[News] Weisbroad named VP player personnel in Vancouver

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It isn't unusual for the AGM to be canned along with the GM. Doesn't mean he was terrible at his job, but obviously Burke felt that the change needed to be made. As has been alluded to, it sounds like Weisbrod wasn't physically around much and Burke didn't get a positive read on the guy because of it. Seems to me, if Weisbrod wanted to stick around (and potentially throw his hat in the ring for GM), he would have made more of an effort in town.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It's also worth noting that the Flames traded down so they could pick Sieloff - also I Weisbrod guy IIRC. In fact rumour was they would have taken Sieloff at 21 if Janko was gone. Not sure if we would like that better or not.

Anyway the main point is we can't ultimately judge Weisbrod until all these pieces mature

Ah, the old 'trade down to recoup a second'.

Wasn't that second rounder the one Calgary gave up to get Cammalleri?

Ugly.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ah, the old 'trade down to recoup a second'.

Wasn't that second rounder the one Calgary gave up to get Cammalleri?

Ugly.

I thought it went to Buffalo in the Regehr/Butler/Byron/Kotalik trade.

[Roof-Daddy]

That year the Sabres took Jake McCabe with our 2nd round pick that they acquired from the Regehr trade.

We traded our 1st (14th) for their 1st (21st) and 2nd (42nd).

Then they took McCabe at 44th overall.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by FAN

You are lumping Weisbrod ability to make/suggest good management decisions and his ability to evaluate talent together. It should be separated. I don't think there is anything wrong with picking a 4-5 year project with enormous upside at #21. Realistically, the only guy at #14 that could be expected to be close to NHL ready was Girgensons and Wilson. The best defenders available and Teravainen with his slight build were expected to be at least 3 years away. I don't think there were too many who believed that Hertl would be able to make the type of impact he made at the NHL level so soon, even though he was playing against men.

I think that Weisbrod is a good talent evaluator. I don't think he would have been able to rise up in that Bruins organization under Chiarelli without some ability. But that doesn't mean he's going to bat 100% and that doesn't mean he knows how to build a winning team. So I think Weisbrod is at his best scouting the pro ranks and college (i.e. his job in Boston).

I disagree with the Jankowski pick due to organizational philosophy at the time. This was a team that was selling a fan base on competing for a cup/playoff spot while improving the roster and bringing in young players. Drafting a 4-5 year project with your first round pick was not the right move for the organization. I am fine with trading down because moving only 7 spots landed them another pick in the top 60 that they needed. I remember as they walked up to the podium I was convinced we were getting Matta who dropped in the draft and was projected to go in the top 15. Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.

Who knows maybe he pans out the potential is still there and now that they have started to rebuild and the flames have Monahan, Bennett and Johnny who looks like a late round steal the there is not as much pressure on Janko. I just didn't agree with the move as it relates to the teams philosophy at the time.

There were rumors other teams were picking Jankowski in the first round if the flames didn't but that was only speculation on the Feasters part to justify the pick. There were also rumors that Weisbroad was in charge of the Bouwmeester trade which was absolutely horrendous for the Flames. Luckily the Blues made the playoffs and were best early so we got their 2013 pick. Having said that it was also only a rumor so could be totally false.

[Bar-Down]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I disagree with the Jankowski pick due to organizational philosophy at the time. This was a team that was selling a fan base on competing for a cup/playoff spot while improving the roster and bringing in young players. Drafting a 4-5 year project with your first round pick was not the right move for the organization. I am fine with trading down because moving only 7 spots landed them another pick in the top 60 that they needed. I remember as they walked up to the podium I was convinced we were getting Matta who dropped in the draft and was projected to go in the top 15. Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.

Who knows maybe he pans out the potential is still there and now that they have started to rebuild and the flames have Monahan, Bennett and Johnny who looks like a late round steal the there is not as much pressure on Janko. I just didn't agree with the move as it relates to the teams philosophy at the time.

There were rumors other teams were picking Jankowski in the first round if the flames didn't but that was only speculation on the Feasters part to justify the pick. There were also rumors that Weisbroad was in charge of the Bouwmeester trade which was absolutely horrendous for the Flames. Luckily the Blues made the playoffs and were best early so we got their 2013 pick. Having said that it was also only a rumor so could be totally false.

I agree, we should have got back more for the Jaybo deal but can't fully critize it yet.

We got Cundari, 1st rounder (Poirier) and Berra.

