Brian Burke and the Business of NHL Event

[Flash Walken]

I agree and disagree with Cliff.

Reducing trades down to talent evaluation and asset cost is too simplistic.

A competent general manager, like any negotiator, knows when and how to apply leverage.

While there might be similar valuations on both sides, a competent manager will take advantage of a less competent manager when applying said leverage. Ray Shero understood the leverage he had over the organization and used it accordingly. That leverage could be the time factor, asset loss factor, or what I think, is a talent evaluation blindspot.

I think that's why some guys have better trade records than others; the ability to see what it is the other guy isn't seeing. That shows itself when you pick up a great player for relatively little return, but it also presents itself by understanding the motivation of the trading party and providing them with what they need to feel as if they've won the talent evaluation.

Shero, Regier, Jarmo, saw Feaster coming a mile off, as did GMs before him with Button and Sutter.

No, it's not as simple as soothsaying a guy, but, understanding the weakness of the management you're dealing with on the other end of the phone is important leverage in a trade negotiation because it allows you to play to that weakness.

[browna]

^
Let's also not forget the relationship these GM's have with agents, who help influence clients, and the in general reputation they have among other GM's as well.

A trade is a trade, but all things being equal, your reputation as a no-nonsense guy (or a smooth talker/flip flopper/all talk no action) around the league and the relationship/trust you have with your counterpart, is often the GM's you may tend to gravitate to first or avoid...again, all things equal.

I remember when Sutter went to the BOG meetings...there was tweets that he was hanging out with Burke, Lou, and Jim Rutherford. Those guys play it pretty close to the vest and don't have a press lackie around to float out rumors to do their work for them like others do...chances are those guys would "prefer" all things being equal, to deal with each other, trusting them more than some of the other GM's.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

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.

I'd take Burke's comments about Feaster with a grain of salt. For all we know, he talked with Nonis over the phone once and Nonis said he thought the Wings offer for Bouwmeester was better than the Blues. I wouldn't call that kind of thing polling.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd take Burke's comments about Feaster with a grain of salt. For all we know, he talked with Nonis over the phone once and Nonis said he thought the Wings offer for Bouwmeester was better than the Blues. I wouldn't call that kind of thing polling.

You mean thing situation you fabricated in your head, you wouldn't call that polling?

Well, yeah.

[Sgrath]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...
Shero, Regier, Jarmo, saw Feaster coming a mile off, as did GMs before him with Button and Sutter.

No, it's not as simple as soothsaying a guy, but, understanding the weakness of the management you're dealing with on the other end of the phone is important leverage in a trade negotiation because it allows you to play to that weakness.

Agree with most of what you said but there is an assumption that if only we had a different GM the trades would have been a lot different. The Flame's woes have been an open book for close on 10 years. Ownership wanted to spend to cap to win now on the back of the cup run. As the prospect pool dwindled with each trade, the next trade would have to be paid for with picks and the costs become higher each time because the other side knows the GM has to do something.

With the Iginla deal - there was no leverage for the flames, the fact they got the 1st and 2 prospects was because Shero knew he'd never be able to make a deal again if he went any lower.

This is still the situation for Burke, we are damn close to firesale mode and why would another team pay a 1st when you know the deal needs to be made or flames lose the asset.

If anything what Burke brings is the confidence to hang on later towards the deadline and hope to bluff and put pressure on the other guy.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

With the Iginla deal - there was no leverage for the flames, the fact they got the 1st and 2 prospects was because Shero knew he'd never be able to make a deal again if he went any lower.

This is still the situation for Burke, we are damn close to firesale mode and why would another team pay a 1st when you know the deal needs to be made or flames lose the asset.

In the former situation there was more than one team vying for Iginla's services and the GM could, and likely did, use that to his advantage. Would Burke have done a better job? I don't know, but I suspect that he would have convinced Iginla to go to the team that offered the best return to the Flames.

