Feaster

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,478
14,790
Victoria
I would've been ecstatic with getting Maata and a first-round pick. That would not of mortgaged Pittsburgh's future, and I don't think anybody in the hockey world would've thought they would've overpaid to get Iginla.

True, but does that mean that Shero would make that deal? Absolutely not. I don't know how much a GM really cares about what analysts say. If we look at it now, that absolutely would have been an over-payment. Iginla really didn't add anything to their team (especially after they had already obtained Morrow and Jokinen), and Maata this season is a big-time contributor. Fans wanted a big payment for Iginla for sentimental reasons, obviously, because of what he meant to the city more than for the team, but a GM isn't about to give charity to the Flames because of that sentiment. At the end of the day, the bidding war was between teams with fully capable top-6 groups already in place, and thus I think it was inevitable that no one was going to pay a top-line price for a guy who wasn't playing like a top-liner.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,444
11,117
I love how when the former GM says something, it's completely unreliable and likely just trying to dupe the fanbase, but when Mr. Shiny New GM says something, it is 'confirmation' and can be taken as absolute truth. :laugh: :facepalm:

Man, I sure like Feaster's trade history more than I like Burke's.
:laugh::facepalm:

It's great Feaster knew how to truly rob other teams GMs; and not try and defend awful moves he made by explaining 'it was the best available'.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,478
14,790
Victoria
Man, I sure like Feaster's trade history more than I like Burke's.
:laugh::facepalm:

It's great Feaster knew how to truly rob other teams GMs; and not try and defend awful moves he made by explaining 'it was the best available'.

Listen, I get that you prefer Burke as a GM. My point wasn't that you shouldn't, it was that you were basically saying that because Burke had said something, it was true.

At the end of the day, Feaster's tenures in both Tampa Bay and Calgary were completely different situations than each other, and than any of Burke's tenures to this point. To try to compare them is folly, in my opinion. Feaster never had the benefit of dealing from a position of strength.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,444
11,117
Listen, I get that you prefer Burke as a GM. My point wasn't that you shouldn't, it was that you were basically saying that because Burke had said something, it was true.

At the end of the day, Feaster's tenures in both Tampa Bay and Calgary were completely different situations than each other, and than any of Burke's tenures to this point. To try to compare them is folly, in my opinion. Feaster never had the benefit of dealing from a position of strength.

I actually don't prefer Burke as a GM, honestly. I was hoping to see how Feaster did this season before getting the hook.

It's just ridiculous that some of you guys still want to believe in Feaster's trades. Every single, every single analyst of this sport we love told us that the return for Jarome and Jay Bouw were poor as hell. Then even the new GM, who is known as a pretty to-the-point guy, says that they were poor... Like, when people who actually follow the sport, understand the inner-workings and know a thing or two are all saying the same thing... there's merit to it, I'm sorry.

And please. Position of strength.
When you have a top-line right winger, and a top pairing D-man as your trade bait... one of which still has a year left on his contract; you're dealing from strength right there. I don't care if you say 'the list of teams, the list of teams!' because it was bloody Feaster's job to make a point to those few teams in the mix, that this won't be cheap and to maximize the value.

Once the first is on the table, then you start moving forward.
Boston gives you an NHL d-man and a skill Center/Winger who is rated second on their prospect pool, you don't go back to Pittsburgh (even if we have sentimental ties to Jarome) and okay the trade for two guys no one has ever heard of, playing in the NCAA; a less popular league than the CHL/AHL for talented prospects. Once you have that foundation, I completely don't understand how this can even be mentioned as a 'he never had a position of strength'. I mean, seriously. He had a rare commodity at the deadline, a first-ballot hall of fame winger who still has a ton of giddy-up and a guy who could bloody lug 25+ minutes of pure shutdown time a night.

To boot, Jay still had the year left. It didn't make any sense to trade him if the result was mediocre. I mean, I LOVE Emile Poirier; but after that... I'm pretty sure you could get Cundari in an AHL type deal, and Berra for a 6/7th round pick at that time. I know we wanted first rounders, and we did good with them... but man, if you can't see why these deals are pretty bad, I truly do feel sorry for you.

On another note, I didn't even bring up the ROR stuff when talking about Feaster. That alone is part of the ugly.
 

Guido Sarducci

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
1,268
0
canyon meadows
Listen, I get that you prefer Burke as a GM. My point wasn't that you shouldn't, it was that you were basically saying that because Burke had said something, it was true.

At the end of the day, Feaster's tenures in both Tampa Bay and Calgary were completely different situations than each other, and than any of Burke's tenures to this point. To try to compare them is folly, in my opinion. Feaster never had the benefit of dealing from a position of strength.

Never dealt from a position of strength??????????????? He walked into a Stanley cup winning team and took them to the bottom of league standings in three seasons. A Stanley Cup winning team.
 
Sep 12, 2012
334
0
Never dealt from a position of strength??????????????? He walked into a Stanley cup winning team and took them to the bottom of league standings in three seasons. A Stanley Cup winning team.

If you're referring to the Lightning, that was also the beginning of the cap era.
No GM in the history of the league could have signed all those players and kept that team together with a cap of $39.0M.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad