I’ve said this before, a lot of times. A major reason Feaster was fired was because he was incompetent at trading and was viewed that way around the league. Also the mess that went on with ROR.
If Burke was in charge when Iggy finally had requested a deal, Burke would have sat him down and laid out how things were to unfold. People can say Feaster was handcuffed all they like, he’s the one though that put himself in that situation.
If you walk into a car dealership at Ford, leave with a Ford and are mad later on that you didn’t get a Toyota, are you going to write it off as saying “well that’s all they had there so it’s not my fault”? I have zero sympathy for him because he wasn’t qualified to be our GM.
I’m not even gonna touch the ROR situation because that was a blunder that rivals what’s going on in Ottawa today. Again that was all his fault.
You're correct. Feaster was fired because he had failed to gain the confidence of his boss. The perception of Feaster wasn't someone who could be trusted to make the right decision. In hockey, no firing can be proven to be the right choice or the wrong choice, because there is no "control" to the analysis, so we just have to take that as it is.
I, at the time, didn't think that firing Feaster was necessary, or helped the organization. I thought, and still thought, that he played a valuable role in transitioning this team from an older one to a younger one. He began doing this subtly when he arrived, insomuch as he could with the hand he was dealt. He made some good signings. He made some good trades. He made some good hirings. He lost two big trades which are types that pretty much everyone loses. But the overall direction the team went under his stewardship was the right one, and when he left, he left a great situation for a new GM to build upon.
I get people like a good pile-on, but what's the point of such disingenuous criticisms? I don't feel bad for Feaster, because he's had a pretty neat career, and he seems to be thriving in his current role as well. But my issue is one of principle. It irks me to read things like this bandied about as if they have merit:
1. Kent Nilsson -> Joe Nieuwendyk->Jarome Iginla-> Morgan Klimchuk
This is not a criticism. Kent Nilsson and Joe Nieuwendyk were traded mid-prime. Jarome Iginla was traded in his twilight years. Now, I doubt Calculon posted that tweet without knowing that, and I doubt Ryan Pike posted that tweet without knowing that and acknowledging it, but this is, believe it or not, something that gets laid at Feaster's feet. Feaster was expected to get the same value for Iginla (purely because of his importance to the city) as previous GMs were able to get for selling All-stars in their primes.
The fact is, we got more out of Jarome than either of those two previous players. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If we traded Jarome in 2006, then yeah, we would expect to get another HOFer in return.
2. Morgan Klimchuk being traded today has something to do with Feaster.
It does not. If you want to criticize the trade, criticize the trade, but the trade was for a pick and prospects. How those turned out is a separate matter. Don't believe me? If Feaster had traded Jarome Iginla for 8 first round picks, no one would have thought that a bad trade. Even if those were all 2013 picks, though, that could have had the same result. A first and two prospects was the price he got, and he wasn't getting anything better than that.
3. Aging rentals should get high value in a trade if they used to be good players.
Maybe. I'm sure it happens. But give me an example. Don't just say "it was bad value because I say so." Cyrano has it exactly right. The trade value wasn't an issue. it's just a shame to have nothing to show for it.
Mobiandi made the comment earlier how it's funny that the two trades that started our rebuild haven't really factored in the finished product, and that is true. But it's also far from surprising because of how common that is.
