Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: I can't believe it's not butter, I can't believe we didn't get Ryan Hartman.

[Dack]

Treliving > Feaster > Sutter

None are great but at least we don't have Bergevin or Chiarelli.

 

[JPeeper]

Feaster was a trash GM. The only good move he made was let Tod Button draft Gaudreau. He traded away Iginla and Bouwmeester for basically nothing, horrendous trades. He traded Regehr for nothing plus threw in a 2nd. He rushed Baertschi because we had no prospects. GM's get way too much credit for drafting or take too much flak for drafting. The Flames have what, 13 scouts? Plus a head scout. I don't know why everyone always looks at a GM's track record for drafting. Yeah he'll have input, but no where near as much as Tod Button has or the lead scout of that league (WHL, OHL, etc.). I only give Feaster credit on drafting Gaudreau because he wasn't part of the list proper (Kucherov wasn't either), both were marked as special and placed on the side and Tod was the one who went to Feaster after Kucherov was drafted and said they should take a shot on Johnny with their next pick.

Treliving has re-signed Backlund, Mony, Gaudreau, Gio, Ferland, Bennett all to good or great contracts, traded for Hamilton (lol @ not giving Treliving credit here, but blaming Sweeney because of a grudge, stupid argument). Not signing Ferland to a long contract isn't a mistake, A) Ferland has a track record for inconsistency, B) hadn't broke out, C) still isn't a top line player, D) there are two parties in negotiation and Ferland maybe didn't want a long term deal so he could prove he is worth more later; if I am him and think I could be worth $5mi in the future, why should I sign a long term $3.5 mil contract. Bennett is in the same situation contract wise and took 2 years.

I'm obviously not saying Tre hasn't made mistakes, Brouwer is the bane of my existence as is Lazar, trading for Bollig was a mistake the second it was proposed. I don't like the Stone contract, but can understand why it was made. The three goalie mistake was terrible, but he learned from it and fixed it the next year. Bringing in Gulutzan was still puzzling as from all reports they didn't actually interview that many people.

In short, Treliving destroys Feaster and it isn't even close. Give Tre that 2013 year and I guarantee the Flames look better coming out of the draft than with Feaster because the Flames would still have drafted Monahan, but if they were dead set on trading Iggy and Bouw, Tre would have got way more value than what Feaster got as Feaster was so hell bent on getting 1st round picks, it was just silly. Tre's attitude of getting young players as well (when Feaster wanted draft picks) could have gotten Tatar and Nyqvist for Bouw (the rumoured Detroit offer at the time) instead of a late 1st and throw ins.



Lastly I should just say, when Treliving signed his contract extension last off-season it included fully autonomy. Meaning Burke doesn't have final say. And do people really want Burke to have final say? Guy is a terrible GM. I also don't buy that the Flames aren't interested in re-signing Backlund at 5x5 or that Zach Smith is indeed the target. I'd say with confidence that no insider actually has any info into what Treliving is doing.

 

[crackdown44]

Feaster was a trash GM. The only good move he made was let Tod Button draft Gaudreau. He traded away Iginla and Bouwmeester for basically nothing, horrendous trades. He traded Regehr for nothing plus threw in a 2nd. He rushed Baertschi because we had no prospects. GM's get way too much credit for drafting or take too much flak for drafting. The Flames have what, 13 scouts? Plus a head scout. I don't know why everyone always looks at a GM's track record for drafting. Yeah he'll have input, but no where near as much as Tod Button has or the lead scout of that league (WHL, OHL, etc.). I only give Feaster credit on drafting Gaudreau because he wasn't part of the list proper (Kucherov wasn't either), both were marked as special and placed on the side and Tod was the one who went to Feaster after Kucherov was drafted and said they should take a shot on Johnny with their next pick.

Treliving has re-signed Backlund, Mony, Gaudreau, Gio, Ferland, Bennett all to good or great contracts, traded for Hamilton (lol @ not giving Treliving credit here, but blaming Sweeney because of a grudge, stupid argument). Not signing Ferland to a long contract isn't a mistake, A) Ferland has a track record for inconsistency, B) hadn't broke out, C) still isn't a top line player, D) there are two parties in negotiation and Ferland maybe didn't want a long term deal so he could prove he is worth more later; if I am him and think I could be worth $5mi in the future, why should I sign a long term $3.5 mil contract. Bennett is in the same situation contract wise and took 2 years.

