Think you're really down playing what a disaster the ROR offer could have been. I still can't believe Colorado matched and bailed us out. Could you imagine no ROR, no Monahan, no Kanzig, no high 2nd this year(not sure how that would work, considering no 2nd last year). Not to mention, to add insult to injury, there's a good chance Colorado would have picked Nurse and we could have watched Monahan destroy us in an Oiler's jersey for the next 15 years! Feaster was in a tight spot but that alone makes it a fail for me. A guy in his position can't make bonehead mistakes like that.
Feaster
- Thread starter TheHudlinator
- Start date
TheHudlinator
Registered User
Like I said I thought that was a terrible move but there isn't much point in speculating on what might have happened as their were lawyers on both sides of the issue and it could have gone either way in court. What I am focusing on is the moves he actually made and what they have done so far.
I know what you're saying. My point is Feaster made some good moves and bad moves. If you forget the ROR blunder, he get's a slight pass but as in life, you can erase a lot of good with just one stupid move. That's why he gets a fail in my books.(I don't think it would have been a very long court battle either, but that's another story)
TheHudlinator
Registered User
The problem is the ROR ended up not happening so while it could have been terrible it still didn't affect the team and I don't think it should be viewed as poorly not that we have at least seen some arguments in Feaster's favor.
Some of Feaster's moves may look decent in isolation but put together they produced a 25th place team last year and a 27th place team this year.
And one can say that was the intention this year, but it most certainly wasn't the idea going into last season, hence the offersheet debacle (which coincidentally, occurred when the Flames were 25th in the NHL). And from an ownership perspective, Feaster is even more of a colossal failure given that he created a roster that made the rebuild inevitable, something that they (the owners) were decidedly against.
Feaster and Co.'s biggest success is likely the vastly improved drafting record, but that's only part of the process. Up until very recently, the development process was still a mess, with prospects still being rushed to the NHL (e.g. Baertschi) or being buried under veterans one-way contracts. And only two of Feaster's draft picks have played in the NHL thus far so it's still far too early to judge it a success or failure just yet.
And one can say that was the intention this year, but it most certainly wasn't the idea going into last season, hence the offersheet debacle (which coincidentally, occurred when the Flames were 25th in the NHL). And from an ownership perspective, Feaster is even more of a colossal failure given that he created a roster that made the rebuild inevitable, something that they (the owners) were decidedly against.
Feaster and Co.'s biggest success is likely the vastly improved drafting record, but that's only part of the process. Up until very recently, the development process was still a mess, with prospects still being rushed to the NHL (e.g. Baertschi) or being buried under veterans one-way contracts. And only two of Feaster's draft picks have played in the NHL thus far so it's still far too early to judge it a success or failure just yet.
Taranis
Registered User
We spent to much time and assets trying to scrape into the playoffs. I get what your saying but are we not on the road to a successful rebuild, and was that not Feasters job?
To me, Feaster was bent over the rail, pants around his ancle's, with the future of the franchise hung out for the whole world to see. Whether or not he got out of it, with the help of others, doesn't matter, cause that's something no one should ever forget.
Originally, no. Feaster was hired to get the team back into the playoffs. He failed miserably, and in the process forced the team into a rebuilding scenario, which again, the owners were not in favour of.
And seriously, saying that the team's on the road to a successful rebuild in the first year, before they've even hit rock bottom (which will happen after the veterans are traded this season), before a good number of the prospects have even played professionally, is terribly premature. For all we know, this could be the first year of a six year rebuild because all of Feaster's draft picks fail utterly. Or, it could be the other way around and it's an extremely short two or three year turnaround. Point is, it's still way too early to say anything.
Taranis
Registered User
I guess I like being positive, maybe Flames ticket sales should come with a free yoga class or something for the remainder of the rebuild.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
It carries the implication that blue-chip prospects were being offered by other teams. And I was quoting your post where you said it didn't matter how the prospects turned out. That should be all that matters.
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,444
- 11,117
Feaster was Okay.
Not good, not bad; but okay.
He made some pretty decent pickups for Calgary; some that might end up great in the long run, others that might end up hurting us bad.
The Good; we of course all know. He used these late picks to snag guys that all have decent NHL potential and some of them even more (See Russell). He got rid of some spare parts in Horak and Laurent for an everyday, second pairing, defensively minded D-man. I mean, that's a great pickup.
The Cammy trade was a steal; Habs can't get rid of Rene to save their lives; while Cammy will probably garner a nice little package or first rounder at the deadline this year. To boot; we get Ramo, who I don't know if he'll ever be a star... but can at least decently backstop this franchise for a few years until one of our other kids develops properly.
The Bad; Clearly, clearly, he did not get full value for a top line winger and top pairing D-man last season. I don't care how many times some people try defending it... Getting a First and a couple unknowns is not real value for top players like that. I know we say Berra, Berra, Berra... But man, he could have easily been had for a late pick... It was not a player worth getting as a focal point in that kind of a trade.
