Spector - Flames have bigger plans beyond key 2014 draft

[Poe969]

What the hell is this thread even abiut anymore???

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Our prospect pool is 6th which is great. Wouldn't one expect a team that missed the playoffs 5 years in a row to have a pretty strong prospect pool?

It is pretty easy to be excited about the new management team considering the last group made the franchise a laughing stock amongst many outsiders and media

Toronto and Phoenix are now the envy of the league? How does a management group that had nothing coming in manage to turn the team around to the point where they have the 6th best prospect pool in the league, yet be consider terrible? Maybe the outsiders and media don't really have a clue and will gravitate to anyone who will give them a story or provide fodder. Feaster and Co. we're not great, but they did a good job. I would certainly take Calgary and their system over Toronto and their system, and Burke held the reigns longer in TO than Feaster in Calgary.

[Tinordi]

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Toronto and Phoenix are now the envy of the league? How does a management group that had nothing coming in manage to turn the team around to the point where they have the 6th best prospect pool in the league, yet be consider terrible? Maybe the outsiders and media don't really have a clue and will gravitate to anyone who will give them a story or provide fodder. Feaster and Co. we're not great, but they did a good job. I would certainly take Calgary and their system over Toronto and their system, and Burke held the reigns longer in TO than Feaster in Calgary.

How? They finished 6th last so they were able to draft a top prospect. They also traded away their two top stars for draft picks and more prospects. It wasn't brain surgery. They sucked so bad that they got the losers prize, a decent prospect pool.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Scouts evaluate and collect data. GM's have the final say on whose name gets called. That is why GM's and AGM's do their own scouting trips to get eyes on players. Scouts also don't define the philosophy of they type of player the team will have interest in. Scouts play an important role in identifying potential players, but the decision maker is still the GM.

Show ME the money? (I don't get this.)

Some franchises let the head scout run the whole draft. The GM has a minor amount of input and mostly just handles trade up and down scenarios.

Do you really think Feaster was making the final call on these prospects? From his very mouth he denied that and said they just go based straight off the list that Tod Button and his scouts hashed out. Feaster bragged about how he wasn't meddling with the scouts and their list.

We will have more input from the GM than before because it sounds like Treliving has done way more amateur scouting this year than Feaster or Weisbrod ever did. Not sure Treliving will have as much time in future years to do nearly as much scouting but Conroy may do more than he has.

Bottom line is that not all GMs scout heavily and thus many have a minimal effect on the draft in comparison to the scouts. This year is actually an abberation for the Flames as we've hired a GM who had been scouting heavily in his AGM capacity with Phoenix.

[Vulcan]

I'm sure Weisbrod had his hands in on the 2012 draft. At least that was the impression I got from all their spouting off.

[FeyWest]

If Burke is going to be hands off, not have input, not guide Treliving, etc... then I don't want him hired in the position he's at. But by no accounts do I think he's going to overrule everything that Treliving does, I don't think Treliving is as inexperienced as everyone thinks.

Burke will supply Treliving with a guiding hand but I don't feel like he's going to be the puppeteer of the marionette. If anything it seems more like Treliving is going to be a protegee of sorts.

Our management system seems to be a brain trust of smart, hard, working hockey guys; no old boys club or anything, new up and comers so everything seems to be pointing the way, initially, to glory.

There will be growing pains, Burke hopefully will be more and more passive as Treliving learns, but now I want to see the proof in the pudding. It's been a long time since I've been this excited for the future. *Knock on Wood*

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

How? They finished 6th last so they were able to draft a top prospect. They also traded away their two top stars for draft picks and more prospects. It wasn't brain surgery. They sucked so bad that they got the losers prize, a decent prospect pool.

Then wtf happened to Edmonton, the Islanders, Florida, etc? You have to give credit to the management team for actually drafting some talent and making wise deals to recoup good prospects. Who would you rather be going forward? Calgary or Toronto? Calgary hands down? The guy who did such a bang up job with Toronto is now running our show. Good thing or bad thing? I would prefer someone with a better track record and a more progressive approach to the game. I am thankful that Burke has brought in young guys with different ideas, so maybe that will provide the right balance to make things work. I'm going to wait and see, holding out hope it works. But proof will be in results. I'm not going to shower Burke or anyone else with false praise when they have done nothing to deserve it.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some franchises let the head scout run the whole draft.