I'm obviously not saying Tre hasn't made mistakes, Brouwer is the bane of my existence as is Lazar, trading for Bollig was a mistake the second it was proposed. I don't like the Stone contract, but can understand why it was made. The three goalie mistake was terrible, but he learned from it and fixed it the next year. Bringing in Gulutzan was still puzzling as from all reports they didn't actually interview that many people.

In short, Treliving destroys Feaster and it isn't even close. Give Tre that 2013 year and I guarantee the Flames look better coming out of the draft than with Feaster because the Flames would still have drafted Monahan, but if they were dead set on trading Iggy and Bouw, Tre would have got way more value than what Feaster got as Feaster was so hell bent on getting 1st round picks, it was just silly. Tre's attitude of getting young players as well (when Feaster wanted draft picks) could have gotten Tatar and Nyqvist for Bouw (the rumoured Detroit offer at the time) instead of a late 1st and throw ins.



Lastly I should just say, when Treliving signed his contract extension last off-season it included fully autonomy. Meaning Burke doesn't have final say. And do people really want Burke to have final say? Guy is a terrible GM. I also don't buy that the Flames aren't interested in re-signing Backlund at 5x5 or that Zach Smith is indeed the target. I'd say with confidence that no insider actually has any info into what Treliving is doing.

This is essentially exactly how I feel about the GM situation. I will add that I wasn’t opposed to taking a shot at Lazar when the deal was made, losing just a 2nd wouldn’t have been bad had we not given up a 1st and two 2nds for Hamonic.

I like Hamonic as a player but I feel that was a slight overpay. A 1st and a 2nd or a 1st + B prospect would have been ideal. Rather uncommon conspiracy theory of mine but I feel we may have overpaid just to make sure hamonic didn’t end up in Edmonton. Nonetheless he’s been a solid contributor, just wish we hadn’t paid quite so much

 

[Baxterman]

Treliving > Feaster > Sutter

None are great but at least we don't have Bergevin or Chiarelli.

Not a chance Feaster is even close to Sutter let alone better.

 

[Mobiandi]

@Mobiandi If we're bringing in Smith, it means Stajan is sitting more (or is in the package going the other way - Ottawa is on his trade list IIRC).

I guess we can take comfort in the fact that he'd probably be an upgrade over Lazar.

I think it goes back to Treliving's mantra of letting prospects marinate in the minors. It's no secret he's plateaued in the last two weeks while Stajan's play has come around a lot in the last little while. Stapling Janko to the fourth line and letting him continue to struggle does nothing for the Flames or for his personal development.

But I still think that this rumour is patently false. Friedman throws a lot of shit at the wall in the hopes that it sticks. Last week we were after Hoffman, not Smith. Now it's the other way around? Doubt it

 

[Anglesmith]

The bias is just so obvious, how can you not see it yourself?

Feaster was bad, here's all his mistakes. Treliving is great, here's all the great things he's done! Oh, yeah, and a couple bad things to keep up a pretense of objectivity.

Both Feaster and Treliving have been pretty average GMs. Both of them have done a fantastic job with RFA contract signings relative to other organizations. Both of them did pull in some real talent via trade and free agency. Feaster managed to turn the husk of Rene Bourque and a 2nd into a future starting goalie (RIP Ramo's groin) and a top-line forward, with the unfortunate result of not being able to retain the value from Cammy due to his poorly timing a cold streak. Treliving managed to acquire Hamilton and Hamonic, which is great. On the down-side, of Feaster's two FA signings, Hudler was great value for almost his entire contract, but Wideman was only good for about half. Still, both of those players were absolute keystone pieces on the 2015 playoff team that won a round. If you want to look at Feaster's legacy, it's that team, not this one.

The biggest difference between the two GMs that people fail to acknowledge is the context of their GM stints. Feaster was brought in to get this team through the shift from Iggy's core to the next one, in a situation where the cupboards were completely bare. He was completely sewered, but basically everything he did, and he was fairly effective at it, was an attempt to fill in the gaps in age we had on the roster and add young talent. His performance in this regard, his selection of Bob Hartley, as well as his selection of which veterans to keep, ended up in the team that made it to the second round just 2 years and a few months after committing to a full rebuild. Treliving was handed the keys to a Ferrari relative to what Feaster was given.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Anglesmith I think YOU are the one missing the point. We all remember Feaster was brought in to originally try to make the playoffs and then start the rebuild after they finally admitted it was over. Problem is, he did a piss poor job at both.