I know some people (by name) who will jump out and say 'look at Hanowski, look at Agostino, Berra!' but man... those guys are clearly a cut below what should have been the return for our guys. I know the Pens kids look decent right now; but when you think of what Boston was offering alone... it was a better deal.
The Ugly,
'With the 21st pick of the 2012 NHL entry draft, the Calgary Flames are proud to select...'
Looking back, Calgary could have had the steal of that draft. Selecting Olli Maatta, who is currently playing top pair minutes in Pitts and Pat Sieloff could have made this defense that looks atrocious going forward really a bright spot.
Instead we get a complete unknown, who is not a star by any stretch in the NCAA, and that we were told to 'wait for'. I don't know about the rest of you guys... I'd trade Jankowski and Sieloff for Hertl or Ceci or TT any single day of the week. But I'd definitely take Maatta and Sieloff over anything else that year...
So yeah; Feaster did some great things for us going forward, he also hurt us bad in asset management and really a scatter-gun draft approach.
Not good, not bad; but okay.
He made some pretty decent pickups for Calgary; some that might end up great in the long run, others that might end up hurting us bad.
The Good; we of course all know. He used these late picks to snag guys that all have decent NHL potential and some of them even more (See Russell). He got rid of some spare parts in Horak and Laurent for an everyday, second pairing, defensively minded D-man. I mean, that's a great pickup.
The Cammy trade was a steal; Habs can't get rid of Rene to save their lives; while Cammy will probably garner a nice little package or first rounder at the deadline this year. To boot; we get Ramo, who I don't know if he'll ever be a star... but can at least decently backstop this franchise for a few years until one of our other kids develops properly.
The Bad; Clearly, clearly, he did not get full value for a top line winger and top pairing D-man last season. I don't care how many times some people try defending it... Getting a First and a couple unknowns is not real value for top players like that. I know we say Berra, Berra, Berra... But man, he could have easily been had for a late pick... It was not a player worth getting as a focal point in that kind of a trade.
I know some people (by name) who will jump out and say 'look at Hanowski, look at Agostino, Berra!' but man... those guys are clearly a cut below what should have been the return for our guys. I know the Pens kids look decent right now; but when you think of what Boston was offering alone... it was a better deal.
The Ugly,
'With the 21st pick of the 2012 NHL entry draft, the Calgary Flames are proud to select...'
Looking back, Calgary could have had the steal of that draft. Selecting Olli Maatta, who is currently playing top pair minutes in Pitts and Pat Sieloff could have made this defense that looks atrocious going forward really a bright spot.
Instead we get a complete unknown, who is not a star by any stretch in the NCAA, and that we were told to 'wait for'. I don't know about the rest of you guys... I'd trade Jankowski and Sieloff for Hertl or Ceci or TT any single day of the week. But I'd definitely take Maatta and Sieloff over anything else that year...
So yeah; Feaster did some great things for us going forward, he also hurt us bad in asset management and really a scatter-gun draft approach.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
What exactly would Koklachev and Bartkowski give us? Make no mistake, even though he's already in the NHL, Bartkowski is probably not going to be a top 4 guy, and Koklachev is in no way a clearly more impressive asset than Hanowski or Agostino, especially on a team with a cupboard-full of skilled left-wingers. On top of the fact (as long as we're referencing rumours) that the first was rumoured to be conditional.
Backlund
Registered User
I could have sworn when I watched the press conference Chiarelli said the first wasn't conditional.
Volica
Papa Shango
- May 15, 2012
- 21,444
- 11,117
First was a first, not conditional. That was cleared up after the wake of the 'what the **** just happened here' press conference in Boston.
I still think it's funny, even when we played the Bruins, analysts were all about 'Boy, Calgary could use Matt Bartkowski' and yet still some of you guys are still banging that same drum as on trade day. Even when Burke addresses the media, and acknowledges that Calgary got a poor return on the trades... some of you guys (and I knew for a fact you, probably Hud were going to jump all over this post) still bang that same drum.
I personally take a steady NHL-for-sure D-man, and a young skill guy that was at the time, Boston's second best prospect... rather than two unknowns that only through the eyes of Flames fans do we see magic; don't mistake it, Hanowski's and Agostino are playing great. Between the Boston and Pitts packages, we got the short end, and overall both packages were pretty trash.
TheHudlinator
Registered User
I never said I thought the returns were great but when you see the other deals that were on the table you have to realize the price you wanted people to pay for 2 weeks of Iggy just wasn't being offered. At the end of the day we took what we could get, I realize some people wanted a 1st+++ for Iggy but it was just never going to happen. I think a lot of flack has come due to the over valuing of our players based on past accomplishments. I don't have a problem with Feaster being fired and I don't have a problem with people saying they wanted more from our trades the only problem I see is that there just weren't any better offers and Feaster was in a lose-lose situation.
