Jay Feaster update (Stan Fischler interview)

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well I've brought this up a number of times but there was no reason for Feaster to be caught with his pants down and forced into a last minute deal. Backlund had been talking to Tom and knew he didn't want to sign with the Flames so Feaster should have known the position he was in and had time to reach out to other teams to bid on Tom's services. As it is Feaster came out all right probably because he may have been able to accuse the Rangers of tampering but it wasn't because of any forethought on his part.

Huh, first time I've heard that.

I also don't think it's professional, let alone expected of Feaster to be gossiping with other players about contact talks. Backlund and Feaster having a little chat about Erixon's future with the team is absurd.

That also wasn't the point of the post. The point is that it's silly to think that a Flames fan on a forum would make a better NHL GM.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think so. He last played with Colorado, and then signed with St. Louis. The only way the Blues could have signed him if he was still an RFA would have been through an offer sheet. All indications seem to point to his deal as an UFA contract.

*EDIT* Besides, the amendment I cited was written specifically into the new CBA, and Svatos's deal occurred under the old agreement.

In any event, I have always had major doubts that the League would have followed through with the public's interpretation of the rule, in light of the fact that compensation for draft picks were involved. The rule was designed as a control on signing UFAs to play in the NHL in mid-season in an effort to circumvent certain cap conditions. If a team loses a signed UFA on waivers, all they lose is the player and the contract. At the time the RFA offer for O'Reilly was made, there was CLEARLY enough confusion on ALL FRONTS to confirm the assertion of many parties that the CBA was still being finalised, and that this was a scenario that was not adequately covered in the signed draft versions. I think this likely caught the League off guard, and they were more than happy to avoid making firm statements one way or the other because they saw this as a problem in the deal. It will never happen again, thanks to this incident.

This is the frustrating part for me. Ignorance is forgivable (but still punishable), but lazyness is not when the stakes are so high. Feaster said in an interview he was aware of the rule, but just had a different interpretation of it - you would think if there was any room, even the slightest, for confusion, you would do your due dilligence and clearify this in written form? In any other industry in the world, you document the hell out of things like this to cover your ass.... how could a trained lawyer, of all professions, fail to do this?

This kind of summarizes Feaster's tenure with the Flames to me.... unexcusably sloppy.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

This is the frustrating part for me. Ignorance is forgivable (but still punishable), but lazyness is not when the stakes are so high. Feaster said in an interview he was aware of the rule, but just had a different interpretation of it - you would think if there was any room, even the slightest, for confusion, you would do your due dilligence and clearify this in written form? In any other industry in the world, you document the hell out of things like this to cover your ass.... how could a trained lawyer, of all professions, fail to do this?...

I agree, and already stated as much in an earlier post. My point here was merely to show that this was not just a straightforward misinterpretation of a CBA rule. It was an understanding of a rule that was in place but ambiguously worded in such a way that appeared in a document that had been drafted and signed virtually weeks earlier. A document that was still in the process of being finalised.

My point was to show that there were other parties who also seemed to share Feaster's understanding of the situation that resulted from the confusion at the time. This doesn't excuse what Feaster did, but it does set his actions in a broader context in which he was not entirely alone in his thinking. He's the one who got caught with his pants down, but we are certain there was at least one or two other teams who were right there with him, and several more for all we know.

[Vinny01]

Feaster made claims like:
"Several other teams were presented offer sheets to RoR"
And
"If we didn't take Jankowski at 21 he would not have made it out of the first round"

Those are statements that somewhat justify his actions but at the end of the day could easily been completely made up as they were never proven to be true

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

Huh, first time I've heard that.

I also don't think it's professional, let alone expected of Feaster to be gossiping with other players about contact talks. Backlund and Feaster having a little chat about Erixon's future with the team is absurd.

That also wasn't the point of the post. The point is that it's silly to think that a Flames fan on a forum would make a better NHL GM.

This was mentioned by Craig Conroy on the FAN960 the day Erixon was dealt.

I realize I am linking myself here, but source: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...on#post3147117

NOTE: FTR, I do not blame Feaster for the Erixon debacle at all.

[Phanuthier]

Somewhat related, but one other Feaster attempt that did not go through was Feaster offering all 3 1st round picks (Monahan, Poirer, Klimchuk) for the 1st overall (MacKinnon).

