[Rumour] Dowbiggin is reporting a new head of hockey ops

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

1. Freddy Modin trade

Feaster admitted this was a mistake, but I think we can all agree that it was a very, very minor one.

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

2. Babchuck signing

Yeah, this didn't work out as planned at all, but it was a re-signing and cost us nothing asset wise (yes, it cost the owners $5 million over two years for press box fodder, if it doesn't bother them, why should it bother any of us?)....and really, Anton had 27 points in 65 games with the Flames that season which was better offensive production than any defenseman we had on the roster that year except for Gio. Who wouldn't have re-signed him?

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

3. Jankowski draft (might actually be good, but definitely off the board)

Way too early to call this good or bad, shouldn't be on your list in any way, shape or form. Plus, it wasn't THAT off the board....if the Flames hadn't picked Jankowski at 21, he reportedly would have been gone by the end of the first round....IE New Jersey or Vancouver had interest in him IIRC.

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

4. ROR debacle

Covered in my earlier post. Trying to fulfill ownership's mantra while at the same time adding a piece that would still help us for years to come, and would have in no way prevented us from blowing it up had the addition of O'Reilly not helped us into the playoffs. As for the whole "we'd have lost him to waivers" debate, well we will now never know for sure how that would have played out, but the wording in the CBA at the time clearly favored the Flames.

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

5. Iginla/Boston saga

This was disappointing, but not having the benefit of being behind the scenes, it's really hard to point the finger at anyone in this instance. Maybe Boston should work on fixing the loose lips they seem to have amongst their upper management group, maybe Feaster should have gotten Iggy to sign off on his list, preventing any "backsies" scenarios, or maybe Iginla refused to sign off on said list, basically tying Feaster's hands in the process.

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

6. Tanguay contract

Again, like Babchuk, didn't cost us anything and the cap hit is very fair for a 50-70 point winger. The only bad thing about it is the term, and that's yet to be determined. We'll have to see how things play out.....but given the "win with Iggy" mandate, Feaster had no choice but to get Tanguay to put ink to paper, and to keep the cap hit low, he had to offer term.

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

7. Brad Richards almost mega deal

Also covered in my earlier post.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Again, like Babchuk, didn't cost us anything and the cap hit is very fair for a 50-70 point winger. The only bad thing about it is the term, and that's yet to be determined. We'll have to see how things play out.....but given the "win with Iggy" mandate, Feaster had no choice but to get Tanguay to put ink to paper, and to keep the cap hit low, he had to offer term.

Feaster is such a brilliant mind that he has since stated that during Tanguay's exit interview Tanguay revealed to him that he wants no part of a rebuild thus devaluing him even more than his disinterested play. Solid piece of GM'ing there.

I don't mind Feaster's draft record (during his Flames tenure) but his mouth gets him in trouble.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

Feester is such a brilliant mind that he has since stated that during Tanguay's exit interview he wants no part of a rebuild thus devaluing him even more than his disinterested play. Solid piece of GM'ing there.

I don't mind Feester's draft record but his mouth gets him in trouble.

Some fans sure overestimate how much impact what Feaster says in a season ticket holder meeting will have on a players trade value. It has pretty much no impact. Some GM's will expect us to dump another couple vets during our rebuild, us wanting to get rid of Tanguay shouldn't surprise anyone in the league. What will affect Tanguay's trade value is how other teams scouts, AGMs and GMs think about him and his contract. It is silly to suggest that Feaster's comments in a season ticket holder meeting have any meaningful impact on Tanguay's trade value.

[Azhouse]

JMHO bro. If you are looking to move the player you do not need to state that he no longer wants to be on your team.

[moon]

The "Sutter Mess" is such a BS excuse. Feaster was left with two elite players and some valuable secondary players that could have easily been moved for a lot of assets to speed up any rebuild, left with a team clearly in need of a rebuild and an easy fall guy in Sutter to blame the losing on and left with a team with a huge fanbase, rich owners and tons of season ticketholders that would make surviving a rebuild easy.

Instead he made awful trades, held on to assets to the point they got us nothing or next to nothing, made bad shortsighted signings, continually missed read the team and tried to sell the team using moronic buzz words and phrases.

The owner mandate/mantra may be the only bigger BS than the Sutter mess as Feaster said he left his other job due to owner meddling so if he lets ownership come again dictate his GM'ing then he is a moron who is an awful GM.

The fact that the only thing people can try and point to as good moves is maybe draft picks which look at best to be average amongst NHL teams over that time points to just how awful a job that Feaster has done.

The fact that people think with an elite Kipper and Iginla and a year removed from the play-offs that this team was close to the joke that it is now is laughable.