Berra then was flipped for a 2nd rounder (COL), which then turned into Hunter Smith.

So basically we got Cundari (AHLer), Poirer and Smith.

Have to wait and see how Poirer and Smith turn out before we can fully judge the trade. Poirer could be a gem.

[Bar-Down]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I disagree with the Jankowski pick due to organizational philosophy at the time. This was a team that was selling a fan base on competing for a cup/playoff spot while improving the roster and bringing in young players. Drafting a 4-5 year project with your first round pick was not the right move for the organization. I am fine with trading down because moving only 7 spots landed them another pick in the top 60 that they needed. I remember as they walked up to the podium I was convinced we were getting Matta who dropped in the draft and was projected to go in the top 15. Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.

Who knows maybe he pans out the potential is still there and now that they have started to rebuild and the flames have Monahan, Bennett and Johnny who looks like a late round steal the there is not as much pressure on Janko. I just didn't agree with the move as it relates to the teams philosophy at the time.

There were rumors other teams were picking Jankowski in the first round if the flames didn't but that was only speculation on the Feasters part to justify the pick. There were also rumors that Weisbroad was in charge of the Bouwmeester trade which was absolutely horrendous for the Flames. Luckily the Blues made the playoffs and were best early so we got their 2013 pick. Having said that it was also only a rumor so could be totally false.

I agree, we should have got back more for the Jaybo deal but can't fully critize it yet.

We got Cundari, 1st rounder (Poirier) and Berra.

Berra then was flipped for a 2nd rounder (COL), which then turned into Hunter Smith.

So basically we got Cundari (AHLer), Poirier and Smith.

Have to wait and see how Poirier and Smith turn out before we can fully judge the trade. Poirier could be a gem.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I disagree with the Jankowski pick due to organizational philosophy at the time. This was a team that was selling a fan base on competing for a cup/playoff spot while improving the roster and bringing in young players. Drafting a 4-5 year project with your first round pick was not the right move for the organization. I am fine with trading down because moving only 7 spots landed them another pick in the top 60 that they needed. I remember as they walked up to the podium I was convinced we were getting Matta who dropped in the draft and was projected to go in the top 15. Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.

Who knows maybe he pans out the potential is still there and now that they have started to rebuild and the flames have Monahan, Bennett and Johnny who looks like a late round steal the there is not as much pressure on Janko. I just didn't agree with the move as it relates to the teams philosophy at the time.

There were rumors other teams were picking Jankowski in the first round if the flames didn't but that was only speculation on the Feasters part to justify the pick. There were also rumors that Weisbroad was in charge of the Bouwmeester trade which was absolutely horrendous for the Flames. Luckily the Blues made the playoffs and were best early so we got their 2013 pick. Having said that it was also only a rumor so could be totally false.

If one of the teams that was 'suspected' of planning to take Jankowski in the first round was Vancouver, that isn't a team we should have been emulating or aligning drafting philosophies with.

However, as Ryan Pinder has often pointed out, Weisbrod did a good job of updating how the scouting staff was organized. He eliminatied scouts reading or cross referencing scouting reports and pinned down the organization's definitions of arbitrary hockey terms like 'hockey sense', 'grit', or 'tenacity'. This isn't revolutionary stuff, but just basic things that were not previously being utilized to effectively organize talent evaluation.

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by Bar-Down

I agree, we should have got back more for the Jaybo deal but can't fully critize it yet.

We got Cundari, 1st rounder (Poirier) and Berra.

Berra then was flipped for a 2nd rounder (COL), which then turned into Hunter Smith.

So basically we got Cundari (AHLer), Poirer and Smith.

Have to wait and see how Poirer and Smith turn out before we can fully judge the trade. Poirer could be a gem.

That may be true, but I don't think we should have to get a steal in the draft for the return on a trade to look good. A better GM should have been able to get more than Berra and Cundari.

I think of it like paying 100$ for a good lottery ticket and 25$ worth of some junk. Sure, that deal might end up being worthwhile, but it's really just a stroke of luck if it does.

Getting a second for Berra does make that trade look a lot better though.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Bar-Down

I agree, we should have got back more for the Jaybo deal but can't fully critize it yet.

We got Cundari, 1st rounder (Poirier) and Berra.

Berra then was flipped for a 2nd rounder (COL), which then turned into Hunter Smith.

So basically we got Cundari (AHLer), Poirier and Smith.

Have to wait and see how Poirier and Smith turn out before we can fully judge the trade. Poirier could be a gem.