Looking back, would you make that deal?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Somewhat related, but one other Feaster attempt that did not go through was Feaster offering all 3 1st round picks (Monahan, Poirer, Klimchuk) for the 1st overall (MacKinnon).

Looking back, would you make that deal?

I love Monny, but yes in a heartbeat.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Looking back, would you make that deal?

Absolutely. MacKinnon would have been more then worth it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Somewhat related, but one other Feaster attempt that did not go through was Feaster offering all 3 1st round picks (Monahan, Poirer, Klimchuk) for the 1st overall (MacKinnon).

Looking back, would you make that deal?

Without a doubt. Mony is Money but MacKinnon is an elite, potentially generational talent.

[Hackey]

That probably would have been his best trade. Easy to say right now though. In the future it could look horrible depending how Poirier and Klimchuk pan out.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

This was mentioned by Craig Conroy on the FAN960 the day Erixon was dealt.

I realize I am linking myself here, but source: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...on#post3147117

NOTE: FTR, I do not blame Feaster for the Erixon debacle at all.

That is such a weird conversation to have. Thanks for digging up the link, I couldn't find anything on it.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The rule had been in place, yes.

But there was a line in the new agreement that affected that rule. The line was very ambiguously worded, however. And it was that ambiguity that led to this situation and all the subsequent debate.

Feaster and the Flames failed by not clarifying prior. That is indisputable I would think.

However, considering the ambiguity of the wording in the new agreement, there is no way that anyone can state (with accuracy) what the league would have ruled.

It is extremely hard to imagine, IMO, that the league would rule that the Flames lose both the player and the draft picks, considering that it was their own document that was unclear. Seems more likely to me that they would cancel the whole transaction.

AND the wording changed from the Memorandum of Understanding to the actual CBA.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Pure speculation on my part, but after seeing how the league back pedalled on NJ penalties, I don't think they would have had the stomach to take both the player and picks from Calgary.

I will agree that the lack of due diligence in this transaction alone should have been cause for dismissal. There really is no excuse for that. I am neutral on Jankowski, too early to say. Feaster does deserve some credit for finally getting the rebuild going, he also deserves criticism for being a yes man for two seasons, and starting the rebuild too late. I don't think the the team would have spiralled down any differently had he tried to change the team's path. The Flames would have just hired someone else. The owners were not prepared to declare a rebuild, so it was not going to happen, no matter who was 'in charge'.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Split98

Do I love all of his moves? No. Am I happy with the rebuild so far? Absolutely. Do I credit Jay for getting us on the right track? Yes.

What did Jay do to get us on the right track that isn't directly tied to us being a terrible team or allowing his scouts to essentially run the draft?

I'm not going to give him credit for constructing such a bad team that we were able to draft Sean Monahan. I'm not going to give him credit for drafting Gaudreau when we have been told that was all Button. The list goes on. He should get credit because his incompetence fortunately lead us to some prospects? The rebuild is only on the right track because of how terrible we've been and because our scouts have done a pretty good job at the draft. I'm just thankful we have a couple guys in charge now who at least sound like they know what their talking about. Feaster was clueless.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Hackey

What did Jay do to get us on the right track that isn't directly tied to us being a terrible team or allowing his scouts to essentially run the draft?

I'm not going to give him credit for constructing such a bad team that we were able to draft Sean Monahan. I'm not going to give him credit for drafting Gaudreau when we have been told that was all Button. The list goes on. He should get credit because his incompetence fortunately lead us to some prospects? The rebuild is only on the right track because of how terrible we've been and because our scouts have done a pretty good job at the draft. I'm just thankful we have a couple guys in charge now who at least sound like they know what their talking about. Feaster was clueless.

Just... no. To all of that... no.

Feaster didn't inherit a championship team and ruin it. Give me one example of that the current management group has done that is better than what Feaster had done.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Split98

Just... no. To all of that... no.

Feaster didn't inherit a championship team and ruin it. Give me one example of that the current management group has done that is better than what Feaster had done.

