Feaster's end of the season press conference at 12 noon

[kermitology]

Am I the only person who thinks that compliance buy outs should only be for teams that are over the cap?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Show me when a team has traded down from a top 4 position, then show me how well it worked out for them.

You act like GM's haven't made mistakes, and won't continue to make them in the future. Stop getting so smarmy when people are discussing things you don't like. Get over it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's pretty rare. The last time a team that had a top 10 draft pick traded down was 5 years ago.

Also pretty rare that the top 8 players of a draft are as good as the ones available this year. Combine that with the players being close in ability and you could see some movement in the top 8 as teams jockey to end up with a prospect at the position they desire most.

In particular with Nurse being potentially very high on some team's lists and being the only defenceman in the top 8 besides Jones we may see some movement with teams who target him.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Am I the only person who thinks that compliance buy outs should only be for teams that are over the cap?

No, certainly not. That gives an advantage to teams who've made bigger mistakes, it make no sense.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's pretty rare. The last time a team that had a top 10 draft pick traded down was 5 years ago.

Oh I agree that it is rare, but it does happen and can happen. And happened for less than the cost that Tinordi is talking about. it's been covered before and the cost to move up is usually less (i.e adding a third round pick to move up a couple spots). It is absolutely not out of the question to see a team move up three spots if you added the Pittsburgh pick. Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Show me when a team has traded down from a top 4 position, then show me how well it worked out for them.

Things never ever happen for the first time. I highly doubt a team will trade out out of the top 4 either, but you don't have to be such a condescending dink about it.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

4 that I think the Flames are referencing are the obvious 3 and Lindholm. Just basing that off what they said about "that swedish kid" at the last draft.

Care to elaborate, do not recall anything about Lindholm last year.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Show me when a team has traded down from a top 4 position, then show me how well it worked out for them.

I suppose Jay Feaster did it with the Pitkanen pick and Fedotenko....which remarkably was a trade that didn't go as badly for him as it should have

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Am I the only person who thinks that compliance buy outs should only be for teams that are over the cap?

I think the original intent of the compliance buyouts were to ease the transition for teams with the cap being lowered. But teams that aren't concerned about that are taking advantage to rid themselves of certain "regrets".

I think an NHL team that is below the cap (either the current cap or next years ~$64M cap) can make a colorful argument that compliance buyouts of certain "bad contracts" is in the spirit of the original intent of the compliance buyout because it allows them to spend money on other players.

Also, teams' spending and cap situation is so fluid with the ability to trade, sign, waive, etc players that it would be tough to definitively divide those teams that are using the buyouts within the original spirit of the provision and those that are getting rid of dead weight.

So, I think any team should be able to do what they want with the buyouts - over the cap or not.

[howard_the_duck]

The '4 franchise players in this draft' is such a silly thing to reveal IMO. But that's how Feaster operates.

Sure it puts teams on alert you could be looking to move up, but wouldn't that add to the price to acquire?

"Jay, why would I trade you our first round pick at 4th overall, which you say will net us a franchise player, for your 1st + Curtis Glencross?"

Just using that as an example, but seems foolish to openly reveal your cards like that.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You act like GM's haven't made mistakes, and won't continue to make them in the future. Stop getting so smarmy when people are discussing things you don't like. Get over it.

So you admit then that it's very rare, and when it happens it rarely works out? Ok that's my point that talk of trading up is wishful thinking. That justifying how we could trade up is basically just hoping some other team makes a mistake. I guess we're used to seeing a management team make mistakes but in today's NHL those draft mistakes are exceedingly rare.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Tinordi: You speak as though no team has never traded out of their top draft position ever. Like it is incredulous to think there is that possibility. I get your point but it happens and can happen.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Show me when a team has traded down from a top 4 position, then show me how well it worked out for them.

Who are you quoting?

Did you just make up a post in order to reply to something you made up?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

The '4 franchise players in this draft' is such a silly thing to reveal IMO. But that's how Feaster operates.

Sure it puts teams on alert you could be looking to move up, but wouldn't that add to the price to acquire?

"Jay, why would I trade you our first round pick at 4th overall, which you say will net us a franchise player, for your 1st + Curtis Glencross?"

Just using that as an example, but seems foolish to openly reveal your cards like that.

...uh, it's pretty widely known that there are 4 elite prospects at the top of the draft this year.

It's not like Jay is the only one who knows it.

I can't believe you're actually criticizing him for that. That is ridiculous.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who are you quoting?

Did you just make up a post in order to reply to something you made up?

You're going off the rails again. Keep it to talking hockey.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who are you quoting?

Did you just make up a post in order to reply to something you made up?

"twas my post.

[GGG]

I see Colorado as the most obvious choice to move down for nurse. The only other team in the top 6 that might take Nurse is Carolina. So if Colorado wants a defensemen and Carolina wins the lottery then if would make a lot of sense for Colorado to trade down from 3 to 6 to grab nurse plus the Pitt 1st.

But this is clearly dependant on a team wanting a defensemen rather than BPA.

I would be willing to give up to Glencross (a guy Tampa would utilize well) or the Pitt first to move from 6 to 3 or 4. I wouldn't give up both first round picks.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I think a buyout would be done mostly to get get a little size and grit upfront. With Hudler, Tanguay, Cammalleri, Stajan, Baerstchi, Stempniak, Backlund, and hopefully Horak next year in the top 9, we need size and grit.

Glencross is the only guy we have right now that can fill that roll.

I don't disagree but I think we could get fairly decent value for Tanguay and even Stajan if he continues to play well at the beginning of next season. I guess I don't see the point of wasting money when we could accomplish the same thing with trades.

Do you really think that Tangs can't fetch you at least a 2nd?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GGG

I see Colorado as the most obvious choice to move down for nurse. The only other team in the top 6 that might take Nurse is Carolina. So if Colorado wants a defensemen and Carolina wins the lottery then if would make a lot of sense for Colorado to trade down from 3 to 6 to grab nurse plus the Pitt 1st.

But this is clearly dependant on a team wanting a defensemen rather than BPA.

I would be willing to give up to Glencross (a guy Tampa would utilize well) or the Pitt first to move from 6 to 3 or 4. I wouldn't give up both first round picks.

I see them as making a pretty strong play to select Drouin. They don't have a scoring LW.

Drouin - Duchene - Landeskog
? - O'Reilly - Downie
McGinn - Stastny - Jones

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

The '4 franchise players in this draft' is such a silly thing to reveal IMO. But that's how Feaster operates.

Just using that as an example, but seems foolish to openly reveal your cards like that.

The Flames must be mad that various scouting services have been saying there are 4 guys at the head of this draft followed by another group of 4 excellent guys. Damn those scouts across the league for revealing the Flames secret analysis!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by dammage79

"twas my post.

Where?