This is Jay Feaster's Team

[Noori]

Thing is though, Feaster was the GM, so it's more feasible saying that he pulled off the trades than Burke being the mastermind. Besides, Burke even said himself that he wasn't going to act as GM.. Sure, maybe Burke did tell Feaster who to target, but I tip my hat in saying Feaster was the one who put the pieces together.

My only point to this (and this is the last point I'll make about this since Jay Feaster is out of the organization - thus this is all irrelevant ):

This was/is a unique management structure. The best comparison to Feaster would be Greg Sherman. After Sakic got hired, Bob McKenzie (reliable insider - before someone decides to call me out) said Greg Sherman was a GM "in name only." Patty Roy (VP of Hockey Ops) and especially Joe Sakic (Executive VP) are the guys calling the shots in Colorado. Sherman is basically now an adviser for Sakic. This is what Feaster was for Burke and this is what the new GM will be as well.

This has been Brian Burke's team since Day 1 and will continue to be. Every trade, every signing is on him at the end of the day and he is the one accountable to Ken King and the owners. The next GM will be brought in to be consigliere to Don Burke, not to be the guy calling the shots.

 

[Lunatik]

Ah, just like you are privy to how Sutter hand picked players in the first round of the drafts?

You are the pot calling the kettle black. Clearly no point in going any further discussing this with you.



He had 3 years of Jay's body of work to evaluate. This would seem evident given that Burke said Flames had not gotten enough value in trades, he didn't like past drafts (2013 not withstanding) nor did he like the general makeup of the team. Exactly nothing was about Jay's time from September to December.

The Sutter thing was said in interviews, don't remember if it was by Tod Button or Jay Feaster, but it was actually stated outright by a member of the Flames organization.

You are simply twisting things to fit your own agenda.

Huge difference.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Maybe you're right. That's certainly a reasonable approach. But Feaster did carry 2-3 AGMs, in addition to needing Burke's approval, so its technically still speculative.

But I'm not like that. I'm not going to call you a liar while I too know jack **** about what Feaster did all day.

Who knows!


We will probably never know but it's still fun to discuss.

 

[Calculon]

I highly doubt it was Feaster's idea to go after Smid.

The official rational for the deal was to improve the play of the bottom defensive pairing, which at the time was occupied by O'Brien and Butler. And it was the former who was made a healthy scratch and subsequently sent down to the minors rather than the latter, as most thought would be the case (but traded instead of demoted).

Feaster had just acquired O'Brien in a trade a few months prior. This after trading a first for him while he was in Tampa Bay. It was tantamount to admitting a mistake, which is exceedingly rare in just about any professional enterprise. Moreover, Burke had some familiarity with Smid while in Anaheim.

Honestly, I doubt it's a mere coincidence that as soon as Burke comes on board, the organization goes after two of his former players in Colborne and Smid. Either Feaster and co. were trying to impress Burke or someone (i.e. Burke) was leaning on them.

 

[Noori]

The Sutter thing was said in interviews, don't remember if it was by Tod Button or Jay Feaster, but it was actually stated outright by a member of the Flames organization.

You are simply twisting things to fit your own agenda.

Huge difference.

First I've heard that Button/Feaster said anything of the like. Why on earth would Feaster or Button essentially throw Sutter under the bus? This was conjecture purported by media since Calgary had a tendency to draft CHL players (especially WHLers). This, unsurprisingly, began to change as Sutter began to expand the scouting staff including more amateur scouts in Europe.

You are simply putting words in Button's/Feaster's mouth to fit your own agenda.

 

[Lunatik]

First I've heard that Button/Feaster said anything of this like. Why on earth would Feaster or Button essentially throw Sutter under the bus? This was conjecture purported by media since Calgary had a tendency to draft CHL players (especially WHLers). This, unsurprisingly, began to change as Sutter began to expand the scouting staff including more amateur scouts in Europe.

You are simply putting words in Button's/Feaster's mouth to fit your own agenda.

Huge difference.

Yes, because I am known to simply make things up right?

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Honestly, I doubt it's a mere coincidence that as soon as Burke comes on board, the organization goes after two of his former players in Colborne and Smid. Either Feaster and co. were trying to impress Burke or someone (i.e. Burke) was leaning on them.

