The Team That Feaster Built

[gpflamesfan]

I wouldn't call this Feasters team. We are a trade deadline, a draft and a free agent frenzy past Feaster. Would he has kept Cami at the deadline? Traded Berra and Stempniak? Drafted Bennett? Moved up or down in the draft? Signed Hiller??? The list goes on. This team is part Sutter, part Feaster, part Burke and part Treliving if you want to call it anything.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Everyone (including me) wanted Feaster to walk the plank when he brought in Hartley, but he's got the team playing well over their head and that is all that matters.

If I got to give Feaster some credit, it will start and end there.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Everyone (including me) wanted Feaster to walk the plank when he brought in Hartley, but he's got the team playing well over their head and that is all that matters.

If I got to give Feaster some credit, it will start and end there.

Disagree. Not everybody. I liked the Hartley addition.

And over their head or directionally toward their potential?

Previous coach had a lot of individual and collective underachievement that not only hurt on ice product but also asset value. And was noticed at the time. And Hartley fixed a lot of that.

Full marks at the time of Hartley addition and perhaps exceeding expectations now.

[Vulcan]

I didn't have any problem with the hiring of Hartley, he'd had some good success previously. I was just so glad to see Brent gone.

[browna]

The problem I had with the hiring of Hartley is that it appeared to be Feaster running out of ideas, and pulling in any last contacts he had in going to a old (as he tried with trying to land Richards the year before) pal who was the godfather of his child.

Hartley hadn't made the playoffs and won a round when he arrived here, for about the same amount of time that Keenan had since he had won in the playoffs when Keenan got hired here. His role was to get a last year out of vets when he was hired...vets who had no idea what the organization was doing under Feaster.

Hartley then pushed players pretty hard, and not many liked that, and there were a lot of injuries and some resentment. So, Hartley and the other coaches wasn't the proper hire, IMO, for that roster, and it was made tougher by the GM who was all over the place and talking in the media etc.

Hartley does seem to be better with young players, and I do think he was coaching for his job from the day Burke got hired and especially after Feaster was punted, for the rest of last year.

And as I said, I think he adapted the better part of last year and convinced Burke that he was the guy though the rest of last season, and that the new GM would have to give a very good reason NOT to stick with Hartley for the most part.

So Feaster gets credit IMO for hiring him away from Switzerland, but Feaster hired him for the wrong task, and didn't hire him to do what he's doing now. It's Hartley by himself that managed to prove his value and survive the regime change last year that very easily could've happened under Burke and/or Treliving.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by browna

Hartley then pushed players pretty hard, and not many liked that, and there were a lot of injuries and some resentment. So, Hartley and the other coaches wasn't the proper hire, IMO, for that roster.

There was no proper hire for that roster. The country club members were simply not going to listen to anyone. Rarely did I ever see them play a 60 minute game, and there wasn't a coach in the league who could have convinced them to.

Hard to blame Feaster for that. Another example of the mess that Sutter made.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by browna

The problem I had with the hiring of Hartley is that it appeared to be Feaster running out of ideas, and pulling in any last contacts he had in going to a old (as he tried with trying to land Richards the year before) pal who was the godfather of his child.

Hartley hadn't made the playoffs and won a round when he arrived here, for about the same amount of time that Keenan had since he had won in the playoffs when Keenan got hired here. His role was to get a last year out of vets when he was hired...vets who had no idea what the organization was doing under Feaster.

Hartley then pushed players pretty hard, and not many liked that, and there were a lot of injuries and some resentment. So, Hartley and the other coaches wasn't the proper hire, IMO, for that roster, and it was made tougher by the GM who was all over the place and talking in the media etc.

Hartley does seem to be better with young players, and I do think he was coaching for his job from the day Burke got hired and especially after Feaster was punted, for the rest of last year.

And as I said, I think he adapted the better part of last year and convinced Burke that he was the guy though the rest of last season, and that the new GM would have to give a very good reason NOT to stick with Hartley for the most part.

So Feaster gets credit IMO for hiring him away from Switzerland, but Feaster hired him for the wrong task, and didn't hire him to do what he's doing now. It's Hartley by himself that managed to prove his value and survive the regime change last year that very easily could've happened under Burke and/or Treliving.

So Feaster is technically responsible for the Flames having a great coach but shouldn't really get any credit for it. Ok then

[JiriHrdina]

Browna you have good points about Feaster but your hate on for him even causes you to discount the good moves he did make.
This isn't a black/white thing - he made good trades and good decisions, but also made questionable moves and more importantly questionable "near misses".
He was fired because in the end the latter outweighed the former - but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get credit for things he did have a hand in - including bringing in Hartley.

[browna]

Originally Posted by edslunch

So Feaster is technically responsible for the Flames having a great coach but shouldn't really get any credit for it. Ok then

Yeah, it worked out in the end so far, but that's more to Hartley's credit for being able to adapt from his original role, and coach a young team to success.