In the latter situation, there will likely be several teams vying for some of the Flames rentals for a playoff push. That, and that alone will drive up the price somewhat. Otherwise, nobody would ever give up any assets for rental players.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

Agree with most of what you said but there is an assumption that if only we had a different GM the trades would have been a lot different. The Flame's woes have been an open book for close on 10 years. Ownership wanted to spend to cap to win now on the back of the cup run. As the prospect pool dwindled with each trade, the next trade would have to be paid for with picks and the costs become higher each time because the other side knows the GM has to do something.

With the Iginla deal - there was no leverage for the flames, the fact they got the 1st and 2 prospects was because Shero knew he'd never be able to make a deal again if he went any lower.

This is still the situation for Burke, we are damn close to firesale mode and why would another team pay a 1st when you know the deal needs to be made or flames lose the asset.

If anything what Burke brings is the confidence to hang on later towards the deadline and hope to bluff and put pressure on the other guy.

The flames problem for 10 years is bad drafting in the Sutter era. He traded many second round picks but the fact Pelech, Irving, Nemisz all busted, there was no 2010 pick and Erixon is a goof.

The Iginla trade is not on Feaster he had no choice. The deal he made with Boston looked pretty good and he only had 4 teams to deal with (in actuality he only had 1). Regehr, Bouwmeester, Tanguay were all brutal. He wanted cap space in the Reggie deal so we got crap assets back, he refused to eat salary on Bouw and we got a mediocre return, and he took on 2 worse contracts than he traded in the Tanguay trade.

If a team loses out on Moulson, Gaborik or whoever is the big rental fish this summer then Cammy becomes a big consolation prize. A GM shouldn't be thinking "I will low ball the flames because they HAVE to move the player" they should be more concerned a rival team is going it outbid him for our guy.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

This is still the situation for Burke, we are damn close to firesale mode and why would another team pay a 1st when you know the deal needs to be made or flames lose the asset.

If anything what Burke brings is the confidence to hang on later towards the deadline and hope to bluff and put pressure on the other guy.

By that logic, how did Vanek net a 1st, 2nd and Moulson then?

There are plenty of ways a general manager can create leverage - floating rumors of extensions, play one team against another, etc. It is the art of negotiation.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The Iginla trade is not on Feaster he had no choice. The deal he made with Boston looked pretty good and he only had 4 teams to deal with (in actuality he only had 1). Regehr, Bouwmeester, Tanguay were all brutal. He wanted cap space in the Reggie deal so we got crap assets back, he refused to eat salary on Bouw and we got a mediocre return, and he took on 2 worse contracts than he traded in the Tanguay trade.

Feaster shouldn't have turned his cards right side up before he sits down to play poker.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

With the Iginla deal - there was no leverage for the flames, the fact they got the 1st and 2 prospects was because Shero knew he'd never be able to make a deal again if he went any lower. .

I know this has been beat around the bush, but honestly I wouldn't have gone to Pittsburg and said "hey you guys are (one of?) the only team that Iginla wants to go to, are you interested in him?" .....

Regehr and Bouw are 2 examples where he rushed towards a deal when there is no reason to rush.....

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I know this has been beat around the bush, but honestly I wouldn't have gone to Pittsburg and said "hey you guys are (one of?) the only team that Iginla wants to go to, are you interested in him?" .....

Are you suggesting he did that? How do we know that?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Are you suggesting he did that? How do we know that?

just going by the origanal poster said, "Feaster had no leverage because Iginla was only willing to go to one team" .... so either Feaster had no leverage because the other side knew he was only willing to go to one team, or the other side didn't know and Feaster just isn't very good at recouping value.

However, it was quoted 1 week prior that, a) "a player is available that we never thought would be available, b) "Iginla has a list of 4 teams" ...... now that leak either came from the Flames (stupid), other team (Feaster told them), Iginla or Don Meehan...... so how did this get out?

[stemit14]

I understand the concern with Burke's comments about size and gaudreau specifically... I'm not saying gaudreau is a lock as an NHLer or anything. In fact, I agree that he'll need some time in the AHL if he's ever going to make it to the NHL.