 

[Anglesmith]

Anglesmith I think YOU are the one missing the point. We all remember Feaster was brought in to originally try to make the playoffs and then start the rebuild after they finally admitted it was over. Problem is, he did a piss poor job at both.

But he didn't, though. This is just people saying the same thing over, louder, hoping it becomes true. First of all, I have no idea how you can call a rebuild "piss poor" after it takes fewer than 30 months to go from "we're selling our vets" to "we're in the second round." Does your idea of a rebuild take less than a year?

Second of all, he was trying to resurrect a core group that had aged out and was full of NMCs and NTCs thanks to his predecessor. Yes, he failed to make the playoffs (though it wasn't like they weren't in the race each year), but guess what, that came on the heels of his predecessor also failing in exactly the same ways, so maybe at that point, it wasn't him that was the reason that group wasn't making the playoffs. Feaster missed the playoffs while trying to make the playoffs, but in the process, he chipped away at readying the team for a rebuild by acquiring younger guys and moving expendable guys any way he could.

I just hope you guys realize that this is a natural process. In several years, and who knows how long that will be, Treliving's time with the Flames will come to an end. For a while before it does, the fanbase will start calling for it. People will get angry. People will trash him and drag his name through the mud because it's the flavour of the month on CFHF. And then the new guy will be brought in, hailed a saviour, his shit will smell like roses, and no one will remember a single good thing about Treliving's time with the Flames. It is the same thing with every new GM. I just want you to all know that. In the same way that you guys have created your Feaster narrative and forgotten what he actually did, people will do the same thing with Treliving. Unless we win the Cup, of course. But Feaster was never really given that same opportunity. And by then, of course, the story will be "yeah, but he basically was handed that roster by Feaster."

 

[Dack]

Not a chance Feaster is even close to Sutter let alone better.

Sutter put the team through half a decade of mediocrity with his terrible drafting in the first round and constant trading of picks. Feaster had to clean up the mess he started I think they're both terrible.

 

[Mobiandi]

Feaster was given the opportunity to turn Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, Langkow, Cammalleri, Tanguay into something to make our rebuild more seamless and restock our cupboards.

In return, we got:
-A lottery protected first
-Another first
-David Jones
-Reto Berra (luckily Burke finessed a 2nd for him)
-Mark Cundari
-Ken Agostino
-Ben Hanowski
-Shane O'Brien
-Lee Stempniak
-Chris Butler
-Paul Byron


Yes, Feaster succeeded with minor trades such as the Russell, Wideman and Erixon trades. And the Hudler signing. I also applaud him for trying to keep a winning culture in this organization and not go full Oilers/Sabres/Yotes.

But the fact of the matter is that, Sutter's imprints on this organization are still felt. Almost a quarter of our lineup came from Sutter moves. Our rebuild worked in spite of Feaster because he never actually tried to rebuild

He was caught in this weird limbo phase where we were acquiring garbage AHL talent to "fill our cupboards and rebuild" alongside veterans to try to keep this team competitive.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Feaster brought in 2/3rds of our top line. He can't possibly be a bad GM.

 

[JPeeper]

Feaster brought in 2/3rds of our top line. He can't possibly be a bad GM.

*Tod Button brought in 2/3rd's of our top line.

 

[Anglesmith]

Feaster was given the opportunity to turn Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, Langkow, Cammalleri, Tanguay into something to make our rebuild more seamless and restock our cupboards.

You have it backwards on Cammy. Feaster was the one who acquired Cammalleri, and it was Burke who failed to move him as a rental.

