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

[TheDebaser]

He means that Backlund will only play 20 games next season, presumably because Chris O'Sullivan plans to run him over.

[GoJetsGo]

That guy is a shining example of one of the most annoying internet message board traits.

Say something stupid, get called out on it, and rather than admit it or move on, hold out hope that one's ignorance will eventually come true. Rather than applaud the strides Backlund took this year, this poster is more concerned with holding out hope he'll regress just so he can save face. It's as despicable as it is ignorant.

[FireGilbert]

Backlund improved so much this year and I am confident in saying he is now a good 3rd line centre with good 2nd line centre potential.

Hopefully 8 points in 20 games are Backlund's playoff stats next year.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is Feaster's draft record really better than Sutter's? Honest question.

Is a lot of the lustre on Feaster's picks their relative chronology? I.E. Are detractions like Chucko perhaps weighed unfairly because they are now definitive busts?

Are we comparing the relative success of the picks in terms of the amount of successful picks or their success relative to where they were picked in the draft?

Right now it's timing and hope that sways It to Feaster. Anyone who's been here for years has heard about our prospect base turning around every year. It looks promising now, but let's wait until players prove it on the ice. Guys like kobasew should give everyone pause. People are overly optimistic about prospects.

[Da_Chief]

Some people and their hate.

T@T the hate for Burke
Chris Sullivan the hate for Backlund

What else is there?

Lets just say Feaster was the best drafter not in the NHL

[Vulcan]

As the saying goes, 'it's not hard to pay off the mortgage when you sell the farm'. Feaster sold our two best players so yeah we've got some decent prospects in return. The team also sucks so that gives us higher picks. Feaster's returns are up for debate but he took a reasonably competitive team and turned it into one of the 4 worst in the league. It's also one of the smallest and he didn't correct it. I don't know if he had any plan, but if he did it wasn't working. He acquired assets but having umpteen small LWs isn't exactly showing he had any idea what he was doing nor was he able to assess players.

Since he arrived, Burke seems to be bringing some order into this chaos.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by dino7c

yeah agreed, trust me I hope they all turn out to be stars but really its way too early to rate Feasters drafting one way or another.

I mean Monahan is great but that was a no brainier and he almost blew that pick even

How did he almost blow it?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Since he arrived, Burke seems to be bringing some order into this chaos.

Burke hasn't done much yet. He signed Westgarth and made a couple of small deadline free agent trades. Almost forgot, he re-signed Stajan.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

How did he almost blow it?

Probably referring to the ROR thing yet again.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Burke hasn't done much yet. He signed Westgarth and made a couple of small deadline free agent trades. Almost forgot, he re-signed Stajan.


Probably referring to the ROR thing yet again.

I give Burke credit for Colborne and Smid. Those deals were just way to good for Feaster to have his hands on. Also the 2nd for Berra. Also the sending down of Sven.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As the saying goes, 'it's not hard to pay off the mortgage when you sell the farm'. Feaster sold our two best players so yeah we've got some decent prospects in return. The team also sucks so that gives us higher picks. Feaster's returns are up for debate but he took a reasonably competitive team and turned it into one of the 4 worst in the league. It's also one of the smallest and he didn't correct it. I don't know if he had any plan, but if he did it wasn't working. He acquired assets but having umpteen small LWs isn't exactly showing he had any idea what he was doing nor was he able to assess players.

Since he arrived, Burke seems to be bringing some order into this chaos.

I think that's a bit harsh. "reasonably competitve team".... this was a franchise/roster without question trending downwards before feaster, with just about everyone screaming to give up on false hope and look towards rebuilding the franchise. In fact, i think almost everyone would agree the flames were a year, if not 2, late in kicking off the process, so unsure how feaster can be blamed for turning this into a bottom 4 team.

he has no doubt increased the skill level in the organization, and ya, the trades of iggy/bouwmeester were disappointing, but i think we need to judge this a few years from now, where we can truly measure the value of multiple 1st round picks in one of the deepest 1st rounds since 2004 start making impacts.

yes the team is small, but there are many moves made this past few seasons that i wouldn't greatly question. He drafted baertchi, got gaudreau in a late round, small uber-skilled guys, no issues with that. Free agents: hudler (this past season showed how great of a signing this was) and galiardi. galiardi had a poor year, the guy seemed super motivated to help the team, but i suppose was not a great deal, but also not a 'bad' deal whatsoever.

Wasn't a fan of feaster the flames GM while they were still fighting to get in the playoffs. And outside of one truly bonehead move (ROR), Feaster as the flames GM during the rebuild has been satisfactory in my books. I would have been fine to see him here thru one more rebuilding draft (with burke babysitting trade deadline day).

