[Rumour] Flames ownership squashed Seguin to Flames

[Joborule]

If true this was wise by owners. Guessing on what it would take to get Seguin, it wouldn't be worth it.

[4oh3]

Sven is my favourite flame. I hope he never leaves calgary I know he's gonna be something special. I don't like sequin. I think he is a little bitch.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by 4oh3

Sven is my favourite flame. I hope he never leaves calgary I know he's gonna be something special. I don't like sequin. I think he is a little bitch.

I heard Sven is a little whinny bitch too with entitlement issues. I heard that's what led to him being sent down this past season.

They are both young, will likely grow out of it.

[nik-]

Wut?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Ro

I don't know about that. If there's more than 1 or 2 GMs in the league that could make a trade of this magnitude without running it by ownership first I'd be extremely surprised.

I am not sure why this is a "trade of this magnitude." Seguin makes similar money to Cammalieri and Wideman who are both worse players and older so it isn't like the deal is that big of a deal. They aren't trading an Iginla level player that maybe an owner would want to be included on because of the importance to the brand and legacy etc.

If Feaster needs to run routine deals by ownership that is pretty bad in my view. If they are squashing deals for any reason outside of not wanting to spend money to buyout a guy, not wanting to add a 100 million dollar deal or wanting to keep an all-time Icon then there is a big issue.

If 28 teams are having ownership review trades on the Tyler Seguin level then there are 28 teams doing something wrong and I would expect it is the Bruins and Hawks that would be the two teams not doing it based on results this season.

[Vinny01]

Flames would have had to give up their best young asset in Monahan and another top prospect in Gaudreau.

People that want to rebuild the right way should be pleased with this

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure why this is a "trade of this magnitude." Seguin makes similar money to Cammalieri and Wideman who are both worse players and older so it isn't like the deal is that big of a deal. They aren't trading an Iginla level player that maybe an owner would want to be included on because of the importance to the brand and legacy etc.

If Feaster needs to run routine deals by ownership that is pretty bad in my view. If they are squashing deals for any reason outside of not wanting to spend money to buyout a guy, not wanting to add a 100 million dollar deal or wanting to keep an all-time Icon then there is a big issue.

If 28 teams are having ownership review trades on the Tyler Seguin level then there are 28 teams doing something wrong and I would expect it is the Bruins and Hawks that would be the two teams not doing it based on results this season.

Because this isn't a routine deal. If we wanted Seguin, names like Baertschi and Monahan were going the other way. Plus more. If we were to make a deal, it would have dramatically altered the nature of the rebuild plan.

Plus, we don't know the context. We're talking about a Boston-based report with no collaboration. That writer doesn't know if there was a completed deal that ownership nixed, or if Feaster and co. were discussing options and formed a consensus that the cost of acquisition, plus cost of contract plus behavioural speculation made Seguin an undesirable target.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure why this is a "trade of this magnitude." Seguin makes similar money to Cammalieri and Wideman who are both worse players and older so it isn't like the deal is that big of a deal. They aren't trading an Iginla level player that maybe an owner would want to be included on because of the importance to the brand and legacy etc.

If Feaster needs to run routine deals by ownership that is pretty bad in my view. If they are squashing deals for any reason outside of not wanting to spend money to buyout a guy, not wanting to add a 100 million dollar deal or wanting to keep an all-time Icon then there is a big issue.

If 28 teams are having ownership review trades on the Tyler Seguin level then there are 28 teams doing something wrong and I would expect it is the Bruins and Hawks that would be the two teams not doing it based on results this season.

Trading a top 10 pick + for a player with a $6M salary is likely something that needs to be passed by ownership considering Feaster convinced ownership they need to rebuild. Trading the highest draft choice for a player does not entirely fit with the plan even though Seguin is young

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure why this is a "trade of this magnitude." Seguin makes similar money to Cammalieri and Wideman who are both worse players and older so it isn't like the deal is that big of a deal. They aren't trading an Iginla level player that maybe an owner would want to be included on because of the importance to the brand and legacy etc.

If Feaster needs to run routine deals by ownership that is pretty bad in my view. If they are squashing deals for any reason outside of not wanting to spend money to buyout a guy, not wanting to add a 100 million dollar deal or wanting to keep an all-time Icon then there is a big issue.

If 28 teams are having ownership review trades on the Tyler Seguin level then there are 28 teams doing something wrong and I would expect it is the Bruins and Hawks that would be the two teams not doing it based on results this season.

Like the other two posts below this - you've got to be kidding me! Hardly even comparable to Cammy. Cammy was traded for Borque. Like others have said Seguin would have been traded for the potential future of the franchise. Borque wasn't that. Money likely wasn't as much a concern as the asking price.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I heard Sven is a little whinny bitch too with entitlement issues. I heard that's what led to him being sent down this past season.

