[News] Feaster and Weisbrod relieved of duties. Burke will hire a new GM

[calgARI]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

My understanding was that Iggy's "list" included Boston initially, and so Feaster was working on trades with those teams. However, when it came down to it, Iggy basically threw the list out and would only accept a trade to Pittsburgh. I thought that was the generally-accepted version of what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Whatever it was that happened, Feaster should have gotten it in writing (legally binding) just the way he said he should have in the press conference.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by calgARI

But the issue as was made public wasn't that Iginla ultimately had the choice. Feaster directly insinuated that he had the deal worked out and Iginla balked specifically because he had not gotten the team approved ahead of time. No matter how much they respect him, Iginla would surely understand the desire of a team to get the team he would be traded to in advance not after deals had been negotiated. Feaster acknowledged he should have gotten it agreed to ahead of time; he did not say they let him choose out of respect. It was a mistake and a stupid one at that.

There is a lot of editorialising taking place in this re-presentation of information that was made public. In all the reports that I have seen about the issue, there are plenty of gaps, and AMPLE room for interpretation. I'm not absolving Feaster of his responsibility here, I'm merely pointing out that there was ALOT more going on than we know that certainly affected his handling of the trade; some of which cannot simply be dismissed as the product of incompetence.

Of course, I don't expect you to be able to see that clearly, given that you have had your opinion made up for a long time now, and don't seem to be capable of looking past your entrenched opinion to consider other alternative explanations.

[BigFlameDog]

One also has to consider, and rightfully so, that even if Iggy pulled a fast one and decided at the last minute not to go to anyone but the Penguins that Feaster would not just throw him under the bus and call that dick move what it is....a dick move.

I imagine everyone would have taken it real well if it came out that management demanded the list of teams in a written legal document from Iggy. Feaster would have been roasted even worse for not trusting the captain.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

My understanding was that Iggy's "list" included Boston initially, and so Feaster was working on trades with those teams. However, when it came down to it, Iggy basically threw the list out and would only accept a trade to Pittsburgh. I thought that was the generally-accepted version of what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't believe he threw out the list. When Feaster approached Iginla that a deal had been struck with Boston Iginla asked if they would talk to the Penguins one more time. I don't believe Feaster had a gun to his head to accept the Penguins offer and it's entirely possible he and Wisebrod liked Hanowski and Agostino and felt is was comparable to Boston's offer.

Duhatschek who is one of the more level headed media members was on 960 this morning and said that after the ROR fiasco that many around the league were surprised that Feaster wasn't immediately relieved of his duties that many were surprised that Burke didn't fire him sooner. It's really starting to look like he may never work in the NHL again which is kind of a shame because he could probably be valuable in an assistant or support role but what GM would ever hire him for that seeing how he ended up replacing the last two GM's he worked under? They were saying on the radio maybe he should look at going back to the AHL if he wants to work in hockey again.

[Phanuthier]

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.

Originally Posted by calgARI

Absolutely. I'm pretty sure Burke would have gotten Iginla to agree in advance to a list of teams so he could get some bargaining leverage. Extremely amateur move that he negotiated a deal with Boston before getting Iginla to fully agree to a trade there. Then he went on to publicly acknowledge his idiocy almost blaming the player. I guess it's just "academic" but Feaster proved himself totally incapable on multiple occasions. Should have been fired immediately after O'Reilly incident. No GM would have made some of the oversights he made.

Besides what ARI said, you can blame everyone but Feaster but at the end of the day, owners (Murray Edwards) realized that management needed a critical overview, and Brian Burke - through speaking with various people in the NHL - came to the conclusion that Feaster (a) did not get full value for his trades, and (b) drafting was not acceptable, that both Murray Edwards and Brian Burke came to the conclusion that Feaster was a bad enough GM that they needed to fire him. Directly from the horses mouth.

What is my opinion, is that after Kevin Lowe and Mike Milbury, Feaster will go down as the worst GM in the NHL in the past decade. 3 core players and a 2nd round pick..... waht will it net? Will any of them even become anything more then waiver wire material?

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

My understanding was that Iggy's "list" included Boston initially, and so Feaster was working on trades with those teams. However, when it came down to it, Iggy basically threw the list out and would only accept a trade to Pittsburgh. I thought that was the generally-accepted version of what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not really. From Iginla/Feaster's own mouth, Feaster said he had 2 options (Boston and Pittsburg) and Iginla said if he (Feaster) though both were good value, he would perfer Boston.

Saying that, Iginla cannot simply "(throw) out a list" if its a signed contract to waive a NMC. Its a legal document, which was the 2nd legal oversight by Feaster within a few weeks which is a very ironic mistake for a lawyer.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

If Brian Burke were GM at the time, I'd bet my life that we'd have a MUCH better return than Hanowski, Agostino and the other nobodies Feaster collected for our best assets.

How?

Do you think he could sweet-talked Pitt into giving more? How would that work? Talk them out of valuing their own assets? Tell them there's no deal if they don't throw in more? The Penguins would just laugh. Then no deal.

Do you think other teams were in the mix? If so, why would Feaster turn down a a better deal from those teams?

I'm really curious about how people think this wizardry of 'getting better deals' works.

