Speculation: What if the Flames actually got O'Reilly back in the lockout season?

[Bjornar Moxnes]

So if the Flames actually got O'Reilly in the lockout season, do you think it would have impacted our standings that season, and what about into the future? Would you rather have O'Reilly or Monahan as your 1C?

Click to read more...

 

[Calgareee]

So if the Flames actually got O'Reilly in the lockout season, do you think it would have impacted our standings that season, and what about into the future? Would you rather have O'Reilly or Monahan as your 1C?

He would have been claimed on waivers and everyone would have been sad.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

TBH, if you're comparing Mony to ROR, the overall impact provided by them on a season would be around the same. My preference is Sean because he's younger (and has amazing hair), but ROR is a great C as well.

 

[Skobel24]

He would have been claimed on waivers and everyone would have been sad.

I recall TSN talking about how he wouldn't have actually had to go through waivers if he came back over. No idea if it was true or not. Maybe they meant O'Reilly didn't HAVE to come back during that season, and could have avoided waivers that way.

If we're just doing a "what would happen if O'Reilly was on the team instead" scenario;

Flames lose out on Monahan. Flames probably would have been better the following year, resulting in the Flames not picking 4th overall. Guessing closer to the 6th-10th range. Would the Flames have picked Nylander/Ehlers? Or Fleury/Virtanen? Other?

Would O'Reilly mesh with Gaudreau/Hudler the way Monahan did? I don't think so. Flames could have potentially missed the playoffs that year.

With O'Reilly being a strong two-way center, do the Flames keep Backlund? Would Stajan have been re-signed if O'Reilly was brought in?

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

as the only diffefence? Bennett would have gotten legitimate first line opportunities since 2015 because ROR wouldn't have needed Gaudreau to drive his line for him. Bennett would then consistently on a line with Gaudreau have proceeded to be our best player like his actual ability level, and probably be a perennial 75 point 1C with PP, 3v3, 4v4, PK, minutes. ROR and Backlund form PP unit 2.

As the first domino in a crazy cause/effect chain?

Who knows. Maybe Feaster keeps his job without the consequences of that debacle. Maybe our lineup today looks like

Gaudreau-Nylander-Boeser
Ferland-O'Rielly-Backes
Baertschi-Backlund-Puljujarvi
Hudler-Jankowski-Poirier

Who really knows how these things shake out.

 

[Baxterman]

I can't imagine it would have made a difference for Feasters job but if there was anyway it could then even more reason to be thankful the Avs matched.

As for the players if given the choice I would obviously take Monahan over O'Reilly. For on ice results I think it minimally affects us short term, may have finished with the 5th/6th pick instead of the 4th, and is a really bad move long term.

This all ignores the very real possibility that we would have ended up with neither.

 

[Johnny GODreau]

ROR on the Flames? probably means flames are going all in. which also means we still have Bouwmeester and Iggy.

Circa 2013 ish..

Maybe with ROR on the Flames, Tanguay doesn't quit, maybe cervenka plays better.

Tanguay/Cammy-ROR-Iggy
Glenx-Backlund/Cervenka/Stajan-Cammy/Tanguay
Baertschi/Hudler-Cervenka/Stajan/Horak-Hudler/Stempniak
Begin/Horak-Stajan/Horak-Jackman/BigErn/Stempniak

Bouwmeester(meh)-Wideman
Giordano-Brodie
Butler(argh)-Sarich

Kipper
Joey Macs

whole lotta meh, could've made the ploffs.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

He would have been claimed on waivers and everyone would have been sad.

I don't think that was ever really determined. I know the initial response was "oh man Feaster's an idiot look what he almost did" but my understanding is that there was significant ambiguity.

 

[Baxterman]

I don't think that was ever really determined. I know the initial response was "oh man Feaster's an idiot look what he almost did" but my understanding is that there was significant ambiguity.

The response still should be "oh man Feaster's an idiot" because even if there is significant ambiguity it doesn't come close to making sense to risk losing the player and the pick to overpay for ROR, especially considering where our roster was at that point.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I don't think that was ever really determined. I know the initial response was "oh man Feaster's an idiot look what he almost did" but my understanding is that there was significant ambiguity.