I'm a burke fan, but still think his moves have been suspect at this stage. Not trading cammalleri, and to a much lesser extent, signing stajan,are moves i was really not thrilled with but patiently wait to see his approach to this deadline/offseason.

[Vulcan]

I go by Canadiens old GM Sam Pollack's definition of who wins a trade. Whoever gets the best player is the winner. By that definition Feaster won maybe one trade. That would be the Cammallari deal for Rene Bourque.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I think that's a bit harsh. "reasonably competitve team".... this was a franchise/roster without question trending downwards before feaster, with just about everyone screaming to give up on false hope and look towards rebuilding the franchise. In fact, i think almost everyone would agree the flames were a year, if not 2, late in kicking off the process, so unsure how feaster can be blamed for turning this into a bottom 4 team.

Yep. This team was trending down for years before Feaster took over. He inherited one of the oldest, most expensive teams in the NHL, with what was widely regarded as the worst collection of under-26 talent in the league. If we're going to hang that all on Feaster, may as well point out that Burke was at the helm for the worst season in franchise history.

People need scapegoats. I get it. Easier to point the finger at one guy than recognize that this franchise - from the players to the coaches to the GM to the president to the owners - was mired in self-delusion, incompetence, and short-term thinking for years.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I go by Canadiens old GM Sam Pollack's definition of who wins a trade. Whoever gets the best player is the winner. By that definition Feaster won maybe one trade. That would be the Cammallari deal for Rene Bourque.

Draft well enough and you don't have to rely on trades to fix mistakes in the first place. How many trades does Ken Holland make?

Trades are fun for fans. But they're no the be-all-and-end-all of NHL management. They're maybe the third most important aspect of the job, after drafting and development, and basic management (surrounding yourself with and directing effective people), and just a notch above cap management.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yep. This team was trending down for years before Feaster took over. He inherited one of the oldest, most expensive teams in the NHL, with what was widely regarded as the worst collection of under-26 talent in the league. If we're going to hang that all on Feaster, may as well point out that Burke was at the helm for the worst season in franchise history.

People need scapegoats. I get it. Easier to point the finger at one guy than recognize that this franchise - from the players to the coaches to the GM to the president to the owners - was mired in self-delusion, incompetence, and short-term thinking for years.

Lets not ignore the fact that Feaster was the one who didn't want to do a rebuild and in 2012 and 2013 was trying to trade our first round pick. His player assessments and team assessments were terrible. Yeah the president and owners were at fault as well but all Feaster was, was a yes man as he had no hockey knowledge or standing to convince management to change course.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Draft well enough and you don't have to rely on trades to fix mistakes in the first place. How many trades does Ken Holland make?

Trades are fun for fans. But they're no the be-all-and-end-all of NHL management. They're maybe the third most important aspect of the job, after drafting and development, and basic management (surrounding yourself with and directing effective people), and just a notch above cap management.

Feaster's trades weren't fun for fans.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I go by Canadiens old GM Sam Pollack's definition of who wins a trade. Whoever gets the best player is the winner. By that definition Feaster won maybe one trade. That would be the Cammallari deal for Rene Bourque.

This logic is used often but if it was always true most trades would never happen. Erixon trade was a win so was Stempniak deal.
Smid trade was a win then too, right.

[Enoch Root]

And in a cap world, it isn't as true as it used to be

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by theoforever

This logic is used often but if it was always true most trades would never happen. Erixon trade was a win so was Stempniak deal.
Smid trade was a win then too, right.

The Erixon trade wasn't a win. You don't give up a first round pick with two solid years of development for two seconds and a so so prospect. The first round player is better. Would you trade our current 1st for that deal today?

As said I give credit to Burke for the Smid deal. Stempniak was ho hum.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The Erixon trade wasn't a win. You don't give up a first round pick with two solid years of development for two seconds and a so so prospect. The first round player is better. Would you trade our current 1st for that deal today?

As said I give credit to Burke for the Smid deal. Stempniak was ho hum.

Flames were more or less held hostage in the situation, and getting 3 assets (2 x 2nd rounders and a so-so prospect) seemed satisfactory at the time, and considering how the 3 assets fit into the franchise's roadmap at the moment, think the trade looks pretty good, no?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The Erixon trade wasn't a win. You don't give up a first round pick with two solid years of development for two seconds and a so so prospect. The first round player is better. Would you trade our current 1st for that deal today?

As said I give credit to Burke for the Smid deal. Stempniak was ho hum.

Feaster gt a better package for Erixon than NYI got for Vanek. I think it was a pretty good deal, even without all the behind-the-scenes BS.