Bouwmeester was traded for Cundari, Berra and a late 1st rounder. I believe you have to judge the trade on that alone. Judging the trade based on how Poirier or Smith turns out would be incorrect imo.

Are we still determining the strength of the Nieuwendyk trade based on how Klimchuk turns out?

[rollie619]

Originally Posted by Fire

Bouwmeester was traded for Cundari, Berra and a late 1st rounder. I believe you have to judge the trade on that alone. Judging the trade based on how Poirier or Smith turns out would be incorrect imo.

Are we still determining the strength of the Nieuwendyk trade based on how Klimchuk turns out?

You mean the Nilsson trade? In which case yes, the weight of the world is on Morgan Klimchuk's shoulders to become a HOFer playing on Mcdavid's line for two decades.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

That may be true, but I don't think we should have to get a steal in the draft for the return on a trade to look good. A better GM should have been able to get more than Berra and Cundari...

The problem with guessing what a "better GM" should or would have done is that the market is not static from one season to the next. It is purely conjectural to assess what Burke might have done, or how the return might have changed. I have my doubts that we should expect him or any NHL GM to have done better, especially given the Flames' negotiating position.

And even if Poirier turns out better than expected, a top 20 draft pick should always net the opportunity to draft an excellent player—a player well above the average of his draft peers. In a strong and very deep draft, pick #21 was a seriously valuable asset; enough so that it validates the return almost all on its own.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The problem with guessing what a "better GM" should or would have done is that the market is not static from one season to the next. It is purely conjectural to assess what Burke might have done, or how the return might have changed. I have my doubts that we should expect him or any NHL GM to have done better, especially given the Flames' negotiating position.

And even if Poirier turns out better than expected, a top 20 draft pick should always net the opportunity to draft an excellent player—a player well above the average of his draft peers. In a strong and very deep draft, pick #21 was a seriously valuable asset; enough so that it validates the return almost all on its own.

How was our position so poor WRT Bouwmeester?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Taking Janko with the pick made little sense as he likely would have been available with our 2nd but Weisbroad had tunnel vision and convinced the scouts this kid was going to be a superstar.

Not sure if it is true, but I remember hearing that Janko was the only guy NJ was really considering for their 29th Pick. they ended up with Stephan Matteau instead.

I think the flamese were not willing to go below 28 and Buffalo offered the highest 2nd round pick. In retrospect there are 5 or 6 guys that look pretty good right now. But I don't think any of those 5 or 6 look good enough that Seiloff + Janowski couldn't be better than them in 3 -5 years. But both those guys still have a long way to go.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The problem with guessing what a "better GM" should or would have done is that the market is not static from one season to the next. It is purely conjectural to assess what Burke might have done, or how the return might have changed.

Yep. Deals don't take place in a vacuum. There were limited trading partners for Bouwmeester, and we don't know what they were offering.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yep. Deals don't take place in a vacuum. There were limited trading partners for Bouwmeester, and we don't know what they were offering.

The thing is there was no rush to trade Bouwmeester and in my opinion there wasn't even good reasons for trading him. There probably would have been more trading partners in the summer when teams weren't so up against the cap.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The thing is there was no rush to trade Bouwmeester and in my opinion there wasn't even good reasons for trading him. There probably would have been more trading partners in the summer when teams weren't so up against the cap.

I think management was under some pressure to maek some sort of statement trade and rushed into it too soon, when it was obvious that summer time was much better when teams are setting their budget.

WRT to not knowing what trading partners were, well I think it was Dreger that said one of the offers was Detriot (Nyqueist and Tatar)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think management was under some pressure to maek some sort of statement trade and rushed into it too soon, when it was obvious that summer time was much better when teams are setting their budget.

WRT to not knowing what trading partners were, well I think it was Dreger that said one of the offers was Detriot (Nyqueist and Tatar)

IIRC, it was Nyquist or Tatar. Also IIRC, there was no first rounder coming back in that deal.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

IIRC, it was Nyquist or Tatar. Also IIRC, there was no first rounder coming back in that deal.

This was the origanal quote (tweet)

McKenzie "I've heard that the Flames could have had Nyquist and Tatar for Bouwmeester or another player but chose not to"

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

This was the origanal quote (tweet)

McKenzie "I've heard that the Flames could have had Nyquist and Tatar for Bouwmeester or another player but chose not to"

The another player part of that quote has always confused the heck out of me.