[News] Jay Feaster adddresses the media

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by lifetimefan

There very well could have been.

If Feaster had landed Richards, we would be probably be looking at using one of the compliance buyouts for that contract right now. If not bought out, it would be a boat anchor for years to come, most likely well past Feaster's exit.

The ROR fiasco could have been much, much worse than it was, and potentially set back the rebuild by costing the Flames those picks and losing ROR to waivers. Feaster was lucky that the Avs did him a favour by matching.

Feaster is inept. It's been blind luck that he hasn't actually seen any of his blunders through.

Just plain wrong. Not going to continue to go over every single attempt he's made to improve the club again and again. The fact is he's done well by this organization. "Blind luck"? Oy vey... *shakes head*

[kyuss275]

HA HA "Jiri" , i saw what you did there. Nice attempt, but nothing can stop the power of the "round and round" conversations on CP.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Now we have a GM who not only talks, but can do so eloquently and give you a clear picture of what their intentions are and where they are headed.

Well, I can certainly see why you like listening to him and I (among others) don't.

I don't think Feaster is that eloquent or a clear communicator. I'm not sure if this is more because he often has no clear idea where the team is heading, or because he's just a windbag. My gut feeling is that it's a bit of both. It could just be that he is just too often trying to be open in situations where he really can't say much, but to me this is "talking too much".

More generally I feel that Feaster is unqualified for his job, and that his biggest redeeming quality is that he knows this and tries to put himself in a position where as many decisions as possible are made by someone else, people who actually know their hockey. Or you know, "surrounding himself with hockey people".

This is not all bad, but the problem is that I don't see how Feaster is going to evaluate his hockey people if he himself doesn't know enough about hockey. Also, what does Feaster himself bring to the organization?

At this point I have pretty much just tuned him out, because listening to him is IMO pointless. I want to see results, and so far I have real trouble finding much positives. The team is the worst it has ever(?) been, asset management in general has not looked good, and it's too soon to say anything about the prospects overall.

I'm still waiting for a reason why we should keep him as a GM. Surely we could do better?

Sure, he has little catch phrases that drive everyone crazy, but that's like watching a trailer for a movie and assuming it's a bad movie without actually seeing the movie.

Well if a trailer is bad, the movie is almost is usually terrible, so I see no fault in that logic

[Cali Panthers Fan]

^^^@ Itse

I see your points and they are valid, as well as your opinion is valid too. My only problem is that I think people assume he isn't a "hockey guy" because he said as much. I have a feeling he's being a little bit humble and I'm sure at this point he understands the game well enough to get the right player, but he wants to be sure so he relies on multiple viewpoints within the organization to come to some sort of consensus. He's only said these things because he knows that the Flames fan base would settle for nothing less than a GM who's played the game for years and has won multiple Stanley Cups. Like I said, in Calgary he's in a no-win situation because he's not one of our own, he's American (not Canadian), he's a lawyer (no trust immediately because of that), and he's not a battle tested hockey player. This idea that he can't be a decent GM because he lacks these particular traits is ridiculous and prejudiced. Yes I said prejudiced because that's the only thing that can explain how D. Sutter got a free pass for years on bad move after bad move, but Feaster gets no credit for all the good he's done. If you can't see that I feel that it's due to a weird preconception of him from day 1.

From the drafting to the development of prospects. From the cap management to the attempt to ice a winning team despite being in a bad bargaining position. Feaster simply deserves more credit than he gets. Is he GM of the year? No, but I don't know if there are a lot better options out there who are going to be available anytime soon. (and please don't say Brian Burke)

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

^^^@ Itse

I see your points and they are valid, as well as your opinion is valid too. My only problem is that I think people assume he isn't a "hockey guy" because he said as much.

That's not really the reason I consider him unqualified. I don't think being an ex-player means much personally. It's more the problem that I haven't seen any reason to think he is qualified.