I agree with this. This is how I would think it goes down:

1. Burke tells Feaster to go after [insert name here]
2. Feaster goes after that said player, makes a deal, and gives it to Burke.
3. Burke either says yes or no to the deal (improve or decrease the offer).
4. Feaster does and gives it back to Burke
5. Done deal.


Obviously that's a really shortened view, but that's the basic premise I think.

 

[Anglesmith]

My only point to this (and this is the last point I'll make about this since Jay Feaster is out of the organization - thus this is all irrelevant ):

This was/is a unique management structure. The best comparison to Feaster would be Greg Sherman. After Sakic got hired, Bob McKenzie (reliable insider - before someone decides to call me out) said Greg Sherman was a GM "in name only." Patty Roy (VP of Hockey Ops) and especially Joe Sakic (Executive VP) are the guys calling the shots in Colorado. Sherman is basically now an adviser for Sakic. This is what Feaster was for Burke and this is what the new GM will be as well.

This has been Brian Burke's team since Day 1 and will continue to be. Every trade, every signing is on him at the end of the day and he is the one accountable to Ken King and the owners. The next GM will be brought in to be consigliere to Don Burke, not to be the guy calling the shots.

But this does seem very much counter to how Burke has described his position since he got here. Is Burke simply giving us the same kind of sales-speak that Feaster has repeatedly been lampooned for? Burke has said:

[fieldset=Burke's presser upon hire]"I know people think I need to be driving the bus all the time. I'm actually a pretty good teammate.

"The guy you should talk to every day should be the coach. The transactional guy, if you make a trade . . . the guy that should explain it should be the guy that pulls the trigger on the trade and that's Jay."

...

"I'm not the general manager of the Calgary Flames," he declared. "Jay Feaster is. He is going to be in charge, but with my guidance.[/fieldset]

 

[Noori]

Yes, because I am known to simply make things up right?

And I am one for twisting things?

Anglesmith, that's an excellent quote. I feel that may have been Burke's honest intention to begin with, but the man is pretty restless. It's unusual to give a guy your backing like that and fire him 3 months later unless your opinion of him changed within that time frame as you began to delve into his body of work as GM. I think this this may have been the case.

 

[Lunatik]

And I am one for twisting things?

You are blindly speculating, how can you even deny that? You believe that Burke said to go after Colborne, you have no evidence, no facts, nothing. I am not even saying you are wrong, but the fact of the matter is there is zero evidence that backs you up.

 

[MarkGio]

And I am one for twisting things?

I don't ever recall hearing anything like that from Sutter, Feaster or anyone. But mind you, when I get called out like that, I would think that's a good time to find these so-called videos suggesting Sutter didn't make all of his picks.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

You are blindly speculating, how can you even deny that? You believe that Burke said to go after Colborne, you have no evidence, no facts, nothing. I am not even saying you are wrong, but the fact of the matter is there is zero evidence that backs you up.

I disagree with this.. It's a common thing for a higher up boss to tell his employee to do [insert something here] and the employee will do it, and he will have to report back to the higher up boss. It's essentially the same thing here.

Here's another scenario:

Boss A= big boss (essentially a president or CEO)
Boss B= Boss under Boss A (essentially a GM or a regional/national boss)

Boss A tells Boss B to do [insert task here]. Boss B will complete this BUT he will have to report to Boss A and show him his findings. Boss A will either say "no, I want this" or "yes, I like this. Go ahead with this."

Basically the same thing happening between Burke/Feaster, IMO.

 

[Lunatik]

I disagree with this.. It's a common thing for a higher up boss to tell his employee to do [insert something here] and the employee will do it, and he will have to report back to the higher up boss. It's essentially the same thing here.

Here's another scenario:

Boss A= big boss (essentially a president or CEO)
Boss B= Boss under Boss A (essentially a GM or a regional/national boss)

Boss A tells Boss B to do [insert task here]. Boss B will complete this BUT he will have to report to Boss A and show him his findings. Boss A will either say "no, I want this" or "yes, I like this. Go ahead with this."

