Brian Burke and the Business of NHL Event

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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.

Sure I can see the "do right" and trade Iginla to a team of his choosing..... but what I can't see is that he was forbidden to ask Iginla to sign the waiver when he was getting shopped that he would accept a trade to the teams of his choosing..... which in that case, we will see Brian Burke fumble the ball the same way if the very top of the Flames are that incompetant. We will see...

[CaramonLS]

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.

I guess Feaster didn't have the respect of Meehan then. Why would an agent who has fairly little to gain try to effectively sabotage a GM?

Plenty of deals get done involving NMCs/NTCs without a GM's leverage getting smashed by 'outside factors' I fail to see how this situation is any different.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I guess Feaster didn't have the respect of Meehan then. Why would an agent who has fairly little to gain try to effectively sabotage a GM?

Plenty of deals get done involving NMCs/NTCs without a GM's leverage getting smashed by 'outside factors' I fail to see how this situation is any different.

Agents like to talk. Again - most of what we hear in the media comes from agents. I don't think a lot of it comes from teams - except for stuff out of Toronto of course (Dreger).

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Sure I can see the "do right" and trade Iginla to a team of his choosing..... but what I can't see is that he was forbidden to ask Iginla to sign the waiver when he was getting shopped that he would accept a trade to the teams of his choosing..... which in that case, we will see Brian Burke fumble the ball the same way if the very top of the Flames are that incompetant. We will see...

Sure - agree to disagree then. My viewpoint is that mandating that the paperwork not be used to lock Iginla down is the type of thing that would come from King and/or ownership.

I have nothing that proves it. Nor do you. This is strictly how each of us interpret the events.

[Flash Walken]

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.

And here is where the leverage comes in from the opposition GM. Feaster maintained he was the wrong guy for a rebuild, and he was right. This is another area I think Cliff Fletcher and I disagree on, as he doesn't think trades are a significant indicator of GM success, whereas I believe most rebuilds are predicated first and foremost on solid trading that precedes solid drafting and development. Calgary is somewhat behind the 8ball because of their poor showing in terms of dealing their most valuable assets, even with Monahan and some potential magic beans. For example, it would have been nice to grab one of the two second rounders Pittsburgh used to acquire Doug Murray.

Shero knows Calgary isn't interested in draft picks. He knows this from their recent and long term history of never seeming to care about draft picks.

Knowing that, the pressure is not on Shero to come up with a value assessment for acquiring Iginla, it's coming up with a value assessment that placates the Calgary management. By understanding Calgary is more interested in college players in the 21-24 range and that Calgary isn't interested in picks gives Pittsburgh the upper hand as they can argue that their value assessment for Hanowski and Agostino is that of equivalent to the asking price Calgary is looking for from Pittsburgh.

Calgary very well may have asked for a 1st and a better prospect, and then were countered with a 1st and two lesser prospects in the right age range that Calgary is looking for who could potentially step into pro-hockey in the next season or two (re-tool). While a lesser offer from the standpoint of the Penguins, the offer of two potential collegiate pros in the 21-24 year age group gives Calgary (and their hubris) the belief that they've gotten sufficient return.

Compounding that further were the moves Pittsburgh had already made prior to the Iginla deal and the satisfactory position they put themselves in in regards to their own public relations as well as the direction management and their advisors had implemented. I'm sure they were very interested in Iginla's services and had virtually no issue with trading the scraps that they did to get him, but, if the deal had not gone through, they had already seriously augmented their team with the acquisitions of Jokinen and Morrow. Pittsburgh was not under much pressure to complete that deal if it wasn't advantageous for them to do so. They had already used some of their largest trade chips, signifying to me that they didn't place as much value on the Iginla acquisition as others they had prioritized.

Combine that with the time and public relations crunch the Flames organization was under and it's easy to see how Calgary barely had any footing in that negotiation.

Not following NTC trade protocol was the final nail in their inability to get fair value in trades, but they were dealing from an empty hand to start with.

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.

I think things are completely different for Burke because Calgary really isn't in 'firesale' mode anymore. They already had their fire-sale, last year, and burned everything to the ground. Worst case scenario, Stajan and Cammalleri leave this offseason as free agents, hardly the organizational disruption that Kipper's retirement and trading Iginla provided, and not even close to the PR disaster that would have been losing both Kipper and Iginla with nothing to show for it in one offseason.

Calgary also is set up to get a better value return as Burke appears to have prioritized picks in the top 50, something that the franchise hasn't done since...ever? I doubt you see the low-value warm bodies coming back in trades like what Feaster provided.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sure - agree to disagree then. My viewpoint is that mandating that the paperwork not be used to lock Iginla down is the type of thing that would come from King and/or ownership.

I have nothing that proves it. Nor do you. This is strictly how each of us interpret the events.

Yeah, I can't speak for Phanufthier, but I don't really separate the actions of Feaster from King.