I mean the TSN panel thought a first was around the most we could get for Iggy and while I would not claim them to be experts on value at all I would say it at least points to the fact that interest around the league might have been lower than we thought. Of course you could argue that other GM's low balled Feaster from the start knowing he wasn't the best negotiator and that Feaster should have stood his ground with a high evaluation. To which I couldn't argue as I have no idea how the negotiation went but I will admit to being able to believe that that could be the case.
Last edited:
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
I remember clearly at the time of the Iggy deal that Button and Bob Mac said they didn't feel it was enough. BMac then said Jbo could be the deal where we see a large return, and it never happened. Iggy was dealt before the deadline, Feaster was in a perfect position to create a bidding war between 2 Eastern conference contenders, and he failed. Feaster was never good at maximizing returns for our players, and while he got serviceable guys, neither deal was considered market value. Hell I would of almost took the return Morrow got from Shero over what we got. I do like Klimchuk though, but the other pieces should of least had top 6 upside. Anyways no need to go on about this, we should of got more and that's a big reason why big Jay is gone.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
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.
I do think that Chiarelli said that the first wasn't conditional, but then, the question once again is whether that was the truth. If we are going to question the words of a GM, and frankly this fanbase has been second to none in that regard, then maybe we should be questioning every GM in the league, not just ours. We can't be the only ones to have had a GM who spins things.
Anyway, regarding the prospects, I think there is a case to be made that Bartkowski could help us in the very short term. Fair enough. Does he help our rebuild? Does he improve our team when we are competitive? That is a completely different question. Realistically, when our rebuild is finished, we expect to have 2 new top-2 defencemen who aren't yet with the roster (unless Brodie continues his ridiculous development curve), and probably one of our defensive prospect having developed into a 3-4 guy. We have tonnes of guys who can blossom into bottom-pairing guys, and this is assuming that Giordano and Russell don't stick around long-term. Where does Bartkowski have any impact on our future success? I think it is a completely valid argument, and one that bears discussion without resorting to name-calling and slander, that Agostino and Hanowski have a better chance of helping our team in the long run than Khokhlachev and Bartkowski.
TheHudlinator
Registered User
To be fair it was widely considered to be fact that after the Pens got Morrow that their want for Iggy went down. Not to mention I remember hearing that the trade of Morrow for Morrow was Pitts repaying the Stars after they robbed them for Neal (the same theory has been thrown around for the Kaberle trade to make up for the Kessell deal)
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I remember watching the panel during the game when they thought Iggy had been dealt to Boston for Khokhlachev and Bartkowski, and they were panning that deal every bit as much, if not more than the eventual Pens' deal. But realistically, how much was Iggy worth to any team last year? It seems as though the bidding war that we all desired was severely limited by the short list of Iginla, and in addition that neither GM was willing to offer more than what they did. If there was a bidding war to be had, Shero would have raised his offer when Feaster picked the Boston deal (and I'm guessing a little here, but it sounds as if he accepted the Boston deal over the Pittsburgh deal, in which case Pittsburgh would have reached their maximum offer). You have to ask yourself, though, if you were an NHL GM last year, would you have mortgaged the farm for Iggy the way he was playing?
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
I honestly don't think that any GM's operate that way, that is to repay someone for a bad trade that was previously made, at least they shouldn't. The NHL is a multi-million-dollar business and moving any high profile players there is always a large risk that both teams assume in making a transaction. Nieuwendyk was happy at the time of deal because Gogligski was a good 2 way defender and the stars were dealing from a position of strength to fill a hole.
I do agree getting Morrow may of decreased the Pens need for Iggy, but Feaster was at fault for showing all his cards with leaking Iggy's list. He also didn't get Iggy's list in writing which was another mistake, and he did not have to accept the Pittsburgh trade. He could've simply said to Jarome, Boston is on your list and this is the best trade we have at this time. He's just a poor negotiator in general and it definitely showed with dealing again Iggy and Jbo.
Anyways, the last comment I'm going to make is that the value we got back in both deals was poor and I think it's very hard to argue against that. I do give him credit for a lot of things that he did but as you have said also trading was definitely not a strength of his. I do not think that it is a reach to think that another GM could've got more than what Feaster got.
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
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.
TheHudlinator
Registered User
GM's are an olds boys club I highly doubt this is the first or last we hear of deals to make up for old deals because you don't want to burn that bridge.
The problem with the bolded is we don't know what went down, it is very possible that Iggy changed his mind to just 1 team and Feaster tried to spare him the backlash. We always knew trading Iggy was going to be a loss and we got back a little less than I thought we would but again we know the other leaked deal and at the end of the day whether Iggy was a Bruin or a Pen you would be upset with the value which tells me that your perceived value was to high.
TheHudlinator
Registered User
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
Ward is an idiot
And yes you are right, I wasn't exactly thrilled at the rumored Boston deal either. Anyways Burke has a very good history with trading, so hopefully our luck changes going forward.