The funny thing is, as much as a lot of these trades ended up being underwhelming in the grand scheme of things, people lose sight of the fact that it's kind of par for the course. Sellers are always getting a lottery ticket back for their actual players, and when you acquire lottery tickets, they often lose. Treliving had a chance to be a seller one year. Hudler was had 70+ points the season before, and Treliving got a 2nd and a 4th for him. Kris Russell was a top pairing guy on a series-winning team, and got us Jyrki Jokipakka, a conditional 2nd and Brett Pollock. Those are just recent examples because people love to compare Treliving and Feaster. But if you look around the league at other trades more comparable in terms of player value to Iggy and Bouwmeester, you'll see the same thing. A first and a couple pieces. Sometimes those first turn into impact players. Sometimes the whole package does. Realistically, Dougie Hamilton was a much more valuable player for us to acquire in his situation than the husk of Jarome Iginla as a rental. Yet they fetched a very similar price.

It's kind of how it goes. We picked two pretty good prospects in the 2013 first round with our first-round picks that we got for Iggy and Bouwmeester. They haven't exactly panned out as well as we would have liked. But that's how it goes. If the prospects had developed the way we wanted, we could have been looking at that as just another major shot in the arm for the rebuild. And before you say "yeah, well they didn't work out because of Feaster!" a) you can't give credit for Gaudreau/Monahan/etc. to his scouts only, and then blame Feaster for Poirier/Klimchuk and b) Treliving has acquired a few duds himself in Lazar and Shinkaruk, but of course no one talks about his player evaluation.

 

[Baxterman]

The bias is just so obvious, how can you not see it yourself?

Feaster was bad, here's all his mistakes. Treliving is great, here's all the great things he's done! Oh, yeah, and a couple bad things to keep up a pretense of objectivity.

What?

The exact opposite is happening here:

"Treliving is lucky to trade for Hamilton"


"Feaster added Monahan, Tkachuk was a no brainer pick"

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Again. My argument is not that Feaster is a good GM.

It’s that the more evidence I see from Treliving, the more evidence I find that he is a poor talent evaluator.

And yes, not signing Ferland long term and getting rid of Paul Byron were stupid.

I said last summer Ferland should get a Glencross like contract. If he was a great GM he would have done that. I said at the time of waiving Paul Byron it was stupid. I said the Troy Brouwer move was stupid when it happened. I said the Brian Elliot move was stupid when it happened.


This team continually is propped up by great scouting just to be knocked down to mediocrity because of poor GM decisions.

 

[Baxterman]

Sutter put the team through half a decade of mediocrity with his terrible drafting in the first round and constant trading of picks. Feaster had to clean up the mess he started I think they're both terrible.

Sutter got us Kipprusoff, Giordano, Brodie, Ferland, Backlund. 4 of those guys are key contributors to our current team and the other guy is our best goalie of all-time and likely a top 5, if not higher, Flames of all time.

Also he never once had a high pick like Monahan and when he had a relatively high pick he made a good choice in Phaneuf. Sure his first picks weren't great but considering where most of them were they aren't nearly as bad as people try to paint the picture.

As for Feaster what he was left with is wildly underrated. He had 3 great trade pieces in Iginla, Bouwmeester and Kiprusoff some not bad trade pieces in other guys and a team ready and in need of a rebuild. He flubbed all those pieces. His drafts were overall pretty bad which is why we are struggling and giving pieces up for secondary players.

He came in with a defensive core of Gio, Bouwmeester, Regehr and Brodie and left a defense core of Gio, Brodie, Russell and Wideman that is brutal. He came in with a goaltending situation of an old vet and no propescts and left with a pile of garbage a long shot prospects. He didn't make either of those groups any better and actually set us back by not improving them during his time here rebuilding. The forward he did add Gaudreau and Monahan which is huge but the depth guys once again aren't there and it is a huge problem.

The best that can be said about Feaster is that he got chicken poop (not true but this is the best case scenario) and made poop salad with it.

He gets to live off Gaudreau and in to a lesser extent Monahan but that is proof of how bad he was because he didn't take a smart overall plan to rebuild this team, didn't take steps to improve the overall organizational depth, didn't make smart moves to re-stock the cupboards. The fact that this team is still so heavily reliant on Sutter era guys is an indictment on Feaster and the players he brought in.

He was an absolutely terrible GM and that is in large part why he is out of hockey operations completely and hasn't even been mentioned at all for open positions in the league . This all ignores the ridiculousness of his comments during his time here, his huge misses in ROR and Richards and his awful hire of his buddy for a coach.

 

[Anglesmith]

Again. My argument is not that Feaster is a good GM.

