Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
He made a few really good trades with middle round assets, but as Burke said in the presser, Feaster was fired because he terrible at getting full value for our best assets.
To show for our core of Iginla+Bouw+Regehr+2nd, the best asset we got were two late 1st round picks, Hantowski, Agostini, Berra, Cundari, Butler and Byron. That is downright embarrassing. IMO in a few years, Feaster will go down as one of the worst GMs in the NHL of the past decade when it came to trades.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
You can blame Jarome Iginla, and the man-crush Murray Edwards and Ken King had on him, for getting a poor return for Iginla. What's Feaster supposed to do when Iginla balks at going to Boston? Cancel the rebuild and re-sign him?
There may have been a better deal for Bouwmeester out there. But as for getting higher first-round picks, the only teams trading them last year were teams high in the standings.
And what's full value for assets? You need two parties to make a deal. You can set a value for a player, but if nobody will meet it, you have no deal. I think fans have a funny idea about how pro sports trades work, like it's some kind of wheeling and dealing dramatic art where you cunningly trick other teams into giving you more than they want. Teams have a value for their own players. They have a value for other players in the league. When there's opportunity, and both values match, there's a deal.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
The Bouwmeester trade was terrible. If that was all you were going to get back... might as well just keep him until the off-season when more teams could potentially be in the bidding for him and you could take back salary to help teams fit him under the cap.
|
I started a thread on this topic at the end of the 2011-2012 season.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=118371
Basically, Calgary wasn't getting full trade value in years because they were trying to find warm bodies that could turn into diamonds in the rough. Butler and Byron as a return, for example.
Calgary was never interested in getting full value for their assets because full value would entail accumulating draft picks, something the organization has been allergic to for the previous 2 decades.
From the thread:
Quote:
Was Brian Burke able to dupe Darryl Sutter because he knew that fundamentally, Sutter (and the organization) weren't going to want 'magic beans'? Was Calgary unable to (unwilling to) move pending UFAs at the deadline because other teams weren't willing to give up AHL/NHL roster players, and when picks were offered to Calgary, they weren't inclined to value them?
In Sportak's chat today, he mentioned how media around the league, as well as NHL executives of other teams clearly see the need for Calgary to rebuild and start fresh.
If you are fundamentally misjudging the value of your wares, and those who you're trading with know that, how can you possibly hope to be successful? If you have little interest in an otherwise valuable commodity, how can you possibly be getting the best prices? The team and Feaster seem to have, what is in my mind, a fundamentally flawed perception of the value of accrued draft picks.
|
Which is why the deal involving Bouwmeester only had 1 draft pick coming back along with two hopeful NHL warm bodies ( who have since not looked like Warm NHL Bodies), and why the deal for Iginla had essentially the same (but worse) return. Other teams swapped picks, or had picks included as part of the trade price. Calgary seemed to be focused on warm bodies as a 1st rounder for Iginla and Bouwmeester was essentially a given.
In contrast, guys like Regehr and Douglas Murray were being moved for a rough equivalent of that same package, except the return is made up of 2nd round picks, instead of some guy that was picked in the 4th round two or three years ago. Feaster even stated publicly that he didn't think late round picks help a team. It's a critically flawed philosophy and analysis from the very beginning, anything built on that will crumble in short order.
Probably a fundamental reason Weisbrod was canned. Maybe he thought Sieloff would be "the best defender in the organization" in 10 years?