he somehow doesn't negotiate trades or attempt to get the best offers out of teams. I don't feel like what I'm saying is hypocritical. I don't want assumptions being made, but I don't feel like a GM doing a GM's duties is a real assumption, because it's the status quo. In other words, it's a bit of a burden of proof argument.

Again, you not only assume I think Feaster maliciously does a bad job, but also that I assume that Feaster doesn't do his job. In reality, there's plenty of proof that Feaster and co. are simply inept; they're not bad people, just incompetent. And that's pretty obvious, for people who don't stick their heads in the sand at least.

First, there's the failure to get clarification on O'Reilly offersheet, which they admitted was a mistake on their part. Secondly, Feaster and co. failed to get Iginla's list of teams he'd waive to in writing, something they acknowledged was a mistake, and something they made sure to rectify with Bouwmeester. Third, Feaster stated if he ever made a trade with a the Blues, he'd go after Berra - apparently getting the best value back for Bouwmeester doesn't even factor into his negotiating process.

Again, plenty of evidence that demonstrates current managements wholesale ineptitude. That's why they don't do a proper job - they don't know how, because they're incompetent.

Anyway, I have always felt that Feaster was in a no-win situation from the very beginning. He inherited a team that was in an absolute mess, and has turned it into a team that is in slightly less of a mess, or at least will be after this off-season. Some of that is because of moves, but some of it is just the natural evolution of time, and the system working. I think that the only thing that could have made him look better was if he'd come out upon his hiring and declared that the team would be horrible for years. However, I highly doubt he had the freedom from ownership to do that.

The team he inherited was, in most fans' opinions, in decline. They have declined. Feaster likely had no chance to stop that. In the year that he promised the playoffs, the team came very close to achieving that goal, and in the stretch run showed that they had the talent and ability to achieve it, but had underachieved for most of the season. He did fail, but hardly by a lot. There's only so much you can control. Since his hire, Feaster has steadily chipped away at making this team younger and setting them up to retool while revamping the scouting system and improving our outlook for the future.

I just don't see what he's done that's so wrong. It's not like he's crippled us for the future because of trying to be competitive. What I have respected about Feaster is that he's gone for it, but he hasn't really sacrificed in order to try to be competitive.

Feaster doesn't help his position whatsoever with all the huffing and puffing he does. Comments like guaranteeing the playoffs, bad mouthing the Oilers, if they want to rebuild they should find another GM, etc. do nothing but a) make Feaster look like an idiot and b) embarrass the organization in the greater hockey world.

And you skimp over all the actual details of what's happened. Already, he's flip-flopping; he's gone from we're too big and need to get more skilled, to we're too soft and need to get bigger. His decision making is flawed no matter how much you try to pretend he has some sort of secret plan behind his every move.

 

[redmile]

everyone seems to think that feaster and co is some dumbass people that is new to this business, and that the other 29 GMs are smarter...

some suggest that they would have gotten a better deal if they were the GM, but this sounds like politicians, makes a bunch of promises and once they are in and looks at the books, reality kicks them in the ass and they find themselves making the same deals, cause really if there was a better deal, you would have taken it, so would have feaster and co.

so since we don't know what the other offers were, lets just see how these new guys do instead of focusing on a bunch of things that are unknown and drawing a conclusion and calling someone a dumbass, stop being ignorant, cause without all the facts, and making an assumption says a lot about ones intelligent.

 

[Lunatik]

everyone seems to think that feaster and co is some dumbass people that is new to this business, and that the other 29 GMs are smarter...

some suggest that they would have gotten a better deal if they were the GM, but this sounds like politicians, makes a bunch of promises and once they are in and looks at the books, reality kicks them in the ass and they find themselves making the same deals, cause really if there was a better deal, you would have taken it, so would have feaster and co.

so since we don't know what the other offers were, lets just see how these new guys do instead of focusing on a bunch of things that are unknown and drawing a conclusion and calling someone a dumbass, stop being ignorant, cause without all the facts, and making an assumption says a lot about ones intelligent.

brilliant analogy

 

[bester vaive]

Looks like Tomas Kaberle is available?

 

[Lunatik]

Looks like Tomas Kaberle is available?

isn't that fantastic?

 

[Anglesmith]

Right now, Mike Gillis is taking the complete opposite approach that Feaster takes with regards to his goaltending situation. Luongo asked for a trade before last season, and Gillis quickly found out that the market wasn't what he hoped. Feaster, in that situation, would find the best deal he could, and make it. He would take the flack for the dismal return, but he would get the issue dealt with and move forward.

Gillis, however, knows full well that if he makes a deal for Luongo, it would look like a bad trade from a Canucks' perspective. Instead, he's let it play into a huge circus for more than a year, he's turned both of his goalies against him, and half of the fanbase wants him fired.

Maybe with this perspective, it's a little easier to see why Feaster does things the way he does things. We can always claim that if he held on a little longer, he'd get a better return, but the other teams are also aware that when you have a player who wants out, time makes you more desperate as well. If Feaster lets this play out into this season, chances are he ends up looking a lot worse, and when he actually made the trade, it wouldn't give any more of a return.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Looks like Tomas Kaberle is available?

Will he play for McDonalds' extra value meals?