It's not fair to over-hype him like Feaster seemed to do at times but it's also not fair to discount him solely based on size as it feels like Burke is doing. The kid dominated a world juniors last year that had guys like RNH, huberdeau, MacKinnon, and Yakupov. He's also been ripping up the US college league for 3 years. I know those things don't necessarily mean he'll be an NHLer but it's still impressive for any prospect.

He's constantly underestimated because he is a small player but so far he seems to constantly prove those people wrong.

For several reasons, I see more value in promoting him as a good prospect than there is in constantly only describing him as "small." First of all, it makes gaudreau more eager to sign cause he will know he at least will be given a fair chance to make the team. It should be a priority to sign him because he is an asset to this organization. Second of all, it increases his trade value as an asset... if Burke truly has no intention of keeping him due to his size, he should try to at least maximize his return for the flames. Publicly talking down your assets doesn't really help their value on the trade market.

At this point, I wouldn't even want to trade him for a mid-first round pick in this years draft for example. That's solely based on how well he has developed over the years. Despite his size, he seems to have a higher hockey IQ and skillset than any players we might get with such a draft pick in this years draft.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

In the former situation there was more than one team vying for Iginla's services and the GM could, and likely did, use that to his advantage. Would Burke have done a better job? I don't know, but I suspect that he would have convinced Iginla to go to the team that offered the best return to the Flames.

No way. Iginla's advisor in the trade negotiations was his agent. That's his business partner, not the GM who he works for. And it was Iginla's agent who told Feaster at the last minute that Iginla wouldn't go to Boston.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No way. Iginla's advisor in the trade negotiations was his agent. That's his business partner, not the GM who he works for. And it was Iginla's agent who told Feaster at the last minute that Iginla wouldn't go to Boston.

That was another screw up - not getting the waive NMC clause signed. One of the screw ups during the Feaster tenure that is unacceptable and we don't want to see going into this years trade deadline.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

That was another screw up - not getting the waive NMC clause signed. One of the screw ups during the Feaster tenure that is unacceptable and we don't want to see going into this years trade deadline.

I believe that decision was above Feaster's pay grade. But as you remarked earlier, this has been kicked around before. Some believe Feaster had autonomy when it came to Iginla, others believe Edwards and King were calling the shots. Probably not going to change anyone's mind at this point.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

just going by the origanal poster said, "Feaster had no leverage because Iginla was only willing to go to one team" .... so either Feaster had no leverage because the other side knew he was only willing to go to one team, or the other side didn't know and Feaster just isn't very good at recouping value.

However, it was quoted 1 week prior that, a) "a player is available that we never thought would be available, b) "Iginla has a list of 4 teams" ...... now that leak either came from the Flames (stupid), other team (Feaster told them), Iginla or Don Meehan...... so how did this get out?

Most leaks come from agents.
There's no upside for the Flames to let that info out - and in fact probably once they knew they had one team now on the list - they probably moved with haste knowing whatever little leverage they had was vanishing.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Most leaks come from agents.
There's no upside for the Flames to let that info out - and in fact probably once they knew they had one team now on the list - they probably moved with haste knowing whatever little leverage they had was vanishing.

The quote IIRC was "a player has come on the market that we never thought would have been available" came from a NHL team.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I believe that decision was above Feaster's pay grade. But as you remarked earlier, this has been kicked around before. Some believe Feaster had autonomy when it came to Iginla, others believe Edwards and King were calling the shots. Probably not going to change anyone's mind at this point.

You think Feaster was given the green light to trade Iginla, but was forbidden to ask him to sign a NMC waiver?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

You think Feaster was given the green light to trade Iginla, but was forbidden to ask him to sign a NMC waiver?

Sure - it is well known that Iginla and Edwards were tight. The Flames, whether it was Feaster, King or ownership, really wanted to "do right" by Iginla.

Not crazy to think that mandate came from the very top.