He was hired mainly because of his previous relationship with Feaster, with the task to squeeze all he could out of a veteran team. I think even Feaster joked at the time that if that didn't work out, they were both going to be gone.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by blankall

There was no proper hire for that roster. The country club members were simply not going to listen to anyone. Rarely did I ever see them play a 60 minute game, and there wasn't a coach in the league who could have convinced them to.

Hard to blame Feaster for that. Another example of the mess that Sutter made.

Nobody could have coached that roster <--- an excuse
Hard to blame Feaster for that. Another example of the mess that Sutter made <--- passing the blame

When is Feaster ever accountable, there's always an excuses, always someone else fault. But sure enough when a pat on the back is required Feaster was the first one in front of the TV.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by browna

The problem I had with the hiring of Hartley is that it appeared to be Feaster running out of ideas, and pulling in any last contacts he had in going to a old (as he tried with trying to land Richards the year before) pal who was the godfather of his child.

Hartley hadn't made the playoffs and won a round when he arrived here, for about the same amount of time that Keenan had since he had won in the playoffs when Keenan got hired here. His role was to get a last year out of vets when he was hired...vets who had no idea what the organization was doing under Feaster.

Hartley then pushed players pretty hard, and not many liked that, and there were a lot of injuries and some resentment. So, Hartley and the other coaches wasn't the proper hire, IMO, for that roster, and it was made tougher by the GM who was all over the place and talking in the media etc.

Hartley does seem to be better with young players, and I do think he was coaching for his job from the day Burke got hired and especially after Feaster was punted, for the rest of last year.

And as I said, I think he adapted the better part of last year and convinced Burke that he was the guy though the rest of last season, and that the new GM would have to give a very good reason NOT to stick with Hartley for the most part.

So Feaster gets credit IMO for hiring him away from Switzerland, but Feaster hired him for the wrong task, and didn't hire him to do what he's doing now. It's Hartley by himself that managed to prove his value and survive the regime change last year that very easily could've happened under Burke and/or Treliving.

Oh come........on. We know you were a staunch Darryl Sutter defender and were all over Feaster almost as soon as he came on board, but let's not get too extreme here.

You can explain away credit from every single hockey person in the league if you try this hard.

[jayswin]

Yeah sure, he's been an amazing coach, but that's not why that guy brought him in, so no credit for you!

lol

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Oh come........on. We know you were a staunch Darryl Sutter defender and were all over Feaster almost as soon as he came on board, but let's not get too extreme here.

You can explain away credit from every single hockey person in the league if you try this hard.

Maybe he wasn't fooled by the emperors new clothes as easily as others were

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Fire

The ROR situation made the Flames the laughing stock of the NHL. There was no way for Feaster to save his job after that.

No it didn't. The rule was changed in the actual CBA as opposed to what was in the memorandum of understanding, which was followed by the Flames.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by gpflamesfan

I wouldn't call this Feasters team. We are a trade deadline, a draft and a free agent frenzy past Feaster. Would he has kept Cami at the deadline? Traded Berra and Stempniak? Drafted Bennett? Moved up or down in the draft? Signed Hiller??? The list goes on. This team is part Sutter, part Feaster, part Burke and part Treliving if you want to call it anything.

I agree. This is not a "team that Feaster built". He has not been here that long to make a profound impact. He made some positive moves that are/could be beneficial for the team future and he deserves some credit for those moves, that's all. Let's not forget that Feaster is not a "hockey guy" per se, he's a lawyer, so most of his player selection decisions were based on scouting recommendations, not his own picks based on his own hockey sense.

Hiring Hartley for the team that we had at the time of hiring Hartley was, arguably, wrong at that time. Hartley was not able to do anything with that team, just like Brent Sutter couldn't do anything with that team. Both Hartley and B. Sutter do better with younger teams. It's easy to tell now that Hartley was a great choice but at that time it was a coin toss and Feaster did it based on a personal friendship/connection he had with Hartley. I mean, just like any other die-hard Flames fan I am happy to see how the new Flames are responding to Hartley's coaching; that's excellent; I just don't know if they wouldn't have responded to Brent the same way (and there's no way to check that, of course).

Also, I chuckle when Feaster gets a lot of credit for drafting Monahan, who was the best draft pick on the board at #6. Why would any rational GM have not drafted Monahan at #6?

[edslunch]

You guys kill me. Nobody, I mean nobody, wishes Feaster was still the GM, but you make it sound like he singlehandedly destroyed the franchise and the only positives were based 100% on someone else or were lucky mistakes.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by edslunch

...you make it sound like he singlehandedly destroyed the franchise ...

Where did you read that???

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Where did you read that???

I can exaggerate too

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I can exaggerate too

I read the whole thread and saw the exaggeration in the opening post ; after that it's a pretty rational discussion I'd say.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

No it didn't. The rule was changed in the actual CBA as opposed to what was in the memorandum of understanding, which was followed by the Flames.

However you try to slice it, ownership moved King out of anything to do with player decisions, at first chance.

It was an embarrassment and something they didn't want repeated.