Throw in the pathetic job Feaster did in TB and it is mindblowing that anyone can think he should stay on. He is on his second stint of running a team into the ground while making 0 good moves in 2.5 years and yet it is always everyone elses fault but Lowe err I mean Feaster, sorry easy to confuse the two and the sychophants that defend them in each city.

[moon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

An NHL GMs duties, in order of importance:

1) Surround himself with good off-ice people and manage them effectively.
2) Draft and develop assets.
3) Manage the cap.
4) Make trades and signings to address weaknesses.

Sutter was poor at 1 (Sutter family cronies), terrible at 2, poor at 3, and pretty decent at 4. Overall, a big failure who left a smoking wreck of a team when he was fired.

Sutter was much, much better at any of those things than Feaster has been.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I find it strange that Feaster already seems like basically a "hockey ops vp" and not a GM already, and yet we hire another?

Feaster has basically said he's not a hockey guy, so why not put him in a position befitting his skillset, which seems to be assembling hockey guys, not being one?

Would prefer to have Feaster go to King's role, which I think would fit him just fine, and hire an actual GM or promote Weisbrod. As it is, hard to tell the difference between Feaster and Shanny's roles.

Couldn't agree more with this - I've been talking about this to anyone who might listen every since Darryl was let go.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by moon

Sutter was much, much better at any of those things than Feaster has been.

That's not really true. Let's take cap management for example.

Sutter failed badly at this. The Wayne Primeau deal is a prime example where we had to give up a 2nd to get rid of Primeau to fit under the cap. We had guys who were overpriced for their role (Sarich 3.6 million for a depth defenseman, Staios 2.7 million for a depth defenseman.) Sutter moves Phaneuf presumably partially due to cap reasons and then gets players who actually make our cap situation as bad or worse in White, Stajan and Hagman. He then acquires Kotalik's complete albatross of a contract which handicaps us later on and makes the Regehr trade much worse.

Sutter failed horribly at managing the cap late in his tenure. Acquiring or signing too many mediocre players (Sarich, Staios, Hagman, Kotalik, Stajan, etc) who were making millions and providing little value on ice.

Sutter's drafting was mediocre. Sutter's development was poor.

As for surrounding himself with hockey people there are lots of rumours that Sutter had issues delegating properly. Either his trading sucked late in his tenure or he had surrounded himself with poor pro scouting. Don't see how Sutter gets a higher grade there.

[kyuss275]

Don't see how some can stick up for Feaster. In his own words he has said that he misjudged this team. For me that alone is unacceptable.

Even if you buy into that he followed ownerships path, he did a horrible job. He took a 9th place team, added 2 high priced vets , a coach of his choice, and made the team into one of the worst in the NHL.

I have said this before and i will say it again, either Feaster is a spineless jeelyfish and can't tell ownership what they need to do, or he is incompetent. Either way he should not be a GM.

Not to mention it also looks like his main duty is to do contracts and agents seem to be able to take him to town on less than average players.

The best thing about Feaster is that he is smart enough to know that he knows nothing about scouting and lets his AGM and scouts do the work.

[Flash Walken]

You're reaching if you're trying to sell the Phaneuf deal as anything to do with the cap.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're reaching if you're trying to sell the Phaneuf deal as anything to do with the cap.

And you're reaching if you're trying to sell that deal as being cap irrelevant. We ended up having to waive Hagman to get rid of his salary. Until Stajan's recent resurgence we were paying our 4th line centre 3.5 million. That has everything to do with cap management no? I may have overemphasized the role the cap had in making the deal but the players we got back show horrible cap management. Hagman was a 3rd/4th liner or a scratch for a lot of his tenure and we paid 3 million a season for that. Stajan was a 3rd/4th liner or a scratch for a lot of his tenure and we paid 3.5 million for that.

So yeah the Phaneuf trade and who Sutter chose to get back is very applicable to his cap managment or lack thereof. If Sutter had traded Phaneuf for a top prospect it would've been great cap management. Instead we got a couple overpriced depth players and a serviceable #4-6 defenseman. That trade is part of the reason we were in cap hell when Feaster took over. The Kotalik trade is another part. Sutter had abysmal cap management near the end of his tenure and it is highlighted by his two abysmal trades (Phaneuf deal, Jokinen +Prust for Higgins + Kotalik).

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That's not really true. Let's take cap management for example.

