Jay Feaster update (Stan Fischler interview)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's news to me. When did he say this?

Burke said he consulted other hockey people around the NHL which helped make his decision.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The only time Feaster traded a first-round pick was to pick up a second in exchange for moving down in round one. That is most certainly not "nothing."

He may be referring to the ROR fiasco.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Burke said he consulted other hockey people around the NHL which helped make his decision.

That's pretty vague.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He may be referring to the ROR fiasco.

So, something that didn't happen.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's pretty vague.

Burke has been with the Flames for 98 days now. He has kept his distance from the team, but he has kept a close eye on it too.

He claimed he performed a thorough evaluation of Feaster and his staff over the past three-plus months and said he sought opinions from outside observers.

His conclusion was that Feaster was not the man to rebuild the Flames.

Vague or not outside observers played a part in Feaster's firing, so it's a good guess his reputation wasn't good.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hoc...h-feaster.html

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, something that didn't happen.

It reflects on Feaster's judgment.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It reflects on Feaster's judgment.

It reflects badly because he did not do his due diligence. But that's not the same thing as "trad[ing] away a first round pick for nothing." It's not even close.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's news to me. When did he say this? I think he might have implied as much about Weisbrod, but Feaster?

NOt sure if this is what he meant, but the day Feaster/Weisbrod were canned, Peter Mahr said on the FAN960 that the reputation both had was they weren't well liked and thought they were better than everyone else (something about their fancy university degrees).

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Show one quote from a reputable hockey person that says the Flames are considered a joke around the league please. The hyperbole you continue to use is actually quite funny.

Perhaps some 1040 listeners can chime in but my friend who listens everyday would tell me media types like Maguire would routinely rip the flames for the moves they have made and direction they were trying to go under Feaster.

Also hf is a pretty big online hockey community and the flames were a punch line there for Feasters entire run as GM.

Even watching tsn the past couple years I got the impression most on the panel thought very little of the flames.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Perhaps some 1040 listeners can chime in but my friend who listens everyday would tell me media types like Maguire would routinely rip the flames for the moves they have made and direction they were trying to go under Feaster.

Would these be the same media types that have been fellating the Oilers for their great strategy over the years? You know, they are building something special up there. I guess if Feaster wanted some credibility he should have started a docudrama like Oil Change so the media could continually chime in on how great a job he was doing? There are very few people in the media who have a clue. The got where they are because they can talk while having someone feed them information in their ear piece. That is an impressive skill, but doesn't qualify them to be an expert.

Also hf is a pretty big online hockey community and the flames were a punch line there for Feasters entire run as GM.

HF is the punchline to any joke hockey related. Have you seen the quality of posters on that site? Most of them are school age kids who don't have a clue. For every one good poster on HF, there are 100 who are embarrassing themselves with every post. For the Flames, there isn't a single good poster on that site, and unfortunately they are migrating this way. That board is filled with ridiculous commentary and brainless train proposals. It is a site for wannabe NHL'15 GMs. Not a community to use in your defense.

Even watching tsn the past couple years I got the impression most on the panel thought very little of the flames.

Again, who gives a #### about what the TSN panel thinks? How many years were they blowing smoke up the ass of the Oilers? They staked their reputations on the Oilers being a great team, so it would really suck for them if the Flames managed to rebuild a better product in a shorter time while working with poorer assets. There are certain teams that just aren't going to get the love they deserve, and Calgary is one of them, regardless of who is running the team. I seem to recall the media hating the Flames when Sutter was running the show too.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Scoreface

Ridiculous that some use the playoffs as a benchmark for Feaster's tenure. They'd be the same ones choked more than they believe their team choked if futures were traded to attempt to attain their lofty goal of 8th place.

Who used playoffs as a benchmark of success?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The only time Feaster traded a first-round pick was to pick up a second in exchange for moving down in round one. That is most certainly not "nothing."

O'Reilly. But hey let's say the NHL forgave Jay's incompetence and allowed us to keep O'Reilly. Right now we would be sitting without Monahan, likely without Bennett and O'Reilly would have the option of leaving us in 2 years time. Feaster didn't have a clue.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It reflects badly because he did not do his due diligence. But that's not the same thing as "trad[ing] away a first round pick for nothing." It's not even close.

It was a 1st and a 3rd, and it was pretty effing close.

Closer than, say, not giving O'Reilly an offersheet, which 29 other teams managed.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by New Era

HF is the punchline to any joke hockey related. Have you seen the quality of posters on that site? Most of them are school age kids who don't have a clue. For every one good poster on HF, there are 100 who are embarrassing themselves with every post. For the Flames, there isn't a single good poster on that site, and unfortunately they are migrating this way. That board is filled with ridiculous commentary and brainless train proposals. It is a site for wannabe NHL'15 GMs. Not a community to use in your defense.

Funny because you remind me of a HF poster. I can't think of anyone else here who's as needlessly abrasive and obnoxious all the time.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It was a 1st and a 3rd, and it was pretty effing close.