They've been a duo since before Sutter was canned and I doubt Feaster made any moves independent of input from the President.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Calgary very well may have asked for a 1st and a better prospect, and then were countered with a 1st and two lesser prospects in the right age range that Calgary is looking for who could potentially step into pro-hockey in the next season or two (re-tool). While a lesser offer from the standpoint of the Penguins, the offer of two potential collegiate pros in the 21-24 year age group gives Calgary (and their hubris) the belief that they've gotten sufficient return.

I get your reasoning there. I suppose it comes back to player valuation. Feaster and Weisebrod may have overvalued college players. But over the next couple seasons it will become evident what kind of players Burke overvalues.

As for Burke appreciating draft picks more than his predecessors, we won't really know that until he actually acquires some. Most successful rebuilds involved loading up on picks, not just drafting high. I'm hoping this is a draft where we have three 2nd rounders.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I get your reasoning there. I suppose it comes back to player valuation. Feaster and Weisebrod may have overvalued college players. But over the next couple seasons it will become evident what kind of players Burke overvalues.

As for Burke appreciating draft picks more than his predecessors, we won't really know that until he actually acquires some. Most successful rebuilds involved loading up on picks, not just drafting high. I'm hoping this is a draft where we have three 2nd rounders.

I'd be OK also to see prospects acquired instead of picks for this draft. I'm not convinced this is a draft to load up on - though that may also mean the acquisition cost is lower should most teams feel the same way.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I get your reasoning there. I suppose it comes back to player valuation. Feaster and Weisebrod may have overvalued college players. But over the next couple seasons it will become evident what kind of players Burke overvalues.

As for Burke appreciating draft picks more than his predecessors, we won't really know that until he actually acquires some. Most successful rebuilds involved loading up on picks, not just drafting high. I'm hoping this is a draft where we have three 2nd rounders.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'd be OK also to see prospects acquired instead of picks for this draft. I'm not convinced this is a draft to load up on - though that may also mean the acquisition cost is lower should most teams feel the same way.

These are two interesting posts in succession.

I think on the one hand, Cliff is cautiously optimistic that Burke will put his money where his mouth is in terms of making trades for picks, but then I see a bit of reluctance to make moves that garner only picks from Jiri. It might be an aversion to picks as a result of the history of the organization, but I wonder too if it's a slight impatience, motivated by a desire to speed things up.

Picks in many ways are harder to sell as a return, but I think generally, the ultimate strategy for rebuilding a hockey club is loading up on picks in every draft, as good prospects are largely unavailable at less than a premium anyway.

Draft picks, draft picks, draft picks. It's nice to be on the positive side of an imbalanced trade for undervalued players like a second for Kipper, but by and large, if a prospect is good enough to warrant moving a collection of picks for, they are generally too good to be traded. As an example, what is the collection of picks you'd accept as a return for Brodie? For Baertschi? Monahan?

In a return of just picks, it would have to be an overpayment; and it's the same for every team in the league. Picks, on the other hand, don't carry as much weight. Hell, if this is perceived as a 'weaker' draft, I hope Calgary takes advantage and acquires even more picks.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

These are two interesting posts in succession.

I think on the one hand, Cliff is cautiously optimistic that Burke will put his money where his mouth is in terms of making trades for picks, but then I see a bit of reluctance to make moves that garner only picks from Jiri. It might be an aversion to picks as a result of the history of the organization, but I wonder too if it's a slight impatience, motivated by a desire to speed things up.
s.

Honestly for me its just around my perceptions around the quality of this draft. I think there is a sizable difference in drafts. So I would actually rather trade for 2015 picks - but I also think those will be tougher to get. One of the things I think Feaster DID right was getting 2013 picks - because I think that draft will prove to be good.

So just not a fan of the 2014 draft and therefore focusing too much on getting those picks specifically.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Sure I can see the "do right" and trade Iginla to a team of his choosing..... but what I can't see is that he was forbidden to ask Iginla to sign the waiver when he was getting shopped that he would accept a trade to the teams of his choosing..... which in that case, we will see Brian Burke fumble the ball the same way if the very top of the Flames are that incompetant. We will see...

I'm sure he wasn't forbiden.........but it really doesn't matter. Priority #1 for this Organization changed from Win a Stanley cup to Win a Stanley cup with Iginla at some point post the first lock out. Which slowly turned into, priority #1 was do right by Iginla in the last few seasons before he was traded, over do what's best for the Flames.

When that's the clear priority, that must come from the top, whether you're explicitly told you can or can't do something doesn't really matter much. The Flames bent over backwards for Iginla for a long time, and in the 11th hour he didn't even as so much meet them 1/16 of the way, which is unfortunate, but his right. If the Flames as a organization had known that years ago, would they have prioritised the way they did? Who knows?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Sure I can see the "do right" and trade Iginla to a team of his choosing..... but what I can't see is that he was forbidden to ask Iginla to sign the waiver when he was getting shopped that he would accept a trade to the teams of his choosing..... which in that case, we will see Brian Burke fumble the ball the same way if the very top of the Flames are that incompetant. We will see...