It’s that the more evidence I see from Treliving, the more evidence I find that he is a poor talent evaluator.

And yes, not signing Ferland long term and getting rid of Paul Byron were stupid.

I said last summer Ferland should get a Glencross like contract. If he was a great GM he would have done that. I said at the time of waiving Paul Byron it was stupid. I said the Troy Brouwer move was stupid when it happened. I said the Brian Elliot move was stupid when it happened.


This team continually is propped up by great scouting just to be knocked down to mediocrity because of poor GM decisions.

There's no real basis to make such absolute statements regarding Ferland. No matter how good a GM you have, as far as I'm aware, forcing a person to sign a contract is still illegal. Ferland still has to agree. And more importantly, his agent has to agree. We don't know what happened in those negotiations. It's entirely possible that the reason it took as long as it did was because Treliving was doing everything he could to do a long-term extension.

 

[Baxterman]

Again. My argument is not that Feaster is a good GM.

You said at least when Feaster was here he brought in talent and then came up with excuses to devalue the talent that Treliving brought in.

So while you may not have had an argument that Feaster was good you certainly implied that he was better or doing something better than Treliving despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

 

[crackdown44]

Again. My argument is not that Feaster is a good GM.

It’s that the more evidence I see from Treliving, the more evidence I find that he is a poor talent evaluator.

And yes, not signing Ferland long term and getting rid of Paul Byron were stupid.

I said last summer Ferland should get a Glencross like contract. If he was a great GM he would have done that. I said at the time of waiving Paul Byron it was stupid. I said the Troy Brouwer move was stupid when it happened. I said the Brian Elliot move was stupid when it happened.


This team continually is propped up by great scouting just to be knocked down to mediocrity because of poor GM decisions.

I agree with you on all points except Ferland. You can’t sign unproven players to long term deals. Sure, if it works you look smart. If it doesn’t work then you’re in trouble. Bridge deal will and always be the right thing to do with guys like Ferland last year. For all we know he wouldn’t be performing as well as he is now if he was set for the next 5-6 years (I don’t think that’s a character trait of his at all, just a possibility)

Not only that, but the Monahan/Gaudreau deals will allow Treliving to negotiate other guys down from their asks. I agree with most that both he and Feaster are average GMs, also that the draft should be more attributed to scouting teams. If there’s one thing Treliving excels at, its cap management (with the exception of Brouwer)

 

[Anglesmith]

As for Feaster what he was left with is wildly underrated. He had 3 great trade pieces in Iginla, Bouwmeester and Kiprusoff some not bad trade pieces in other guys and a team ready and in need of a rebuild. He flubbed all those pieces. His drafts were overall pretty bad which is why we are struggling and giving pieces up for secondary players.

The team was by no means ready for a rebuild. It was chalk full of NTCs and NMCs, and at the time, trying to make the playoffs each year. Before the rebuild could start, the team needed to be out of contention so that players would waive to go elsewhere.

His drafts were mediocre, but apparently that's nothing to do with Feaster anyway.

 

[Baxterman]

And yes, not signing Ferland long term and getting rid of Paul Byron were stupid.

I said last summer Ferland should get a Glencross like contract. If he was a great GM he would have done that. I said at the time of waiving Paul Byron it was stupid.

I don't get the fixation on the Ferland contract, do you think that he is inline to get some big contract on the basis of riding Gaudreau and Monahans coattails to an ok season?

Do you think he was lining up to sign a cheap long term deal last off season?

I just don't see there being a huge difference between the contract Ferland is likely to sign next and the contract he would have been willing to sign last off-season.

 

[Baxterman]

The team was by no means ready for a rebuild. It was chalk full of NTCs and NMCs, and at the time, trying to make the playoffs each year. Before the rebuild could start, the team needed to be out of contention so that players would waive to go elsewhere.

His drafts were mediocre, but apparently that's nothing to do with Feaster anyway.

The team was scraping to make the play-offs at that point and it was clear as day (unfortunately not to Feaster) that the rebuild was coming whether they wanted it or not.

Even with NTC/NMC there were moves to be made. The majority of those guys were moved with those clauses in place anyways.

