Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
I think the point that Vulcan is trying to say is, because Feaster isn't a "hockey guy" he doesn't know a center from a winter. Feaster is lucky that he got a talented team of scouts (Poirer, Gaudreau) but unlucky with others (Weisbrod). I think Feaster admitted that he never watched Cervenka or Jankowski play, so while IMO you can't pin either of those transactions on him, its a little frightening when the guy at the top of the food chain doesn't really know the industry so all he can do is hope that his team knows what they are doing. Which IMO is kind of the summary of Feaster's tenure..... the good he did was listen to his experts, the bad is he had to listen to his experts.... and as a result you saw a lot of flip flopping as he is trying to figure out which direction to be a yes-man in. Which I guess is kind of funny, that that summation of all his screw ups forced us to rebuild and get a few top picks. If Feaster was a little better at his job, we might still be stuck with Iginla and trying to make the playoffs.
|
True, and how much Feaster knew about talent without advice wasn't really determined. I guess that brings into question what you want in a GM. I always thought it was kind of cool having someone such as Feaster with a legal background. He walked into talks with agents with far more knowledge than most GMs and you have to imagine that he has a different way of approaching trade negotiations than other GMs do. Question is, is that a bad thing? I never saw it as such, because he also did a great job surrounding himself with people he trusted and picking the pieces of advice he wanted to act on.
Our current regime has a GM with 2 AGMs advising him the scouting staff offering the same advice Feaster received and Burke above him as a sounding board. I don't have a problem with the GM being the funnel of all of that intel and advice, he just needs to be good at managing that which I'm saying think Feaster was.
Let me put it another way.
Jobs:
Ives:
