Brian Burke and the Business of NHL Event

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Perhaps you've heard of a guy names Emile Poirier?
You kind of missed him in your trade evaluation.

I believe Poirier's success or failure should be credited to the scouts. I was focusing on Feaster's trade of Bouwmeester. That trade was for a mid 1st round pick. We did something later with the pick but that can be looked at as a seperate event that is influenced by completely different people. So in looking back and trying to judge it, I'm still judging it as a mid 1st round pick in terms of value and not the specific player we took. Clearly that was the most valuable part of the deal as it was a strong draft.

Perhaps we will be happy with Poirier for Bouw straight up at some point but Berra working out would make that deal a lot better. If neither Berra nor Cundari turn out then I think a different GM could've gotten more than just a 1st round pick at last deadline or this deadline for Bouwmeester.

[macrov]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I believe Poirier's success or failure should be credited to the scouts. I was focusing on Feaster's trade of Bouwmeester. That trade was for a mid 1st round pick. We did something later with the pick but that can be looked at as a seperate event that is influenced by completely different people. So in looking back and trying to judge it, I'm still judging it as a mid 1st round pick in terms of value and not the specific player we took. Clearly that was the most valuable part of the deal as it was a strong draft.

Perhaps we will be happy with Poirier for Bouw straight up at some point but Berra working out would make that deal a lot better. If neither Berra nor Cundari turn out then I think a different GM could've gotten more at last deadline or this deadline for Bouwmeester.

The trade was for a mid first round pick in a strong draft.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by macrov

The trade was for a mid first round pick in a strong draft.

Agreed. Plus two prospects named Berra and Cundari. Cundari isn't looking so great ATM but Berra still has some potential.

A different GM may have gotten a mid first round pick in a strong draft + a great prospect for Bouw.

[macrov]

Originally Posted by lifetimefan

You must not have watched any Flames games this season. The team is soft, despite having some not so small guys.

McGrattan (6.04)
size and grit, not much skill

Colborne (6.05)
size but he doesn't use it (no grit), some skill

Kanzig (6.07)
size, not much skill

Monahan (6.02)
good mix of all 3

Jones (6.02)
If this refers to Blair, he's soft and consistently on the IR. Tries hard, still fails.
If this refers to David, he's got size but is scared to give or take a hit & won't go to the dirty areas. Doesn't try hard, still fails.

Galiardi (6.02)
Has size and doesn't use it, just skates a lot.

O'Brien (6.03)
Probably the 2nd lowest hockey IQ on the team (and not by much), overplayed #7D that makes terrible decisions.

These guys might all be over 6' but 5 the 7 are soft, or not smart enough to be anything better than a liability. They don't protect the puck well, nor do they help to create space.

Feaster left this team in a dog's breakfast all over the kitchen floor, and Burke is going to need a shovel and a lot of garbage bags to clean it up.

Monahan and Colborne are probably the only guys who will survive the rebuild. The rest are roster filler courtesy of Feaster.

Which players were available to the flames via trade or free agency that came with size and skill?

Size and skill players are prohibitively expensive to acquire. The only way to acquire most of these players is by draft, or by trade by giving up very high end players and prospects.

IMO feaster did a decent job given the bare pipelines and the cap constraints. Name all the prospects drafted by Sutter since 2003 that feaster was able to insert into the line up?

I can't name any except Lance Bouma and Brodie. You can't blame Feaster for the current roster. Yes, he put in guys like Galiardi, Jones, etc. But he didnt have much choice...getting good players would have cost picks and prospects, and feaster wasn't going to trade away our future since we were a garbage team. So you really only have a choice of marginal nhlers who might be diamonds in the rough since they're cheap to acquire or are willing to come to a rebuilding team in ufa.

If in 5 years Porier, Kliminchuck, Jankowkski, Sieloff, Hanowski, Byron, Witherspoon, Kanzig, Gadreau, Granlund, Monahan, Berra, Ramo, Knight, Colborne, etc are all garbage...then you can blame feaster. But in all honesty, its way too early to judge him right now on his team building abilities.

The argument that he should have been fired for the RoR fiasco I buy. The other ones come across as having an opinion with very few objective results. And doing that is silly. Can we please stop the sillyness.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

^ a different gm SHOULD have gotten

Bouw trade was far worse than Iginla IMO

5 year extension vs Iggy doing a one year bid speaks to that

Go Burke !

[macrov]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Agreed. Plus two prospects named Berra and Cundari. Cundari isn't looking so great ATM but Berra still has some potential.

A different GM may have gotten a mid first round pick in a strong draft + a great prospect for Bouw.

He might have. He might not have. We don't know. All we have is Brian Burke saying he could have got more. And the tsn panel at the time of the trade suggesting the flames basicly got what was expected.

I'm not saying don't believe Burke. But also know Burkes going to slant things hisbway. He said that he doesn't mind a GM who has little experience because Burke can stop him from making mistakes. At the same time, he let feaster go for making bad trades (aka mistakes in an area where Burke has expertise). That is doubke talk. IMO its just as likely that Burke was just justifying that he wanted to hire his own guy. A guy who values what Burke values in terms of team building, but with a lot of scouting expertise.

And with Cundari and Berra...way too early to tell. Its like Byron; he looked bad last year. But if he plays 4 seasons in the NHL, it looks like a good trade for a second round pick based on the odds of finding an NHL player in the second round.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[getbak]

I really doubt the Flames could have received anything more in the Bouwmeester trade by retaining salary. The main point of retaining salary is to ensure that a team can take on a larger contract and still fit under the cap (there's also doing it to move an unmovable, over-paid asset, but Bouwmeester didn't fit into that category).

St Louis took on the full value of the contract without sending any NHL contracts back, so they obviously weren't concerned with saving cap space.

I would argue that if you have the cap space available to take on the full salary, it's not worth the cost to give up a better prospect just to save some money because the better prospect has more long-term potential value to your team.


If you're St Louis and you have to choose between (hypothetically) the trade as it was or having the Flames retain some of Bouwmeester's salary but giving up Rattie instead of Cundari, I think you're always going to keep Rattie and pay the full salary. If you assume that Rattie is the better long-term NHL prospect, it's better to keep him in your own system and pay a little higher salary to Bouw for the remaining year on his deal.


Now, that doesn't take into account that Burke may have been able to negotiate a better return than Feaster, but all things being equal, I don't think you're going to get a team with cap space to give up a better prospect just to save some cap space.

[Lobsterfreak]

[QUOTE=macrov;4575542]
And with Cundari and Berra...way too early to tell. Its like Byron; he looked bad last year. But if he plays 4 seasons in the NHL, it looks like a good trade for a second round pick based on the odds of finding an NHL player in the second round.

Good point! As well, rather than listening to some put Cundari under the bus, would prefer to watch him in a few NHL games 1st. Did well at the end of last season, why not give him another try. He is 2nd leading point getter for the Heat D, he leads in penalty minutes, throws truculent hits, maybe a a few games outside of the AHL environment is a better test..

[PeteMoss]

[QUOTE=Lobsterfreak;4575590]

Originally Posted by macrov

And with Cundari and Berra...way too early to tell. Its like Byron; he looked bad last year. But if he plays 4 seasons in the NHL, it looks like a good trade for a second round pick based on the odds of finding an NHL player in the second round.

Good point! As well, rather than listening to some put Cundari under the bus, would prefer to watch him in a few NHL games 1st. Did well at the end of last season, why not give him another try. He is 2nd leading point getter for the Heat D, he leads in penalty minutes, throws truculent hits, maybe a a few games outside of the AHL environment is a better test..

Probably true, but the fact he can't get up here and play right now over D.Smith or SOB (and Billins and Breen have both played as well this year) isn't exactly the best sign.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by macrov

I'm not saying don't believe Burke. But also know Burkes going to slant things hisbway. He said that he doesn't mind a GM who has little experience because Burke can stop him from making mistakes. At the same time, he let feaster go for making bad trades (aka mistakes in an area where Burke has expertise). That is doubke talk. IMO its just as likely that Burke was just justifying that he wanted to hire his own guy. A guy who values what Burke values in terms of team building, but with a lot of scouting expertise.

Bad trades might have been the evidence, not the cause. As I said, I have a feeling other teams around the NHL (and their GMs) just don't respect Feaster/Weisbrod...... and if you lose respect of your peers, its very very hard to get it back.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by getbak

I really doubt the Flames could have received anything more in the Bouwmeester trade by retaining salary. The main point of retaining salary is to ensure that a team can take on a larger contract and still fit under the cap (there's also doing it to move an unmovable, over-paid asset, but Bouwmeester didn't fit into that category).

St Louis took on the full value of the contract without sending any NHL contracts back, so they obviously weren't concerned with saving cap space.

I would argue that if you have the cap space available to take on the full salary, it's not worth the cost to give up a better prospect just to save some money because the better prospect has more long-term potential value to your team.


If you're St Louis and you have to choose between (hypothetically) the trade as it was or having the Flames retain some of Bouwmeester's salary but giving up Rattie instead of Cundari, I think you're always going to keep Rattie and pay the full salary. If you assume that Rattie is the better long-term NHL prospect, it's better to keep him in your own system and pay a little higher salary to Bouw for the remaining year on his deal.


Now, that doesn't take into account that Burke may have been able to negotiate a better return than Feaster, but all things being equal, I don't think you're going to get a team with cap space to give up a better prospect just to save some cap space.

Disagree. The Blues had to move Perron in a cap dump this summer that could have been avoided if the Flames ate half of Bouws deal. On top of that Feaster could no even get 2013 first without protection. When the trade was made the Blues were a bit on the bubble but went on a tear after and finished 4th. Had they missed the playoffs we get their 2014 pick. I think Jay wanted cap space this summer and refused to eat salary. He misjudged many things as flames GM which is why he got fired

[Vulcan]

So the new arena is going to be 91' wide. I wouldn't mind that, besides lowering the injuries, it would give us a home advantage if we built a team to take advantage.