Given that the league never specifically said what they would have done had that scenario unfolded, it makes me believe there was significant ambiguity and the league may have nullified the offer sheet.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

as the only diffefence? Bennett would have gotten legitimate first line opportunities since 2015 because ROR wouldn't have needed Gaudreau to drive his line for him. Bennett would then consistently on a line with Gaudreau have proceeded to be our best player like his actual ability level, and probably be a perennial 75 point 1C with PP, 3v3, 4v4, PK, minutes. ROR and Backlund form PP unit 2.

As the first domino in a crazy cause/effect chain?

Who knows. Maybe Feaster keeps his job without the consequences of that debacle. Maybe our lineup today looks like

Gaudreau-Nylander-Boeser
Ferland-O'Rielly-Backes
Baertschi-Backlund-Puljujarvi
Hudler-Jankowski-Poirier

Who really knows how these things shake out.

Of all players why Backes lol?

 

[CraigsList]

We wouldn't have Monahan, Bennett or Tkachuk. I'm happy we don't have ROR.

 

[Volica]

We wouldn't have Monahan, Bennett or Tkachuk. I'm happy we don't have ROR.

Who knows how this team would look like to be honest.
They'd be a better team in 2014, they'd have brought in more UFA's instead of keeping it cheap to tank...

Like, who knows.

 

[Mobiandi]

I'm just happy Feaster isn't here anymore. This whole saga was so embarrassing

 

[Mr Snrub]

Who knows how this team would look like to be honest.
They'd be a better team in 2014, they'd have brought in more UFA's instead of keeping it cheap to tank...

Like, who knows.

I'd expect a handful of years of mediocrity/maybe one good Cinderella run, and then nothing for the last few. We'd probably be roughly in Vancouver or Colorado's position, debating trading ROR for someone's first.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I'm just happy Feaster isn't here anymore. This whole saga was so embarrassing

Yep.

Like RoR a lot, but the amount of egg on this one was ridiculous.

 

[Fig]

Given that the league never specifically said what they would have done had that scenario unfolded, it makes me believe there was significant ambiguity and the league may have nullified the offer sheet.

I think there are three trains of thought. The main one that is held is IMO stupid because I cannot see the NHL allow it to go through that way.

1. ROR goes on waivers lost to whoever, we still lose the picks.

This is stupid. There's no way that this is allowed to stick, even if that's how it is supposed to be. Colorado should get the picks, but no one should be getting ROR as a freebie. Ultimately, they fixed this dumb rule soon after it came to light. I'm sure they'd fix the situation to follow intent rather than the word of the rule.

The NHL could perhaps let this stand and block all waiver claims so that we get ROR.


2. ROR does not need to go through waivers and comes to us normally.

This is closer what we expect of offer sheets nowadays and the intent of an offer sheet.

3. The NHL nullifies the offer sheet.

I would assume in this situation, if ROR had signed an offer sheet. The deal as is, is nullified. The NHL fixes the rule, then we do it proper without the waiver situation.


If we had got ROR, I think we'd compete for one of the oldest teams in the league as of todady. We'd also probably have flipped pieces like JG to compete. God, I could almost see us in an alternate dimension competing for "worst trade evar" and having a really bad trade to compete with the Forsberg trade (but JG instead).

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I think if anything the NHL would have cancelled the deal instead of letting ROR go on waivers.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I'm just happy Feaster isn't here anymore. This whole saga was so embarrassing

He wasn't as bad a GM as people think, but he was easily the most cringe-inducing GM I've ever heard talk. Way too much bluster and posturing.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

He wasn't as bad a GM as people think, but he was easily the most cringe-inducing GM I've ever heard talk. Way too much bluster and posturing.

That Bouwmeester trade was bad, we essentially traded a lowend 1D/elite 2D for nothing. Why didn't we move up to pick Forsberg when the 11th overall pick was available seeing how GMGM essentially traded him for a failed Erat rental? Why didn't we get Iginla and Kipper moved sooner and maximum return? The best player he picked was Gaudreau.

