Bob Mckenzie: Flames could have had Nyquist and Tatar for Bouwmeester

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Would you have?

Ha ha. I'm impressed (and sad because you really must not like me to go through that trouble) you were willing to put in the time to look that up as actually when I typed that I recalled not being thrilled about the wings as trade partners. If you look I carefully worded that so it couldn't be misconstrued as something I would have said at the deadline just after the pick. So nice try but not quite.

I still don't think Nyquist or Tatar will be franchise players but looking at what I feel the Flames ultimately got I would have taken the Wings offer. If you really read my post I'm referring to who I think was the players the Flames ultimately got which was Klimchuk (certainly not a franchise player) and the 2nd (I don't care what anyone says I feel Poirier would have still been a Flame at 28). If we are looking at a projected 40+ pick in Klimchuk and another 2nd rounder I would have probably taken the two Wings players but that's hindsight as I said and I wasn't even bashing Feaster in that post as I don't feel this is something to get overly worked up about due to the fact the Wings players surprised and the Flames prospects used with the picks haven't played yet.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

meh, feaster's tenure will be looked at as a period of poor trading, but at the same time an period of pretty decent or better drafting (depending on how some of these picks work out).

Yup. The strong drafting is what makes the Erixon trade somewhat ironic given the early returns suggest Feaster didn't just hit a home run, but a bottom of the ninth, game winning grand slam. It is not unreasonable at this point to think that Wotherspoon could have a better career than Erixon straight up. To get Horak and Granlund on top? Brilliant scouting and drafting.

Cundari and Hanowski don't appear to be trending nearly so well, so the long run view of last March's trades will come down to how Porier and Klimchuk develop.

[LChoy]

Just maybe something to note, but Bouw did have some type of no movement clause right?
Not saying he wouldn't have waived it to go to Detroit, but we really need more information regarding what the deal was, and the circumstances involved before we get all tar and feathery on Feaster.

I do know that I have a friend that is very good friends with Bouw's wife, and they were excited about going to St. Louis (although a tiny apprehension about leaving Alberta) when Feaster approached him with the offer from the Blues. This means the Flames did keep Bouw in the loop, and sought his input, during the period where they were trying to trade him

LChoy

[Tinordi]

Damning if true. So damning that I don't know if I believe it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Just maybe something to note, but Bouw did have some type of no movement clause right?
Not saying he wouldn't have waived it to go to Detroit, but we really need more information regarding what the deal was, and the circumstances involved before we get all tar and feathery on Feaster.

I do know that I have a friend that is very good friends with Bouw's wife, and they were excited about going to St. Louis (although a tiny apprehension about leaving Alberta) when Feaster approached him with the offer from the Blues. This means the Flames did keep Bouw in the loop, and sought his input, during the period where they were trying to trade him

LChoy

IIRC (which is very possible I didn't) there were 8 teams Bouw was willing to move to

And while I can see the value of a 1st (Poirer) due to our recent drafting success, I still attribute that more to our scouts than Feaster; though I give Feaster full credit for letting his scouts do their job. Reference article from a thread few days ago:
http://flamesnation.ca/2012/5/14/the...-of-tod-button
Without a doubt though, the Erixon trade is Feaster's biggest win, especially how he turned Horak into Smid.

[etc]

Not really relevant how Poirier develops, any contender would have traded their first if they had room for Bouwmeester, that was the starting piece for any trade, who we were going to draft is irrelevant really, at the time was a low first in a good draft.

You have to look what else we got; Reto Berra, What was his value worth individually? Better goalies have been traded for way less recently...His value at the time was a 4th or maybe a 3rd at the absolute most. Any Flames or Avalanche fan would tell you they made a huge mistake trading a 2nd for him so thats not really relevant either.

Cundari? Was undrafted and could have been had for a 5th or 6th probably. These guys weren't even ranked highly within their organization.

He played his was on Team Canada but it was obvious he was better under Hartley and although he was never going to be the guy, he would be great as a 1b and he has been. Always hear you can never really trade for a top pairing D man, but we gave one away.

The return was low for Iginla because he was a rental, and was supposed to be higher for Bouwmeester, but it wasn't and that's why Feaster is unemployed. Trading Iginla, Bouw, Tanguay etc was a good idea, but the return wasn't good enough.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Hackey

What does that have to do with anything? Fact is Bouwmeester had a strong year and drastically increased his trade value. His value at the time of the trade is all that is relevant. We should be satisfied with less than market value because a year before it was less? That makes no sense. If Feaster passed on this deal he dropped ball huge. That's all there is to it. The value of Tatar and Nyquist last year was far superior to what we got from St Louis. It's over now so oh well but the justifications people come up with are terrible.