 

[Mobiandi]

If the prospects had developed the way we wanted, we could have been looking at that as just another major shot in the arm for the rebuild. And before you say "yeah, well they didn't work out because of Feaster!" a) you can't give credit for Gaudreau/Monahan/etc. to his scouts only, and then blame Feaster for Poirier/Klimchuk and b) Treliving has acquired a few duds himself in Lazar and Shinkaruk, but of course no on

If we zoom in a bit on the Bouw trade (I know, how original), the issue at hand is that Feaster accrued a lottery protected pick, which always seems to be forgotten, in favour of Tatar + Nyquist.

The judgement call here is that this first rounder, plus the accessory AHLers were perceived to eventually be better than Nyquist + Tatar which was indefensible back then and looks worse with each passing year (along with the timing of the trade).

Meanwhile you get Treliving trading the ghost of Glencross for a second (used for Dougie) and third to a desperate Caps team and David Jones for a 6th (Matthew Phillips). These two seemingly inconsequential trades propelled our rebuild further along than all of the big name trades Feaster made for us put together.

Yes, criticizing a GM's drafting is a slippery slope, but it's clear that Treliving had an end goal going into his drafts, whereas Feaster was directionless throughout the whole process.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

There's no real basis to make such absolute statements regarding Ferland. No matter how good a GM you have, as far as I'm aware, forcing a person to sign a contract is still illegal. Ferland still has to agree. And more importantly, his agent has to agree. We don't know what happened in those negotiations. It's entirely possible that the reason it took as long as it did was because Treliving was doing everything he could to do a long-term extension.

I agree there is no way to prove it. But Ferland hasn’t made a lot of money. And when someone hands you ten million instead on 3.8 or whatever he got. You take it. I remember hearing rumours that Ferland wanted term this summer. He should have seen that Ferland at 2.5x4 could be a steal with at least a guy who, if he didn’t work on line 1, would at least drive possession for one of our bottom 6 lines like he did last year.

It’s a GMs job to predict the future. Being hesitant and cautious often leads to teams being mediocre. And I only feel he’s been cautious at the wrong time. His agressive moves rarely turn out well.

That said I liked Treliving this offseason. I was probably the biggest supporter of Mike Smith. It was painfully obvious we needed a top 4 D. He avoided spending big money in FA.

This whole conversation is under the hypothetical situation that he didn’t sign Backlund and traded for Zach Smith,

Which, if it happens, would be enough to tell me he’s a useless GM. But who knows maybe the poor moves were a result of his lack of autonomy.

 

[Anglesmith]

If we zoom in a bit on the Bouw trade (I know, how original), the issue at hand is that Feaster accrued a lottery protected pick, which always seems to be forgotten, in favour of Tatar + Nyquist.

The judgement call here is that this first rounder, plus the accessory AHLers were perceived to eventually be better than Nyquist + Tatar which was indefensible back then and looks worse with each passing year (along with the timing of the trade).

Meanwhile you get Treliving trading the ghost of Glencross for a second (used for Dougie) and third to a desperate Caps team and David Jones for a 6th (Matthew Phillips). These two seemingly inconsequential trades propelled our rebuild further along than all of the big name trades Feaster made for us put together.

Yes, criticizing a GM's drafting is a slippery slope, but it's clear that Treliving had an end goal going into his drafts, whereas Feaster was directionless throughout the whole process.

I mean, some people were pissed off that we only got a 6th for David Jones at the time. What these picks become really ends up having more to do with anything than the value of the trade itself.

I really don't like evaluating GMs based on rumours. The Nyquist/Tatar rumour was something Bob McKenzie heard from someone else. Details could be sketchy, but regardless, Nyquist and Tatar are what they are: 40-50 point guys. I think going for a first rounder is so common for GMs selling top-level players because no matter what, you're giving yourself a chance at a real impact player that no one else can mess up for you. If you acquire prospects or bubble players, the other organization may be making them available for a reason. If you acquire a first rounder, you're in control of what you get out of it, more or less. So I find it pretty far from indefensible even if true, but I also don't want to put any real thought into it because it's really just a rumour.

Keep in mind also that internet experts also thought it was indefensible that we didn't take the Bruins' much better offer of a 1st, Khokhlachev and Bartkowski for Iginla. Agostino is at least a valuable player that we gave up on, and the first ended up being higher.