Some do, most don't. Brian Burke isn't one of those to turn over the reigns of anything, at least he hasn't in the past. I will believe he has become hands off when he is not at the draft table, talking to other people at the draft trying to make deals, or performing the duties you expect his subordinates to perform. I just find it hard to believe that Burke is going to relinquish control, seeing he's been a control freak his whole career.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Then wtf happened to Edmonton, the Islanders, Florida, etc? You have to give credit to the management team for actually drafting some talent and making wise deals to recoup good prospects. Who would you rather be going forward? Calgary or Toronto? Calgary hands down? The guy who did such a bang up job with Toronto is now running our show. Good thing or bad thing? I would prefer someone with a better track record and a more progressive approach to the game. I am thankful that Burke has brought in young guys with different ideas, so maybe that will provide the right balance to make things work. I'm going to wait and see, holding out hope it works. But proof will be in results. I'm not going to shower Burke or anyone else with false praise when they have done nothing to deserve it.



Some do, most don't. Brian Burke isn't one of those to turn over the reigns of anything, at least he hasn't in the past. I will believe he has become hands off when he is not at the draft table, talking to other people at the draft trying to make deals, or performing the duties you expect his subordinates to perform. I just find it hard to believe that Burke is going to relinquish control, seeing he's been a control freak his whole career.

For what it's worth (hockey's future), the Islanders are ranked 7th and the Panthers are ranked 11th. Neither had the luxury of trading their top two stars for prospects or are you moving the goal posts to include results?

As for giving credit, I think Feaster and Weisbrod were an example of amateur hour with no idea how to build a team. For the draft choices, I'll give credit to Tod Button with Feaster smart enough to step aside, except in 2012. I think Feaster is a good guy and a smart guy, just not very good as a NHL GM.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's a good mantra to repeat, but if think that Burke is not going to have major input in every hockey decision made, then maybe T@T wasn't wrong in his summation. Burke just hired an inexperienced GM and let him full his staff with inexperienced people. Of course he's going to have a major say in decisions affecting the team.

I think everyone would agree with only your last sentence, but there is a huge difference between "having a major say in decisions", and actually making all the decisions. Sure, Burke will be involved in the draft process, and his voice will be a big one, but I expect that the decisions about which players are actually selected will be made by committee. Maybe Burke gets the final say for some picks. Maybe Treliving, and maybe the scouts for others.

Originally Posted by New Era

He's not going to let a bunch of guys with no proven NHL chops run the rebuild. Burke may not be pulling the strings, but I would take a close look at Treliving and his subordinates when they talk. You may see Burke's arm planted in their backsides and his moving at the same time. Burke has always been, and will always remain, a control freak.

Well, I have been watching as closely as I can since Treliving was hired, and so far I have NOT seen ANYTHING like what you imagine here. Based on everything we have seen to date, Treliving is operating with a good measure of autonomy. There is no reason to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by New Era

Scouts evaluate and collect data. GM's have the final say on whose name gets called. That is why GM's and AGM's do their own scouting trips to get eyes on players.

How can you be so sure? I have heard different things about different organisations. For some teams, it seems that the GM makes the first pick, and then defers to his scouts. The way the Flames have been handling this—so far from the information we have at our disposal—has been by committee. Burke, his scouts, and his GM and AGM have been WORKING TOGETHER to compile their lists. I am quite sure that some scouts have a better read on certain prospects than others; Treliving and Conroy probably both have different strengths with regards to what they are scouting for. Burke seems to be involved, but since Treliving is the GM, this should be regarded as his draft, and Burke hasn't really given any indication otherwise.

Originally Posted by New Era

Scouts also don't define the philosophy of they type of player the team will have interest in. Scouts play an important role in identifying potential players, but the decision maker is still the GM.

...and the GM is Treliving.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by theoforever

If I wanted to say 'your constant hate against Feaster', I would have said so.
However, I said 'constant hate against Feaster' which has been prevalent in many threads. You are not that important.

I'm judging Feaster on his Flames record and clearly a better pool of prospects than anything that we have seen in the last decade.
Burke doesn't have Flames record so prior drafting has been introduced.

You fail to understand that the two records can be compared without creating a logical fallacy. It just takes a little stretching of your limited supply of brain cells to understand.

And for the ridiculous pile of steaming intellectual and social turds you have dropped in this thread, you now have the privilege of joining the illustrious ranks of the BACKCHECK!!! Official Ignore List.

Although, if I had to guess, I'd say you're probably already on that list under one or more different usernames.

[theoforever]

@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE] First of all, lay off the insults. No one made it personal against you so don't act like you're above anyone unless you're actively trying to become a lightning rod for criticism on this forum. [/QUOTE]

You took a little shot and I escalated it, I agree no reason to take it to personal level, it will not happen again. Let bygones be bygones.