And the fact this is still being debated is even more terrible. Honestly, I like Bob Mckenzie and all, but what purpose did this serve to release this information? To get a fan base all riled up and for everyone to once again play the ''lets rag on Feaster on how much he sucked'' game? I can't wait for more details from the Iginla trade to sprout up again for no reason other then to get everyone back on the Feaster hate-train and start rehashing everything over and over again.

If everyone wants to bring up the poor return we got on Bouw all over again, then I'm going to keep bringing up how the majority of this board wanted him gone the year before for nothing. He's gone. We got a decent return, which now turns out we could have apparently gotten more then we got. Oh well. Thanks Bob McKenzie, for letting us know. I wasn't too pleased with the return either, other then getting that 1st in a deep draft. I wanted a blue chip prospect and roster player too. But we didn't get it and it's time to move on. Bob McKenzie telling us this new info does nothing except get everyone all riled up.

[Flash Walken]

Is Mackenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester AND another player?

or

Is MacKenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester OR another player?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is Mackenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester AND another player?

or

Is MacKenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester OR another player?

Even if it's Bouw for Nyquist straight up that's a deal you make over a 1st and junk. You also don't need hindsight to make that call at the time. Nyquist was a premier prospect, as good as anything you could have drafted with the first.

[GreenLantern]

edit: nevermind misread the tweet

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Even if it's Bouw for Nyquist straight up that's a deal you make over a 1st and junk. You also don't need hindsight to make that call at the time. Nyquist was a premier prospect, as good as anything you could have drafted with the first.

I would not have done Bouwmeester for Nyquist straight up, but I agree with your general sentiment.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is Mackenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester AND another player?

or

Is MacKenzie saying Tatar/Nyquist for Bouwmeester OR another player?

Not sure why people are having trouble with Mackenzie's quote. It is written poorly but he is saying Bouwmeester for Nyquist and Tatar, or another player (if the Flames didn't want one of those guys).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Even if it's Bouw for Nyquist straight up that's a deal you make over a 1st and junk. You also don't need hindsight to make that call at the time. Nyquist was a premier prospect, as good as anything you could have drafted with the first.

So many people are saying this now (and I am sure not using the benefit of hindsight).

And yet, it appears as though Holland was willing to give up Nyquist but was not willing to give up a 1st.

[albertGQ]

If we held on to Jaybo and he still played well in Calgary to make Team Canada, we could've gotten a 1st, Rattie and + this year.

But hindsight is 20/20

Too bad Feaster wasn't able to get a first last year
Jaybo for Tatar and Mantha would've been sweet

[Wolfman]

Bouwmeester might have refused to go to Detroit, we don't know all the details.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So many people are saying this now (and I am sure not using the benefit of hindsight).

And yet, it appears as though Holland was willing to give up Nyquist but was not willing to give up a 1st.

Because they had no room for Nyquist who was being shuffled in and out of the roster. He was a premiere asset that was expendable. Everyone knew Nyquist had serious pedigree and was scoring very well in the AHL. My read is that Feaster fundamentally misjudged the value of Berra and was concerned about goaltending coming into this season.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Because they had no room for Nyquist who was being shuffled in and out of the roster. He was a premiere asset that was expendable. Everyone knew Nyquist had serious pedigree and was scoring very well in the AHL. My read is that Feaster fundamentally misjudged the value of Berra and was concerned about goaltending coming into this season.

Holland was willing to give up Nyquist and wasn't willing to give up a 1st. Period

You can try to spin it all you want, but I am of the opinion that he would look a little further out than his ability to get Nyquist into the lineup at that point in time

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Bouwmeester might have refused to go to Detroit, we don't know all the details.

highly unlikely

[Enoch Root]

Keeping in mind also, that he had already invested 4 years of development into Nyquist

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Holland was willing to give up Nyquist and wasn't willing to give up a 1st. Period

You can try to spin it all you want, but I am of the opinion that he would look a little further out than his ability to get Nyquist into the lineup at that point in time

It's not spin it's reality. Nyquist suffered the same fate as Toffoli, and last year there was concerns that Nyquist simply couldn't emerge in Detroit because of all the warm bodies. Detroit actually wasn't able to sign Nyquist until August basically because Nyquist didn't know if there'd be room for him and Detroit didn't have the space because they wanted Cleary back as well. Detroit likely would have known that Nyquist was their most expendable but attractive asset.

Only injuries this year gave him that opportunity and he's now cemented himself into the roster. You can't be absolutist and say that Nyquist had less value than any first because Detroit didn't want to give one up. The context matters.

But it was well documented back in 2012 that Nyquist had Calder potential. A number of forecasters knew the potential for Nyquist was there.