Basically the same thing happening between Burke/Feaster, IMO.

And where is the proof this actually happened? That is the assumption and speculation, but there is no actually evidence that it actually happened this way.

There is no evidence that Burke said to go after Colborne or Smid or anyone else. I could present the same case except say Feaster went after those guys and just went for Burke's approval. But like you I would have no actual evidence.

 

[Noori]

You are blindly speculating, how can you even deny that? You believe that Burke said to go after Colborne, you have no evidence, no facts, nothing. I am not even saying you are wrong, but the fact of the matter is there is zero evidence that backs you up.

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=684668

"As an organization we have had many discussions this past year about Joe, but never made an offer,” said Flames General Manager Jay Feaster. “With the opportunity to speak with Brian Burke and learn about Joe's hockey sense and character from someone who had him as a player and knows him so well, it became clear to us that this is the type of young, big centre we need. He fits in very well with our rebuild and provides size up the middle which we believe is critical going forward. The fact that he is from Calgary is an added bonus. We look forward to welcoming him to the Flames family."

Yes, such wild speculation that Burke told Feaster to go after Colborne. I don't mind backing up my speculation with a few contextual statements.

Face it, you got called on your hypocrisy and went for the "Golly gee, I think Feaster or Button might have mentioned that Sutter picked his own players instead of listening to scouting opinion."

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

 

[MarkGio]

But this does seem very much counter to how Burke has described his position since he got here. Is Burke simply giving us the same kind of sales-speak that Feaster has repeatedly been lampooned for? Burke has said:

[fieldset=Burke's presser upon hire]"I know people think I need to be driving the bus all the time. I'm actually a pretty good teammate.

"The guy you should talk to every day should be the coach. The transactional guy, if you make a trade . . . the guy that should explain it should be the guy that pulls the trigger on the trade and that's Jay."

...

"I'm not the general manager of the Calgary Flames," he declared. "Jay Feaster is. He is going to be in charge, but with my guidance.[/fieldset]

But Burke has said a lot of things. Its either that interview or the jersey-unveiling interview where he talked about Feaster reporting to Burke and how Burke will advise Feaster if he's interested in a certain player. Burke has also described a team he wants to see, one of size and truculence, thereby establishing the parameters in which a GM can operate within.

He also said on TSN during the deadline that Smid was his kind of guy and that he is not going to trade him (which broke out into a hilarious argument with Dutchie). After the Colborne trade, Burke had a presser that where he talks about how Colborne has size, but isn't a guy who is overly physical. And while my memory doesn't serve me all that well, I recall Burke saying his familiarity with Colborne had a role in executing the trade.

 

[Lunatik]

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=684668



Yes, such wild speculation that Burke told Feaster to go after Colborne. I don't mind backing up my speculation with a few contextual statements.

Face it, you got called on your hypocrisy and went for the "Golly gee, I think Feaster or Button might have mentioned that Sutter picked his own players instead of listening to scouting opinion."

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

It doesn't say Burke went to Faester does it? Nope, it sure doesn't. It just says they spoke about. You do know more than 1 person can initiate a conversation right?

You are still making the assumption that it was Burke's idea. But like I said before it very well could have been, but there is no evidence that proves who's idea it actually was. It could have been Conroy or Weisbrod's idea for all we know, or even crazier thought.... what if they were on the same page and had the same idea

I mean seriously hundreds of people on this website had the same idea, it's hardly outlandish to think an NHL GM had the idea too

 

[Anglesmith]

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=684668



Yes, such wild speculation that Burke told Feaster to go after Colborne. I don't mind backing up my speculation with a few contextual statements.

Face it, you got called on your hypocrisy and went for the "Golly gee, I think Feaster or Button might have mentioned that Sutter picked his own players instead of listening to scouting opinion."

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

The fact remains that the "face-value" interpretation is very far from refuted or called into question by a statement such as this. The story we are being presented from this is that Feaster used Burke as a resource and sought his opinion on guys with whom he was familiar. It's not like Feaster was incapable of picking up the scent on young guys in other organizations who were on their way out, because he made a similar deal for Corban Knight. There is no reason to believe that Feaster wouldn't have had Colborne on his radar with or without Burke there. Using Burke as a resource was the right call on this one. I would expect, frankly, that they would also have discussed many other players with whom Burke had had experience, because that's just due diligence on the part of a GM when he gains a resource with inside knowledge of other organizations' players.