They are both young, will likely grow out of it.

Green text?

Baertschi did not turn pro until this season. He was sent down last season, because as a non-pro, he could only play on an emergency basis. It was a smart move to send him down anyways, as otherwise would we would have burned a year of RFA status for absolutely no reason.

He spent much this year injured. And was called up at the end of the season, and played the rest of the season, all 20 games. He was not sent down this season or last.

[squirtle]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I heard Sven is a little whinny bitch too with entitlement issues. I heard that's what led to him being sent down this past season.

They are both young, will likely grow out of it.

I have a hard time believing that Baertschi has "entitlement issues".

We're talking about the same kid that didn't take his original number #27 when he joined the flames full-time because he felt "bad" that some flames fans had already purchased #47 jerseys

[moon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because this isn't a routine deal. If we wanted Seguin, names like Baertschi and Monahan were going the other way. Plus more. If we were to make a deal, it would have dramatically altered the nature of the rebuild plan.

Routine deal in the sense that it doesn't include crazy money, doesn't include the owner paying for a guy to not play for the Flames, doesn't include a player that is bigger than just what occurs on the ice (i.e. Iginla, Crosby, Alfredsson etc.).

Yes it is a much bigger deal in terms of the hockey assets but I don't want Murray Edwards having a say in whether we deal picks or prospects. That is why he hired Jay Feaster. That is why you have a GM. If you don't like the moves the GM is making fire him, don't get involved in day to day operations like that.

Plus, we don't know the context. We're talking about a Boston-based report with no collaboration. That writer doesn't know if there was a completed deal that ownership nixed, or if Feaster and co. were discussing options and formed a consensus that the cost of acquisition, plus cost of contract plus behavioural speculation made Seguin an undesirable target.

I think it is a bogus report and don't put any stock into it. I was talking more of a general I don't think ownership should get involved in deals like this.

[moon]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Like the other two posts below this - you've got to be kidding me! Hardly even comparable to Cammy. Cammy was traded for Borque. Like others have said Seguin would have been traded for the potential future of the franchise. Borque wasn't that. Money likely wasn't as much a concern as the asking price.

Sure it is the same as Cammy from an owners perspective because they make similar money and that is what an owner should be concerned about the money he is paying.

He shouldn't be concerned about hockey assets as he isn't qualified to do that and he has hired others to do so.

[Zulu29]

Pretty sure the Sven being entitled post was sarcasm at the poster saying Seguin having off ice issues.

Had the deal been Backlund, Gaudreau and a 2nd for Seguin + cap dump, I'd be all over it. But if it included the 6th (Monahan) Sven, Brodie or next years 1st then no way, very happy I got shot down.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by moon

Yes it is a much bigger deal in terms of the hockey assets but I don't want Murray Edwards having a say in whether we deal picks or prospects. That is why he hired Jay Feaster. That is why you have a GM. If you don't like the moves the GM is making fire him, don't get involved in day to day operations like that.

Not that I believe the report but if the Flames and Bruins were talking about swapping Seguin for Monahan + then I think that is a good time for the owners to step in and decide who they would rather have as the face of the franchise.

Monahan looks like a great future captain.
If you believe the rumours, Seguin looks like a drunken disaster.

The owners should most certainly be engaged when it comes to a decision as big as selecting which player(s) are going to be the face of the franchise.

I doubt there are very many GMs that get free reign to make blockbuster trades.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by moon

Sure it is the same as Cammy from an owners perspective because they make similar money and that is what an owner should be concerned about the money he is paying.

He shouldn't be concerned about hockey assets as he isn't qualified to do that and he has hired others to do so.

It's a hockey team that plays in a hockey league. Their number #1 concern should be hockey assets and doing something to jeprodize those hockey assets for the next 10 years should absolutly be a MASSIVE concern.

[moon]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

It's a hockey team that plays in a hockey league. Their number #1 concern should be hockey assets and doing something to jeprodize those hockey assets for the next 10 years should absolutly be a MASSIVE concern.

Sure I just think that concern should be handled by the guys who are paid for their hockey expertise not guys who are rich enough to buy a team with no history of hockey assessment/roster building.

[PIMking]

Kid sounds like another Dan Ryder, tons of talent but ready to explode out of nowhere

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Kid sounds like another Dan Ryder, tons of talent but ready to explode out of nowhere

That's a little extreme. It sounds like he likes to party too much, not wave pistols at store clerks.

[Enoch Root]

First of all, it's a rumour.

Second, even if it is true, the fact that they would veto a trade is not meddling. It is not 'tying Feaster's hands.'

It's their money. The whole idea of a veto is that there is someone (Feaster) responsible for making decisions. However the owners retain the right to veto a deal if there is something they don't like about it. That is completely normal and does not undermine the authority of the person responsible.