No to the last part re: "we will see Brian Burke fumble the ball the same way", as there is no one who has earned the internal respect Jarome has on the current Flames' roster.

[Badgers Nose]

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.

Yeah, I hope we get another star in here soon so that I can rinse out the bad taste from the Iggy trade fiasco.

Looking back on his reign, there seemed to be a few of those screw ups.

Anyways, looking forward to Burke putting his authoritative stamp on this team.

Judging by his answer to Damian Cox's question last night about his expected tenure in the Galgary GM position, it seems there is no rush (everything was further tense). So this is Burke's ship to sail leading up to the break and probably the trade deadline. Even if there is a new hire before season end, Burke is setting the table.

[Sgrath]

Hopefully Burke will be able to ignore the sunk cost of the Cam, Staj and Stemp deals and allow them to walk if no good returns is available. My worry is that there will be a desire to demonstrate a new sheriff is in town and doing nothing doesn't seem to be his style.

With respect to the way the Iginla trade went down, I'm just wondering if he actually had a very 'interesting' NTC that really did give hime full control of that trade. If so it would look very bad on the organisation, and those who approved the contract.

Given the way things have played out, and it is sort of damning with faint praise, Feaster was let go for his poor execution of a good plan, which is never going to end well when it is your plan.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

Hopefully Burke will be able to ignore the sunk cost of the Cam, Staj and Stemp deals and allow them to walk if no good returns is available. My worry is that there will be a desire to demonstrate a new sheriff is in town and doing nothing doesn't seem to be his style.

With respect to the way the Iginla trade went down, I'm just wondering if he actually had a very 'interesting' NTC that really did give hime full control of that trade. If so it would look very bad on the organisation, and those who approved the contract.

Given the way things have played out, and it is sort of damning with faint praise, Feaster was let go for his poor execution of a good plan, which is never going to end well when it is your plan.

I'm a bit confused, you're worried Burke won't let them walk if the return isn't great? Are you saying you think he'll resign the three of them? Because that seems unlikely.

As far as the Iginla thing goes, he has said himself that the situation was this: He gave a small handful of teams that Feaster could talk to, and he would only waive his NMC for the team he liked the best out of the teams that made offers.

Pretty basic stuff, Feaster never should have said to Boston it was a done deal. Iginla didn't change his mind or anything like that, Iginla wanted to go to Pittsburgh the whole time. There isn't some strange conspiracy over what really happened.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Sgrath

Hopefully Burke will be able to ignore the sunk cost of the Cam, Staj and Stemp deals and allow them to walk if no good returns is available. My worry is that there will be a desire to demonstrate a new sheriff is in town and doing nothing doesn't seem to be his style.

With respect to the way the Iginla trade went down, I'm just wondering if he actually had a very 'interesting' NTC that really did give hime full control of that trade. If so it would look very bad on the organisation, and those who approved the contract.

Given the way things have played out, and it is sort of damning with faint praise, Feaster was let go for his poor execution of a good plan, which is never going to end well when it is your plan.

I don't understand the bolded part.
Are you suggesting:
a) It's better to let them go for nothing, than to get something for them; or
b) It's better to let them go for nothing, than to re-sign them.

If it's a), that makes no sense at all to me, as even a 6th round pick is better than nothing.
If b), it depends upon the alternative players available, and the dollars and term involved.

All full NTC give the player full control of the trade, so I don't understand your second point, either.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

You would rather let stemp, cam and Stajan go (assuming they're not re-signing) than get a bad trade return? If they're not part of the plan I'll take what we can get.

Edit: little late on that I see

[strombad]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I don't understand the bolded part.

Are you suggesting:

a) It's better to let them go for nothing, than to get something for them; or

b) It's better to let them go for nothing, than to re-sign them.



If it's a), that makes no sense at all to me, as even a 6th round pick is better than nothing.

If b), it depends upon the alternative players available, and the dollars and term involved.



All full NTC give the player full control of the trade, so I don't understand your second point, either.

Congrats on having the same brain as me and posting the same thing I did. GET OUTTA MY HEAD MAN.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by strombad

Congrats on having the same brain as me and posting the same thing I did. GET OUTTA MY HEAD MAN.

Malkovich, Malkovich, MALKOVICH!

Apparently at the same moment, too...

But I spelled re-sign correctly... ; )
(Sorry, I had to...).

[Sgrath]

Yea re-reading that I didn't word my thoughts very well.

My worry is that Burke might sweeten the deal on those three with something either prospect or pick, unlikely I know but just a thought.

Thats kind of what I was getting at. If the player is in full control then a GM can't be fully responsible for poor returns. Fact is the Iginla deal is a significant outlier that probably shouldn't use it as an example of the general problem.