I just don't see a reason to suggest that this quote was some kind of double-talk meaning "Burke told me to trade for him or else I wouldn't have done it."

 

[Calculon]

I agree with this. This is how I would think it goes down:

1. Burke tells Feaster to go after [insert name here]
2. Feaster goes after that said player, makes a deal, and gives it to Burke.
3. Burke either says yes or no to the deal (improve or decrease the offer).
4. Feaster does and gives it back to Burke
5. Done deal.

Obviously that's a really shortened view, but that's the basic premise I think.

I think that's a fair assessment.

I wouldn't be surprised if Burke's contributions to the two trades was to make the third round pick for Colborne conditional, as opposed to straight up and getting Feaster to cap his offer for Smid and let the talks die down rather than rush to make a deal.

 

[MarkGio]

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=684668



Yes, such wild speculation that Burke told Feaster to go after Colborne. I don't mind backing up my speculation with a few contextual statements.

Face it, you got called on your hypocrisy and went for the "Golly gee, I think Feaster or Button might have mentioned that Sutter picked his own players instead of listening to scouting opinion."

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

There, its been established. Not that I think you'll receive an apology for certain accusations, one is definitely fitting. Even without that quote, your record as a member here is IMO deserving of being free of attack for you opinions, speculative or not.

 

[Anglesmith]

To clarify, though, the notion being debated was not whether Burke had input in going after Colborne, but that Burke was the one who made the trade.

 

[MarkGio]

The fact remains that the "face-value" interpretation is very far from refuted or called into question by a statement such as this. The story we are being presented from this is that Feaster used Burke as a resource and sought his opinion on guys with whom he was familiar. It's not like Feaster was incapable of picking up the scent on young guys in other organizations who were on their way out, because he made a similar deal for Corban Knight. There is no reason to believe that Feaster wouldn't have had Colborne on his radar with or without Burke there. Using Burke as a resource was the right call on this one. I would expect, frankly, that they would also have discussed many other players with whom Burke had had experience, because that's just due diligence on the part of a GM when he gains a resource with inside knowledge of other organizations' players.

I just don't see a reason to suggest that this quote was some kind of double-talk meaning "Burke told me to trade for him or else I wouldn't have done it."

The quote clearly says Feaster "need[ed]" Colborne after speaking to Burke.

 

[Anglesmith]

The quote clearly says Feaster "need[ed]" Colborne after speaking to Burke.

That's extremely out of context. He said that Joe was clearly the type of centre they need, not that it was clear that he needed to get Joe.

 

[MarkGio]

It doesn't say Burke went to Faester does it? Nope, it sure doesn't. It just says they spoke about. You do know more than 1 person can initiate a conversation right?

You are still making the assumption that it was Burke's idea. But like I said before it very well could have been, but there is no evidence that proves who's idea it actually was. It could have been Conroy or Weisbrod's idea for all we know, or even crazier thought.... what if they were on the same page and had the same idea

I mean seriously hundreds of people on this website had the same idea, it's hardly outlandish to think an NHL GM had the idea too

Now it seems like your nitpicking any and all possibilities to escape ownership. I'm not surprised. Noori supported his claims, but we have yet to see it reciprocated.

 

[Calculon]

Rewind to late September, and Burke had just helped pull the strings on a trade with his old employer, acquiring lanky centre Joe Colborne — a Calgary kid, former first-round get of the Boston Bruins and a guy with a 6-foot-5 frame and some untapped offensive potential — from the Toronto Maple Leafs for a conditional draft choice.

Link

 

[MarkGio]

That's extremely out of context. He said that Joe was clearly the type of centre they need, not that it was clear that he needed to get Joe.

Out of context??

“With the opportunity to speak with Brian Burke and learn about Joe's hockey sense and character from someone who had him as a player and knows him so well, it became clear to us that this is the type of young, big centre we need."

I just restructured a long winded sentence?