Sutter failed badly at this. The Wayne Primeau deal is a prime example where we had to give up a 2nd to get rid of Primeau to fit under the cap. We had guys who were overpriced for their role (Sarich 3.6 million for a depth defenseman, Staios 2.7 million for a depth defenseman.) Sutter moves Phaneuf presumably partially due to cap reasons and then gets players who actually make our cap situation as bad or worse in White, Stajan and Hagman. He then acquires Kotalik's complete albatross of a contract which handicaps us later on and makes the Regehr trade much worse.

The Regehr trade is 100% on Feaster not Sutter and the Sutter "cap issues" never hurt us on the ice or in terms of wins and losses. I would much rather take a team like Sutters making the play-offs and competing than the big cap hit teams of Feasters sucking bad and missing out every year.

Sutter's drafting was mediocre. Sutter's development was poor.

Feasters has been as bad or worse. Haven't really seen yet but it doesn't look promising. Brodie, backlund, Reinhart are all Sutter draft picks that people gush over now.

Certainly Sutter didn't do this any worse than Feaster and considering the point at which team was at (Sutter a contending team, Feaster a rebuilding team) you would think this should be a much bigger strength for Feaster having better picks and more space to develop young guys.

As for surrounding himself with hockey people there are lots of rumours that Sutter had issues delegating properly. Either his trading sucked late in his tenure or he had surrounded himself with poor pro scouting. Don't see how Sutter gets a higher grade there.

The guys Sutter brought in (outside of Feaster) are light years better than the Feaster crew. Brent, Keenan and Playfair are all much better coaches than Hartley. Weisbrod has shown nothing other than being a guy in love with American College kids that can't play worth a damn and the pro scouts aren't exactly uncovering great players in trades or FA signings for Feaster either.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by shermanator

Lots of talk about Nill, but there are a few other AGM's out there that have been impressive, namely Ron Hextall and Paul Fenton. Why no love for them?

Fenton is exactly what this franchise needs. That's why we won't get him.

[gunnner]

Covered in my earlier post. Trying to fulfill ownership's mantra while at the same time adding a piece that would still help us for years to come, and would have in no way prevented us from blowing it up had the addition of O'Reilly not helped us into the playoffs. As for the whole "we'd have lost him to waivers" debate, well we will now never know for sure how that would have played out, but the wording in the CBA at the time clearly favored the Flames.




This was disappointing, but not having the benefit of being behind the scenes, it's really hard to point the finger at anyone in this instance. Maybe Boston should work on fixing the loose lips they seem to have amongst their upper management group, maybe Feaster should have gotten Iggy to sign off on his list, preventing any "backsies" scenarios, or maybe Iginla refused to sign off on said list, basically tying Feaster's hands in the process.




Again, like Babchuk, didn't cost us anything and the cap hit is very fair for a 50-70 point winger. The only bad thing about it is the term, and that's yet to be determined. We'll have to see how things play out.....but given the "win with Iggy" mandate, Feaster had no choice but to get Tanguay to put ink to paper, and to keep the cap hit low, he had to offer term.




Also covered in my earlier post.[/QUOTE]

1-3 maybe minor mistakes but are compelling evidence of a bad GM. 4-5 are clear screw ups, worthy of dismissal in themselves in my opinion. The team seems to have drafted better the last 3 years under Feaster. Still, I will welcome a new GM with open arms.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Agree to disagree as we often do

[ClubFlames]

Originally Posted by moon

The "Sutter Mess" is such a BS excuse. Feaster was left with two elite players and some valuable secondary players that could have easily been moved for a lot of assets to speed up any rebuild, left with a team clearly in need of a rebuild and an easy fall guy in Sutter to blame the losing on and left with a team with a huge fanbase, rich owners and tons of season ticketholders that would make surviving a rebuild easy.

Instead he made awful trades, held on to assets to the point they got us nothing or next to nothing, made bad shortsighted signings, continually missed read the team and tried to sell the team using moronic buzz words and phrases.

The owner mandate/mantra may be the only bigger BS than the Sutter mess as Feaster said he left his other job due to owner meddling so if he lets ownership come again dictate his GM'ing then he is a moron who is an awful GM.

The fact that the only thing people can try and point to as good moves is maybe draft picks which look at best to be average amongst NHL teams over that time points to just how awful a job that Feaster has done.

The fact that people think with an elite Kipper and Iginla and a year removed from the play-offs that this team was close to the joke that it is now is laughable.

Throw in the pathetic job Feaster did in TB and it is mindblowing that anyone can think he should stay on. He is on his second stint of running a team into the ground while making 0 good moves in 2.5 years and yet it is always everyone elses fault but Lowe err I mean Feaster, sorry easy to confuse the two and the sychophants that defend them in each city.