Closer than, say, not giving O'Reilly an offersheet, which 29 other teams managed.

People really seem to forget how the whole thing went down and just remember what COULD have happened. The whole debate was dropped as any conclusion would have just been academic anyway. The issue that not only was an interpretation of the rule questionable, but most GMs didn't even know O'Reilly had played 2 games in the KHL, including the GM of the Avalanche themselves and O'Reilly's own frikken' agent:

O’Reilly’s agent, Pat Morris, has said he didn’t know. Greg Sherman, the general manager of the Avalanche, cannot have known, otherwise he would have told the 29 other teams that any RFA offer to O’Reilly would result in waivers, destroying O’Reilly’s negotiating position

So in short, nobody knew. The Flames claim they had a different interpretation of Clause 13 of the NHL’s Memorandum of Understanding, the back-of-a-cocktail-napkin document that is being used to govern the league until a full CBA is written. As pointed out by TSN legal analyst Eric Macramalla, there is at least a sliver of daylight there.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/...and-avalanche/

[nik-]

Nobody knowing doesn't excuse them. It's their job to know, especially on an already existing rule. "I didn't know" stops being valid when you're like 12 years old.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by nik-

Nobody knowing doesn't excuse them. It's their job to know, especially on an already existing rule. "I didn't know" stops being valid when you're like 12 years old.

There are lots of things they don't know and there are tons of things that could have happened. O'Reilly could have a heart palpation that wasn't diagnosed yet, his father could be terminally ill and he'd have taken the year off to be with him... any number of things can get in the way of a successful transaction. It's pretty unfair to wax on and on and on about something that COULD have happened. 29 other teams could have all made the mistake (which was what I was quoting in the first place) and my point was that Feaster unfortunately was the GM who's offer sheet O'Reilly accepted. Other GMs had come forward and told Jay that they were making the same mistake, and because Jay was successful on landing O'Reilly he looks like the ass.

Can we just drop the O'Reilly thing already? It's an academic point that really has no base in evaluating Feaster's performance.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Split98

There are lots of things they don't know and there are tons of things that could have happened. O'Reilly could have a heart palpation that wasn't diagnosed yet, his father could be terminally ill and he'd have taken the year off to be with him... any number of things can get in the way of a successful transaction. It's pretty unfair to wax on and on and on about something that COULD have happened. 29 other teams could have all made the mistake (which was what I was quoting in the first place) and my point was that Feaster unfortunately was the GM who's offer sheet O'Reilly accepted. Other GMs had come forward and told Jay that they were making the same mistake, and because Jay was successful on landing O'Reilly he looks like the ass.

Can we just drop the O'Reilly thing already? It's an academic point that really has no base in evaluating Feaster's performance.

This is absolutely false. It will always be discussed when discussing Feaster because he was responsible for it.

[Flash Walken]

lol, no one else knew.

Well, 29 other GMs knew enough not to tender an offersheet, so, there's that part of it.

Remember that time Feaster traded a 6th rounder for a guy who retired just weeks later?

Or the time when Shane O'Brien, on his, what, 6th team, didn't even make it 12 months on the roster before being bought out?

I really don't understand where this need to defend Feaster is coming from.

A tally of good moves to bad is heavily in weighted on the 'bad moves' side.

Most of the arguments here seem to based on saying the bad weren't as bad as some believe, but there is precious little space devoted to 'the good' of his tenure. That in and of itself says a lot.

Edit: Guy was awful. He's gone. Flames are better and the organization has moved on. Sometimes you have to reach rock bottom before you can honestly appraise where you are, and for that, Feaster was integral in the organization beginning to move in the right direction.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

lol, no one else knew.

Well, 29 other GMs knew enough not to tender an offersheet, so, there's that part of it.

Remember that time Feaster traded a 6th rounder for a guy who retired just weeks later?

Or the time when Shane O'Brien, on his, what, 6th team, didn't even make it 12 months on the roster before being bought out?

I really don't understand where this need to defend Feaster is coming from.

A tally of good moves to bad is heavily in weighted on the 'bad moves' side.

Most of the arguments here seem to based on saying the bad weren't as bad as some believe, but there is precious little space devoted to 'the good' of his tenure. That in and of itself says a lot.

yeah its really kind of weird that the main arguments made for defending Feaster is:

a) his hands were tied
b) his mistakes didn't result in consequence, therefore its just a academic exercise (its really not, I don't know if any of you have jobs, but in industry jobs, large segments of a company spend 90% of a product cycle in finding out all the potential problems.... I would think in a billion dollar industry, you would do the same due dilligence... when it comes to transactions, deals that formalized are vastly critisized because of the homework done leading up to the transaction, not the end product that we see....)
c) well while he failed to do what he really wanted to, at least the players on our team were so bad that we didn't have big contracts (except for the ones that did)

really kind of odd