 

[Baxterman]

He wasn't as bad a GM as people think, but he was easily the most cringe-inducing GM I've ever heard talk. Way too much bluster and posturing.

I think he was as bad a GM as people think.

The two best things people can point to him doing were Gaudreau and Monahan two guys in which it is very debatable how much picking them was due to smart GMing and how much was luck (Gaudreau) and the obvious choice (Monahan).

I guess the Hudler deal worked out for the first few years but the last year it was brutal. The Wideman deal was awful. Ramo as a starter was bad. Cerevenka didn't work out. The last two made worse by Feasters constant need to overhype his moves/players.

He badly read this team and held on to guys way to long, then dealt them for really terrible returns.

Plus he lucked out on two of what would have been awful moves the ROR offer sheet and Richards deal were stopped do to nothing of his own doing.

Then looking at how he conducted himself from the "best player in the draft" Jankowski, to intellectual honesty, to watch what we will do and then doing nothing, best player outside of the NHL, best goalie outside of the NHL, it just got embarrassing to have to see him continue to spew this nonsense.

 

[Anglesmith]

I think he was as bad a GM as people think.

The two best things people can point to him doing were Gaudreau and Monahan two guys in which it is very debatable how much picking them was due to smart GMing and how much was luck (Gaudreau) and the obvious choice (Monahan).

I guess the Hudler deal worked out for the first few years but the last year it was brutal. The Wideman deal was awful. Ramo as a starter was bad. Cerevenka didn't work out. The last two made worse by Feasters constant need to overhype his moves/players.

Huh? There were a lot of good moves, not just Gaudreau and Monahan. Under Feaster, the scouting really improved. Your analysis of the Hudler deal is really bizarre. That was a fantastic deal that never handcuffed us. The last year wasn't brutal- Hudler was a brutal, but we got a nice return for him, and his salary didn't restrict us when we needed space. Wideman's deal was a success from the perspective that he was a major factor in getting us back to the playoffs, but he did hurt us the last year, and that's kind of what you expect from a UFA signing.

In terms of good trades, you can look at his ability to get a big return for Erixon with his back up against the wall, which was great. Getting Cammalleri and Ramo for the husk of Rene Bourque and a 2nd was an absolute steal. Getting a second for Reto Berra was a great move. There was plenty of good.

If you want to talk about those swings and misses, I would say his mistakes had lesser long-term implications than his successor's. Treliving has had the job for less time, but has made probably just as many poor signings, and has had to use buyouts along the way.

He badly read this team and held on to guys way to long, then dealt them for really terrible returns.

Plus he lucked out on two of what would have been awful moves the ROR offer sheet and Richards deal were stopped do to nothing of his own doing.

That's such a weird analysis of what Feaster did. He took over the job with 13 billion NMCs on the team. He didn't really have any flexibility to start out with. Once the contracts started running out and he actually was able to move some, he did, and as has been repeatedly discussed and pointed out, he got fair market value for just about every trade. But in the preceding time, he wasn't sitting on his hands. Right from the start of his tenure, he made a lot of small moves to attempt to make the team younger and recoup some younger skilled players for cheap.

And it's completely disingenuous to admonish him for moves which potentially could have been good, just because you've already assumed they wouldn't be.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I'm of the opinion that Feasters trade record on its own was poor enough to label him as a 'Bad GM'. Add in the public blunders he suffered. I don't think he will ever be remembered all that fondly.

His amateur scouting team did some really great things, but that is about the only positive thing I can say about his tenure.

 

[Baxterman]

Huh? There were a lot of good moves, not just Gaudreau and Monahan. Under Feaster, the scouting really improved. Your analysis of the Hudler deal is really bizarre. That was a fantastic deal that never handcuffed us. The last year wasn't brutal- Hudler was a brutal, but we got a nice return for him, and his salary didn't restrict us when we needed space. Wideman's deal was a success from the perspective that he was a major factor in getting us back to the playoffs, but he did hurt us the last year, and that's kind of what you expect from a UFA signing.