However, I don't pretend that I'm really able to judge it. It's just the way I feel about him. I just don't trust his skills.

Yes I said prejudiced because that's the only thing that can explain how D. Sutter got a free pass for years on bad move after bad move, but Feaster gets no credit for all the good he's done.

That is not fair at all on D. Sutter, nor do I think it's accurate to say he's gotten a free pass at all. He made the team very good for a short while and made some really good trades in the process. (Bourque for a 2nd rounder for example.)

Yes, it was done largely at the price of gutting the future, and part of his reputation was built on coaching and not managing. However, I don't think it's at all unreasonable that getting a previously bad team to the Stanley Cup final game 7 as a coach/GM gave him a long leash.

Feaster has done nothing in Calgary to earn that kind of trust, which is why he has a much shorter leash. From what I saw, I think many welcomed Feaster as the GM with open arms. It's only after a couple of years and some body of evidence that people are starting to be very sceptical of him.

In retrospect I would much rather have seen Darryl try to fix the mess he created than give the reigns to Feaster. I'm sure it would at least have been interesting to see

Also, trying to make the team younger, as he stated last summer, and ending up with a team that was one of the oldest, the smallest and dreadfully lacking in significant areas like at center and in size is IMO a gigantic warning sign that Feaster actually might not have much of a clue.

I'm kind of still waiting for the first really good move under Feaster. (I still really like the Wideman signing considering the holes in this team, but it wasn't exactly cheap so it's good but not great.)

From the drafting to the development of prospects. From the cap management to the attempt to ice a winning team despite being in a bad bargaining position. Feaster simply deserves more credit than he gets. Is he GM of the year? No, but I don't know if there are a lot better options out there who are going to be available anytime soon. (and please don't say Brian Burke)

Well I'd love Burke, but okay, let's pass that one

Why wouldn't there be better options? Just because you or I can't name one doesn't mean they're not out there, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that somebody else couldn't do his job notably better.

We're in a deep hole. Average management will not get us out of it, we need good.

Burke might be a ######bag, but he's good. Oh damn, went there anyway

[EVERLAST]

Screw Vinny .....I want Stampkos.....hey I can dream ...its my world ...oh sorry its CP .....slowly backing away

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Im still in agreement with Feaster on the ROR interpretation, for what it is worth.

I think we would have won that one had it gone to arbitration.

You mean the typo of "a" team and not "the" team with respect to having to clear waivers?

Even though, "a" team clearly goes against the spirit of past decisions of player who have been plucked off waivers in the exact same situation in the recent past? Even though Bill Daly, a guy in room writing the CBA, has stated publicly that ROR would have gone through waivers?

Sorry, it defies logic, and all we have to do is see how the CBA addresses this moving forward to see if Feaster was right or not

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Falclore

Everyone is always quick to react and take the negative tone in these situations. Winning the Hobey Baker is different then going into the corner against an NHL caliber defenceman every game. I think Johnny knows he could use another year of adding some size and strength to his game and taking his first shot in the league as a 20yr old.

Where would we be in 2-3 years if Johnny goes out and gets injured a few times and plays less than 50-80 games over that stretch. RNH and these smaller types would be much better served to come into the league as a 20yr old. Very few kids that are 18-19 do much but fail to meet expectations and ride the pine and play less than 10mins per game.

Worst case we get a top 5 pick next year and these new kids help us out in a year or two. We are not going to win the cup in the 2013/14 season, we need to make ourselves a better team for 2016+, deal with it.

Ugh. We do not like intelligent thought or first time posters on Calgary Puck. Call me back in 2-1-


Oh wait you have no posts. So Why we listening? Oh I hear crickets.

[Falclore]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Ugh. We do not like intelligent thought or first time posters on Calgary Puck. Call me back in 2-1-


Oh wait you have no posts. So Why we listening? Oh I hear crickets.

The only crickets out there are between them ears of yours while typing away on your iPhone.

We are on the right track now with Monahan!