Why is the Sutter mess and Ownership mandate BS? Because you said so?Bob Mckenzie has himself said that Calgary owners are the most "hands-on" owners in the league. As for Sutter mess, the draft results speak for themselves where in his last 5 drafts there was only player who had played more than 100 NHL games until he was fired in 2010 and that was Dion Phaneuf who he eventually traded for a garbage return.

So Feaster inherited 2 elite players? You're saying that like those elite players were in the peaks of their career. They were already on a decline, and how do you know that they didn't block trade offers when Feaster took over which weren't made public? Or ownership just didn't want them traded? Just like Kipper didn't want to move this season and how Iginla blocked the Boston trade, maybe they have done that before this season too when there were deals on the table and that just wasn't made public.

Our draft is average now because it was poor when Sutter left. As for Feaster with the Tampa Bay situation, he doesn't have owners fighting against each other here in Calgary where the league has to step in to solve the issue. Way to call him a moron for something like that.

[Flash Walken]

@FDW

Yeah, well, I agree entirely with your second point, but that's not the point you were initially making to come up with examples of sutter and his poor cap management.

The Phaneuf trade is bad. Inarguable. Phaneuf's cap hit had essentially nothing to do with his trade though.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by moon

The Regehr trade is 100% on Feaster not Sutter and the Sutter "cap issues" never hurt us on the ice or in terms of wins and losses. I would much rather take a team like Sutters making the play-offs and competing than the big cap hit teams of Feasters sucking bad and missing out every year.

Except when the Flames couldn't ice a full line up due to being too close to the cap.

Feasters has been as bad or worse. Haven't really seen yet but it doesn't look promising. Brodie, backlund, Reinhart are all Sutter draft picks that people gush over now.

Feaster hasn't been amazing but he has yet to really make any sort of impact on this organization one way or the other. One could argue he should have rebuilt sooner, but I won't blame him for trying to win with arguably the most important player in franchise history.

Certainly Sutter didn't do this any worse than Feaster and considering the point at which team was at (Sutter a contending team, Feaster a rebuilding team) you would think this should be a much bigger strength for Feaster having better picks and more space to develop young guys.

Sutter took over a team just entering their prime. Feaster inherited a much older team in cap troubles. I don't think you can really argue one has been better than the other. Sutter tried to win now and failed. Feaster also tried to win now and also failed, but has invested more resources in drafting and developing. Only time will tell if Feaster made some right moves.

The guys Sutter brought in (outside of Feaster) are light years better than the Feaster crew. Brent, Keenan and Playfair are all much better coaches than Hartley. Weisbrod has shown nothing other than being a guy in love with American College kids that can't play worth a damn and the pro scouts aren't exactly uncovering great players in trades or FA signings for Feaster either.

I like Brent and Playfair but Sutter didn't really seem to listen to them. I thought Kennan was pretty terrible and his handling of Phaneuf stunted him into a shell of what he could have been.

Hartley has had 1 shortened season so it's far to early to judge him, but I like his attitude and willingness to play young players and give them responsibility. Weisbrod draft picks are still years away, so again it's far to early to judge him, but he comes from a top organization in Boston, and was around while they were building the team that is now in the Stanley Cup finals for the second time in 3 years.

The Flames current management isn't perfect, and they're not beyond criticism but I'd hardly say they're setting this franchise back 10 years, ala Craig Button or Darryl Sutter at the end of his tenure.

10 years from now I doubt we are all sitting around singing the praises of Jay Feaster, but we may look back on him as the guy who stopped the bleeding and started putting in a solid foundation.

[kyuss275]

I find it odd when posters talk about Feaster being an adequate gm, the only thing they seem to compare him to is a a former GM that got fired.

How about we compare Feaster to the other 29 GM's working in the NHl today and not a Gm that was not only fired, but looks like he was not offered another GM role after being fired.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by ClubFlames

Why is the Sutter mess and Ownership mandate BS? Because you said so?Bob Mckenzie has himself said that Calgary owners are the most "hands-on" owners in the league. As for Sutter mess, the draft results speak for themselves where in his last 5 drafts there was only player who had played more than 100 NHL games until he was fired in 2010 and that was Dion Phaneuf who he eventually traded for a garbage return.

So Feaster inherited 2 elite players? You're saying that like those elite players were in the peaks of their career. They were already on a decline, and how do you know that they didn't block trade offers when Feaster took over which weren't made public? Or ownership just didn't want them traded? Just like Kipper didn't want to move this season and how Iginla blocked the Boston trade, maybe they have done that before this season too when there were deals on the table and that just wasn't made public.

Agreed. Ran out of thanks.