[troutman]

Has Feaster commented on his dismissal yet?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

My understanding was that Iggy's "list" included Boston initially, and so Feaster was working on trades with those teams. However, when it came down to it, Iggy basically threw the list out and would only accept a trade to Pittsburgh. I thought that was the generally-accepted version of what happened? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pretty much. And then there's the fact that there was intense pressure from King and Edwards to make sure Iginla was happy with whatever happened. The return for Iginla is what happens when:

1) You move a player 2-3 years too late.
2) He has a full NMC.
3) He's a civic icon who is worshipped by ownership and upper management.

You're simply not going to get a great deal for a player in that situation.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How?

Do you think he could sweet-talked Pitt into giving more? How would that work? Talk them out of valuing their own assets? Tell them there's no deal if they don't throw in more? The Penguins would just laugh. Then no deal.

Do you think other teams were in the mix? If so, why would Feaster turn down a a better deal from those teams?

I'm really curious about how people think this wizardry of 'getting better deals' works.

When Iginla submitted his list of 4 teams, Feaster could have done what every other GM does - have Iginla sign a waiver to waive his NMC.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Pretty much. And then there's the fact that there was intense pressure from King and Edwards to make sure Iginla was happy with whatever happened. The return for Iginla is what happens when:

1) You move a player 2-3 years too late.
2) He has a full NMC.
3) He's a civic icon who is worshipped by ownership and upper management and GM.

You're simply not going to get a great deal for a player in that situation.

Fixed

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgARI

Whatever it was that happened, Feaster should have gotten it in writing (legally binding) just the way he said he should have in the press conference.

From what I recall from a media report at the time, Feaster was not allowed (by King and Edwards) to play hardball like that with Iginla. Because Iginla was such a special player in their hearts and in the hearts of all Calgarians, etc. etc.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From what I recall from a media report at the time, Feaster was not allowed (by King and Edwards) to play hardball like that with Iginla. Because Iginla was such a special player in their hearts and in the hearts of all Calgarians, etc. etc.

Can you provide any source? Link, who it was, etc.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

When Iginla submitted his list of 4 teams, Feaster could have done what every other GM does - have Iginla sign a waiver to waive his NMC.

Let's not pretend that every GM in the current NHL, or most GMs or even a very small handful of GMs have had to trade a player like Jarome Iginla. The whole situation was pretty unique. I doubt that it would have changed much under the tenure of another GM.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How?

Do you think he could sweet-talked Pitt into giving more? How would that work? Talk them out of valuing their own assets? Tell them there's no deal if they don't throw in more? The Penguins would just laugh. Then no deal.

Do you think other teams were in the mix? If so, why would Feaster turn down a a better deal from those teams?

I'm really curious about how people think this wizardry of 'getting better deals' works.

You've obviously never done a negotiation or played poker.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Let's not pretend that every GM in the current NHL, or most GMs or even a very small handful of GMs have had to trade a player like Jarome Iginla. The whole situation was pretty unique. I doubt that it would have changed much under the tenure of another GM.

Not that I agree, but even if you excuse that deal, how about how he botched the Regehr deal? Or Bouwmeester? Or even Brad Richards for Mike Smith+Jeff Halpern+Jussi Jokinen?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by troutman

Has Feaster commented on his dismissal yet?

I don't think Darryl Sutter has commented on his dismissal yet.


I assume that Feaster is still getting paid by the Flames, and we won't hear anything from him for as long as that's the case.

[calgARI]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is a lot of editorialising taking place in this re-presentation of information that was made public. In all the reports that I have seen about the issue, there are plenty of gaps, and AMPLE room for interpretation. I'm not absolving Feaster of his responsibility here, I'm merely pointing out that there was ALOT more going on than we know that certainly affected his handling of the trade; some of which cannot simply be dismissed as the product of incompetence.

Of course, I don't expect you to be able to see that clearly, given that you have had your opinion made up for a long time now, and don't seem to be capable of looking past your entrenched opinion to consider other alternative explanations.

Agree to disagree but saying I "don't seem capable" seems unnecessary. I don't think there is anything wrong with being unwilling to change my position on something. The evidence is just too strong against this guy. The O'Reilly incident alone is one of the worst non-Milbury/Snow cases of GM ineptitude I have ever seen in professional sports. And he took zero responsibility for it. Most of what he did indicated a very poor understanding of what it takes to run a team in this league successfully. I'm not going to apologize for feeling that way. You and others are welcome to disagree but as Feaster would say, it is "academic" at this point because the people making decisions felt he didn't do a good enough job to stay on.

[Flash Walken]

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.

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.

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:

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?

[Tinordi]

It's a pretty big stretch to say that ROR is all on Feaster. Ken King's and ownership's hands are all over that which explains why he wasn't let go sooner. Infact, I would be so bold to say that Feaster pursued ROR by direct orders from ownership and wasn't the primary culprit.

[calgARI]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Let's not pretend that every GM in the current NHL, or most GMs or even a very small handful of GMs have had to trade a player like Jarome Iginla. The whole situation was pretty unique. I doubt that it would have changed much under the tenure of another GM.

Maybe not but just about every GM in the league has traded a player who had a NMC. Furthermore, it isn't as if this thing just crept up on Feaster and he had 1 or 2 days to make it happen. Based on what is well documented, he had a couple of months. No excuse for botching anything process related that you have time to prepare for. Honestly, we can take losing a trade, but failing to be fully sensitive to process (particularly as a lawyer to boot) is unacceptable. And this was the case with O'Reilly as well. I just have no idea how someone who makes it to a position at that level could be so inept.