Clearly we have a difference of opinion on what can be compared.

@Point Blank

[/QUOTE]
If you want to make the point that Feaster's prior drafting in Tampa has no effect, then the same holds true for Burke. Therefore there was no reason for you to have brought up Burke's drafting record..[/QUOTE]

I was not comparing lifetime Feaster/Burke draft records. What I said was that Burke's record was brutal and that Feaster draft record with Flames was good. Therefore, sample size and length are not relevant to argument at hand which is about Feaster's impact on Flames drafting record vs possible future impact of Burke's on Flames drafting record.

In case of Feaster I have his draft record with Flames.
Therefore, his Tampa Bay record has no influence on what happened later with Flames.

On the other hand, in case of Burke, there is no Flame drafting record, so previous drafting was mentioned. That is completely admissible if trying to predict future direction and impact on drafting by Flames.

@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE] If you really insist that it's logical then there's another problem: you are comparing two records, one with a sample size of two draft years and one with a sample size of 13 draft years. [/QUOTE]

@ Point Blank
[/QUOTE]

You were wrong from the moment you used to word "prove". Feaster hasn't proved anything yet. I think most of us would be more than willing to credit Feaster if the prospects he drafted turn out to be successful (which would be fantastic). Yes you're right in that the prospect pool is deeper than it has ever been, but it won't mean jack s*** if none turn out to be successful in the NHL. Granted, chances are high and I really hope Feaster showed that Burke made the wrong decision in firing him based on the drafts he made, but as of right now, it's not even close to "proving" anything about Feaster yet.[/QUOTE]

I assume you are referring to what I wrote here: "The fact that our prospect pool was just rated as #6 in NHL is encouraging and proves the point that Feaster did some things right."

If you read the sentence all it says that Feaster improved the prospect pool and must have done something correctly.
The word 'prove' is being used in context of improved prospect pool and
the better prospect pool proves that Feaster did at minimum one thing correctly. I don't know how my statement is ambiguous.

Yes, it is too early to know the outcome but signs are encouraging.

I don't mind my opinion being criticized but I don't like it being twisted.

Cheers

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by theoforever

I was not comparing lifetime Feaster/Burke draft records. What I said was that Burke's record was brutal and that Feaster draft record with Flames was good. Therefore, sample size and length are not relevant to argument at hand which is about Feaster's impact on Flames drafting record vs possible future impact of Burke's on Flames drafting record.

In case of Feaster I have his draft record with Flames.
Therefore, his Tampa Bay record has no influence on what happened later with Flames.

On the other hand, in case of Burke, there is no Flame drafting record, so previous drafting was mentioned. That is completely admissible if trying to predict future direction and impact on drafting by Flames.

Let's face it, that's pretty bad argument construction. Using one GM's lifetime draft record vs another's handpicked record with only one team doesn't really make much sense and doesn't seem a fair way of evaluating it.

Nevermind the fact that GM's aren't really doing the drafting by themselves and are only one voice amongst many, many times not the most important voice in the conversation either since most GM's don't do a lot of scouting for the draft in comparison to their head scout and scouts.

Nevermind the fact that Burke isn't the GM at all, Treliving is and therefore PHO's draft record should be under consideration in any properly constructed argument about our drafting.

This thread went to crap and probably won't be salvaged. If people wanna debate Burke vs Feaster vs Treliving and express their paranoia about Burke being a puppet master maybe go ahead and start that up. This thread was about our emphasis on prospect development I thought.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Let's face it, that's pretty bad argument construction. Using one GM's lifetime draft record vs another's handpicked record with only one team doesn't really make much sense and doesn't seem a fair way of evaluating it.

Nevermind the fact that GM's aren't really doing the drafting by themselves and are only one voice amongst many, many times not the most important voice in the conversation either since most GM's don't do a lot of scouting for the draft in comparison to their head scout and scouts.

Nevermind the fact that Burke isn't the GM at all, Treliving is and therefore PHO's draft record should be under consideration in any properly constructed argument about our drafting.

This thread went to crap and probably won't be salvaged. If people wanna debate Burke vs Feaster vs Treliving and express their paranoia about Burke being a puppet master maybe go ahead and start that up. This thread was about our emphasis on prospect development I thought.

GM's set the direction for scouts, resolve disagreements at minimum.
That's what Feaster probably did. Seems to be working better, we have seen a lot of interference in the past.
I believe the Burke vs Feaster argument construction is legitimate.
We don't have to agree, that's fair.