Feaster got rid of a 2nd round pick in a stupid trade so that he could offer Richards a stupid contract

He then stupidly traded down from 21 to 14 to get that 2nd round pick back

Then he topped it off by making a stupid pick at 21 and a stupid pick in the second round


Besides that, his two near disasters, and making our team too small to play in the west, he did mostly good things and navigated a crappy time for the franchise.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Split98

Just... no. To all of that... no.

Feaster didn't inherit a championship team and ruin it. Give me one example of that the current management group has done that is better than what Feaster had done.

The current group bought out Shane O'Brien instead of trading for him...

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

Just... no. To all of that... no.

Feaster didn't inherit a championship team and ruin it. Give me one example of that the current management group has done that is better than what Feaster had done.

Generally speaking, I would define better to be one that has more success (playoffs, championships, etc). This is likely more often then not defined by players he acquires (via trade, draft/develop).. but not limited to.

Also generally speaking, I don't believe better success to be defined ability to lock up the least number of bad contracts, or ability to acquire top draft picks due to your teams place in the standings, as "success."

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The current group bought out Shane O'Brien instead of trading for him...

Then gave Engelland $2.9M per.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Generally speaking, I would define better to be one that has more success (playoffs, championships, etc). This is likely more often then not defined by players he acquires (via trade, draft/develop).. but not limited to.

Also generally speaking, I don't believe better success to be defined ability to lock up the least number of bad contracts, or ability to acquire top draft picks due to your teams place in the standings, as "success."

I agree. I'm just saying you can't in one breath say Feaster was a travesty and turn around and try and tell me that the current management group is so much better.

I'm happy with who we have, but Bollig and Engelland so far look to be questionable moves. They may be great, and I hope they are, but current management have proven nothing so far.

For arguments sake, as I am very happy with Treliving and Burke taking the helm, let's look at some moves we can criticize them for just the same:

Letting Cammalleri walk, and getting nothing for him
Signing a German face-puncher
Engelland making as much per season as most people assumed he'd make on a 3 year contract
Trading pick 83 for Bollig
Kevin Westgarth.
Un-addressed RW and D weakness
Hiller on the goalie pile
And I'm sure there's more.

TO BE CLEAR, so I don't have to defend a position I don't necessarily hold... these are moves that SOME (not necessarily me) could criticize management for. How are these moves better than anything Feaster had done? It's a part of being a GM and building a team. Some pieces won't work out, some roster moves need to be made to meet certain needs. Slamming him and picking each and every single moment apart is asinine and irrelevant.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Split98

I agree. I'm just saying you can't in one breath say Feaster was a travesty and turn around and try and tell me that the current management group is so much better.

I'm happy with who we have, but Bollig and Engelland so far look to be questionable moves. They may be great, and I hope they are, but current management have proven nothing so far.

For arguments sake, as I am very happy with Treliving and Burke taking the helm, let's look at some moves we can criticize them for just the same:

Letting Cammalleri walk, and getting nothing for him
Signing a German face-puncher
Engelland making as much per season as most people assumed he'd make on a 3 year contract
Trading pick 83 for Bollig
Kevin Westgarth.
Un-addressed RW and D weakness
Hiller on the goalie pile
And I'm sure there's more.

TO BE CLEAR, so I don't have to defend a position I don't necessarily hold... these are moves that SOME (not necessarily me) could criticize management for. How are these moves better than anything Feaster had done? It's a part of being a GM and building a team. Some pieces won't work out, some roster moves need to be made to meet certain needs. Slamming him and picking each and every single moment apart is asinine and irrelevant.

I think what you pointed out were small transactions, minimal trades off a bottom feeder team, compared to Feaster who was armed with Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr and returned with minimal return. Those were big transactions, and as you'd expect, big transactions get critisized more than middle ones.

I think the transactions that are better comparable would be something like Feaster's trades like a draft pick for PL3, Freddy Modin, Tim Jackman, Blair Jones, David Jones and SOB, and Denis Wideman.

Feaster's "win's like Erixon trade, Hudler... (can't think of any other win's he's had) probably would be on par with something like us trading Reto Berra for a 2nd, and Stempniak for a 3rd.

(FWIW I do not consider the Bollig deal to be a bad trade at all. I rather like the deal. The David Wolf comment is really short sighted, I do not consider this to be a bad deal as there is pretty much no risk to this.)