I guess the Hudler deal never handcuffed us but that was a lot of money for one play-off trip. And really it never handcuffed us because the teams that Feaster built weren't good enough to care about salary. Wideman was terrible his whole time in Calgary. He was not a factor in getting us anywhere.

In terms of good trades, you can look at his ability to get a big return for Erixon with his back up against the wall, which was great. Getting Cammalleri and Ramo for the husk of Rene Bourque and a 2nd was an absolute steal. Getting a second for Reto Berra was a great move. There was plenty of good.

Big return for Erixon? Horak is out of the league and Wotherspoon appears he could never make it himself. I guess it was ok given the circumstances but not really a big return or anything that has improved the team.

Berra was Burke not Feaster.

The Cammy trade was ok at best. Ramo sucked badly, Cammy had decent offensive numbers but again on a team going nowhere. I think I would prefer to have the 2nd round pick out of all the pieces in that deal.

If you want to talk about those swings and misses, I would say his mistakes had lesser long-term implications than his successor's. Treliving has had the job for less time, but has made probably just as many poor signings, and has had to use buyouts along the way.

I am not sure how his mistakes have had less long term implications than Trelivings when we haven't really seen any poor implications of Trelivings yet.

What is clear about his long term impications is that we are now what 2-3 years out from his tenure and we have 2 pieces on our roster from him. The hit we took from not having depth or piece from his time in Calgary has really hurt and is the reason we have guys like Versteeg and Bartowski in the line-up and relied on a rookie to outperform his expectations.

Even the "terrible" Sutter years have produced a lot more of the basis of this current line-up. Feaster's long term implications are felt for sure with this team and they are negative.

That's such a weird analysis of what Feaster did. He took over the job with 13 billion NMCs on the team. He didn't really have any flexibility to start out with. Once the contracts started running out and he actually was able to move some, he did, and as has been repeatedly discussed and pointed out, he got fair market value for just about every trade. But in the preceding time, he wasn't sitting on his hands. Right from the start of his tenure, he made a lot of small moves to attempt to make the team younger and recoup some younger skilled players for cheap.

He took over a team that badly needed a rebuild and instead took another shot with them holding on to guys way too long and getting terrible returns for them.

He did not come close to getting full market value for what we could have got for Iginla if he moved him the year before. He got basically squat for Bouwmeester who played on team Canada a year after being dealt, played top pairing on a play-off team in St. Louis and had a year left on his deal.

And it's completely disingenuous to admonish him for moves which potentially could have been good, just because you've already assumed they wouldn't be.

I will admonish him because at the time the moves made zero sense. Risking losing the pick and ROR, even if it was a very small risk, certainly wasn't worth it to a. overpay O'Reilly on a short term deal and b. add O'Reilly to a bad team that needed to rebuild not reload. The O'Reilly offersheet made no sense based on the risk involved and the make-up of the roster. I also think it looks terrible in hindsight because I prefer Monahan over ROR but even without taking into account the things we don't know just looking at what we do know it was a bad deal.

I will start out saying I can't imagine how anyone can think that the Richards signing would have worked out well for this team but will say sure we don't know for sure that he would have fallen off the same cliff he did by going elsewhere.

But again in what world did the Flames team coming off a 3rd year in a row of blah hockey, desperately in need of some youth injection in the line-up, did it make sense to add Brad Richards with a monster 8 year 7-8 million dollar? Even if he played well that team going forward would have been mediocre at best. The signing didn't make sense even if Richards played well (which was unlikely) and a nightmare if he played poorly or just aged like would have been expected from a guy of his age.

 

[Calculon]

The Bouwmeester trade alone would solidify Feaster as a horrendous GM. A top pairing defenceman under contract for another year given away for essentially, a conditional late first.

It was an absolute joke of a trade and it's amazing how much that terrible return is swept under the rug.

Burke salvaged things a bit by getting a 2nd for Berra, but even then, the whole sequence was embarrassing.