[Enoch Root]

Saw a new thread with the genesis being an article about the Flames' new direction and 170 posts in it already. Thought: this might be interesting!

Nope.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Saw a new thread with the genesis being an article about the Flames' new direction and 170 posts in it already. Thought: this might be interesting!

Nope.

Thoughts and prayers.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by theoforever

I was not comparing lifetime Feaster/Burke draft records. What I said was that Burke's record was brutal and that Feaster draft record with Flames was good. Therefore, sample size and length are not relevant to argument at hand which is about Feaster's impact on Flames drafting record vs possible future impact of Burke's on Flames drafting record.

In case of Feaster I have his draft record with Flames.
Therefore, his Tampa Bay record has no influence on what happened later with Flames.

On the other hand, in case of Burke, there is no Flame drafting record, so previous drafting was mentioned. That is completely admissible if trying to predict future direction and impact on drafting by Flames.
I assume you are referring to what I wrote here: "The fact that our prospect pool was just rated as #6 in NHL is encouraging and proves the point that Feaster did some things right."

If you read the sentence all it says that Feaster improved the prospect pool and must have done something correctly.
The word 'prove' is being used in context of improved prospect pool and
the better prospect pool proves that Feaster did at minimum one thing correctly. I don't know how my statement is ambiguous.

Yes, it is too early to know the outcome but signs are encouraging.

I don't mind my opinion being criticized but I don't like it being twisted.

Cheers

I'll just drop the whole draft comparison thing as it's not going to be constructive anytime soon.

In terms of prospect pool improvement but as Vinny previously said, it's not hard to improve it when we've missed the playoffs 5 years in a row from an empty cupboard. We can all agree that it improved but results is the most important thing to evaluate whether or not Feaster has proven anything, it yet remains to be determined.

For example, what if Shinkaruk turns out better than Poirier? Or anyone we could've drafted besides Jankowski or Baertschi become better players? Or if the prospects we could've gotten from Boston on the Iggy trade turn out better than the prospects we got from the Pens?

Like you said it's too early to answer these questions but signs are encouraging, but I'd hold off on praising Feaster as of right now. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

I'll just drop the whole draft comparison thing as it's not going to be constructive anytime soon.

In terms of prospect pool improvement but as Vinny previously said, it's not hard to improve it when we've missed the playoffs 5 years in a row from an empty cupboard. We can all agree that it improved but results is the most important thing to evaluate whether or not Feaster has proven anything, it yet remains to be determined.

For example, what if Shinkaruk turns out better than Poirier? Or anyone we could've drafted besides Jankowski or Baertschi become better players? Or if the prospects we could've gotten from Boston on the Iggy trade turn out better than the prospects we got from the Pens?

Like you said it's too early to answer these questions but signs are encouraging, but I'd hold off on praising Feaster as of right now. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this.

The only thing we are really disagreeing is that comparison situation.

Being out of playoff for 5 years in itself, doesn't guarantee better prospects, still have to draft well. The %'s increased with higher pick but not that much. The last 2 years that's another story #6 and soon to be #4 pick should improve the chances drastically.

I like the prospect pool and realize that most of them will not be in the Flames uniform. I also remember how there was very little hope coming up from the ranks.

The current list of prospect is really exciting.

Poirier looks like a solid NHLer to be, I would consider him a can't miss prospect, something that Burke said himself. Hunter looks like top 6 or bust, even if he scores more goals at NHL level which I doubt, Poirier will be more of a complete player.

Jankowski is only 19 years old, still time, probably have to wait 2 more years before we know what he will become.

Granlund starting to look good not sure if he could become like his brother. Max Reinhart has made an amazing jump one of few good picks by Sutter. Too bad about Ferland's missed year but he was starting to look like he could be a player. Arnold looks very promising, Knight not bad as well.

Johnny Hockey looks great, if he doesn't get killed should be fun to watch.
Sven could go either way.

Since, Iggy killed the Boston deal it probably doesn't matter.
Hanowski doesn't look like an NHLer. Ago looks like a 3rd liner at best, not sure if Klimchuk can progress and become 2nd/3rd line player. I think he has a very good chance to become a very good 3rd liner.

All in all lots to look forward and hope they workout.

[Freeway]

2010 draft was Button, 2011 draft was Button, 2012 draft was Button & Weisbrod, 2013 draft was Button & Weisbrod

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Freeway

2010 draft was Button, 2011 draft was Button, 2012 draft was Button & Weisbrod, 2013 draft was Button & Weisbrod

Wasn't 2012 basically all weisbrod for early picks?