Ownership might not like the added building expense though.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Bad trades might have been the evidence, not the cause. As I said, I have a feeling other teams around the NHL (and their GMs) just don't respect Feaster/Weisbrod...... and if you lose respect of your peers, its very very hard to get it back.

What the heck does respect have to do with player valuations and trades?

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So the new arena is going to be 91' wide. I wouldn't mind that, besides lowering the injuries, it would give us a home advantage if we built a team to take advantage.

Ownership might not like the added building expense though.

Is there not a specified size that all nhl rinks must meet? Or is there leeway

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Hugh Jahrmes

Is there not a specified size that all nhl rinks must meet? Or is there leeway

I guess you're right. I remember thinking that some of the old NHL rinks were of different sizes but I guess it's been standardized. While looking for info I found this though.

Liut played home games in two buildings that had quirks. It was too light in St. Louis and in Landover, Md., pucks, which are black, would come at him through a background of blue seats and a black roof. Neither place, however, compared to Calgary in terms of adjustments.

"Actually for me, it was Calgary (the Saddledome) because to me there was a glare to it more than just bright. It was super bright. I liked the old one (Stampede Corral). The one with the high boards, it didn't impact me, but I liked watching the little guys climbing over them," he said with a laugh.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=501626

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What the heck does respect have to do with player valuations and trades?

Maybe respect is not the best word but I know what he is trying to say. Feaster should have demanded more for our players instead of losing nearly every major trade he made (Regehr, Iggy, Bouw, Tangs) but it certainly appeared like he got worked over in all his deals because his peers knew he sucked at negotiating trades. The Cammy and Smid trades looked okay but he was dealing with 2 GM's that were equally as terrible

[CliffFletcher]

I don't think there's nearly as much negotiating or skill involved in NHL trades as fans think. Teams - not just the GM but several scouts and executives - have their collective valuation of each player. When teams pitch a trade, either their valuations match (and they can fit into the pieces into their salary structure) or they don't. This whole notion that you can get people to give up more than they want because you have some kind of special negotiating ability strikes me as fanciful thinking.

When it comes to trades, the only real differences between GMs are:

* How they rate the players involved.
* How pressing their needs are relative to the other party.

I don't think some GMs are better at trades than others. Some GMs are just better at evaluating players than others. And some are more patient (or have less external pressure on them) than others. I don't believe respect, reputation, or mad negotiation skillz factor into it.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think there's nearly as much negotiating or skill involved in NHL trades as fans think. Teams - not just the GM but several scouts and executives - have their collective valuation of each player. When teams pitch a trade, either their valuations match (and they can fit into the pieces into their salary structure) or they don't. This whole notion that you can get people to give up more than they want because you have some kind of special negotiating ability strikes me as fanciful thinking.

When it comes to trades, the only real differences between GMs are:

* How they rate the players involved.
* How pressing their needs are relative to the other party.

I don't think some GMs are better at trades than others. Some GMs are just better at evaluating players than others. And some are more patient (or have less external pressure on them) than others. I don't believe respect, reputation, or mad negotiation skillz factor into it.

While I agree with some of what you are saying I still think there is a fair bit of negotiation and selling involved with GM's as they make deals.

For instance a GM needs to have a good gauge of how badly they want one player or how badly they want to unload another. Had Feaster been trading Pommonville last year I highly doubt he gets the return Regier got and that has to do with his ability to negotiate a trade. I think Feaster left "money on the table" so to speak when making deals.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think there's nearly as much negotiating or skill involved in NHL trades as fans think. Teams - not just the GM but several scouts and executives - have their collective valuation of each player. When teams pitch a trade, either their valuations match (and they can fit into the pieces into their salary structure) or they don't. This whole notion that you can get people to give up more than they want because you have some kind of special negotiating ability strikes me as fanciful thinking.

When it comes to trades, the only real differences between GMs are:

* How they rate the players involved.
* How pressing their needs are relative to the other party.

I don't think some GMs are better at trades than others. Some GMs are just better at evaluating players than others. And some are more patient (or have less external pressure on them) than others. I don't believe respect, reputation, or mad negotiation skillz factor into it.

Well obviously one of those 2 bullets, or something else, was something Feaster was really bad at, cause thats what Brian Burke gave as a reason for firing Feaster. And Brian Burke came to that conclusion after talking to his peers around the NHL who all felt as though the Flames do not maximize their trade value of their players, and their drafting was not very good. This comes from a NHL executive from polling other NHL executives and GMs. This isn't a fan opinion, its the opinion around the GM. Couple this with remarks from sources saying Feaster/Weisbrod think they are smarter then everyone else and/or not very well liked, and the writing is on the wall.

I agree there really isn't much "negotiation" as people think, and I agree there probably isn't the same bartering you see in a Chinese supermarket. But if you know your peer (Feaster) is easy to take advantage of, your threshold for striking a deal is a lot lower.

[Vulcan]

I think a lot of GMs make up an old boys club. Deals happen between teams, GMs, that aren't available to all teams. IMO Feaster wasn't too high on this list.