Poll: "Do you believe in the current mgmt group"

[nik-]

So there was the King luncheon with some season ticket holders yesterday right? Did someone give a rundown of what was discussed?

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by moon

Its possible but Lucic, Marchand, Krecji, Bergeron were all drafted before Weisbrod got there. Chara and Thomas signed before he got there. That seems to be the foundation of the Boston team and the drafted guys seem to be the biggest pro's that most people have in terms of talking about the Boston success.

It is possible that Weisbrod did something to help develop them and that he had a role in bringing in secondary guys like Horton and Ryder but it does seem like most of the work in building that Bruins team was done before he even arrived there so tough to give him a ton of credit.

I think the Benning comments were both him complimenting a former colleague and him believing Weisbrod is a smart guy.

Hmmm.... So what key roster decisions would Weisbrod have his finger prints on for the bruins?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

So there was the King luncheon with some season ticket holders yesterday right? Did someone give a rundown of what was discussed?

He's looking at options of trading up in the draft. He's using the NFL draft value chart and figures it should be relative to the NHL. Currently has his head burried in the Hockey News Draft Preview. Ensured fans that he will make these 1st round picks count.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He's looking at options of trading up in the draft. He's using the NFL draft value chart and figures it should be relative to the NHL. Currently has his head burried in the Hockey News Draft Preview. Ensured fans that he will make these 1st round picks count.

Can't tell if you're serious or joking.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He's looking at options of trading up in the draft. He's using the NFL draft value chart and figures it should be relative to the NHL. Currently has his head burried in the Hockey News Draft Preview. Ensured fans that he will make these 1st round picks count.

[DuffMan]

I'd feel much better about the future of the Flames if only moon was the GM.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by FAN

Feaster can interpret things however he wants but if the NHL front office is adament that THEIR interpretation of the rule is the correct one, Feaster can't just put ROR into the lineup. He wouldn't be allowed to play, which means Feaster had three options: 1) Put ROR on waivers and hope he clears, 2) have ROR sit out the season, or 3) Appeal the decision and have an arbitrator decide on the interpretation of the rules and hope that it gets resolved quickly enough so that the decision wouldn't become moot.

Option 2 wasn't possible. O'Reilly would have gone on waivers immediately upon acquisition and it didn't matter if he didn't play a game.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Option 2 wasn't possible. O'Reilly would have gone on waivers immediately upon acquisition and it didn't matter if he didn't play a game.

The rule 13.23 stated: "In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers." I read the language to say if the player is to join the team this season he had to clear waivers. But it appears you are right, at least according to Bob McKenzie. According to Bob, there's no provision for paying O'Reilly not to play so the Flames would have been forced to put O'Reilly on waivers.

It's just a stupid offer sheet and Feaster's arrogance doesn't help matters. It's like purposely doing something that you know has a chance of getting you arrested because you feel the police has the wrong interpretation of the law and you would ultimately win in court. Just completely reckless.

[nik-]

I still believe it's likely that the management group didn't even realize this could be a possibility. If they knew ahead of time, there's no way they don't make a 5 minute phone call to clarify. I feel the "our interpretation" was the after the fact response to cover their asses.

It was either incompetence or arrogance. It's just too bad the ownership can't learn from near misses, I guess we're going to have to hit an iceberg before we make the change.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by FAN

The rule 13.23 stated: "In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers." I read the language to say if the player is to join the team this season he had to clear waivers. But it appears you are right, at least according to Bob McKenzie. According to Bob, there's no provision for paying O'Reilly not to play so the Flames would have been forced to put O'Reilly on waivers.

It's just a stupid offer sheet and Feaster's arrogance doesn't help matters. It's like purposely doing something that you know has a chance of getting you arrested because you feel the police has the wrong interpretation of the law and you would ultimately win in court. Just completely reckless.

If this is the clause why didn't the Avs have to put him on waivers?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If this is the clause why didn't the Avs have to put him on waivers?

Because he was their property and the rule was changed so you didn't have to put your own RFA's through waivers. That waiver exemption doesn't apply to the other teams.

[metroneck]

Can't remember the exact wording, but it has to do with that player being propert of the team prior to the signing.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by nik-;4235468[B

]I still believe it's likely that the management group didn't even realize this could be a possibility. If they knew ahead of time, there's no way they don't make a 5 minute phone call to clarify. I feel the "our interpretation" was the after the fact response to cover their asses.[/B]

It was either incompetence or arrogance. It's just too bad the ownership can't learn from near misses, I guess we're going to have to hit an iceberg before we make the change.

I don't think so. I think management knew of the situation, informed ownership of the situation, ownership saw the situation like Feaster did, and gave him the green light to go forward. I just can't see how after a horrible year, that ownership would look the other way on this matter and let Feaster keep his job if they were not involved with the whole ROR process.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because he was their property and the rule was changed so you didn't have to put your own RFA's through waivers. That waiver exemption doesn't apply to the other teams.

Changed in the then yet to be finalized CBA?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I don't think so. I think management knew of the situation, informed ownership of the situation, ownership saw the situation like Feaster did, and gave him the green light to go forward. I just can't see how after a horrible year, that ownership would look the other way on this matter and let Feaster keep his job if they were not involved with the whole ROR process.

So, arrogance

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Changed in the then yet to be finalized CBA?

Yup, which is why you take the time to check with the league and not just assume you're right.


Anyway, I'm guessing people don't really want to open up this can of worms again and I don't blame them, but I just don't buy their explanation.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by nik-

So, arrogance



Yup, which is why you take the time to check with the league and not just assume you're right.


Anyway, I'm guessing people don't really want to open up this can of worms again and I don't blame them, but I just don't buy their explanation.

I don't like Feaster but he can not be blamed for this on his own. Ownership and KK knew what they were getting into when the offer sheet went down.

My theory is they did not check with league because the league would have told them not to do the offer sheet. They felt that they could win the case if it came down to it. I would not have risked it, but ownership, KK and Feaster thought it was worth it.

The worst part of the whole thing for me was not the aftermath, but that Feaster thought ROR was an elite center and was wiling to pay him elite money. Thank you Av's for being as stupid, if not dumber than Feaster.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I don't like Feaster but he can not be blamed for this on his own. Ownership and KK knew what they were getting into when the offer sheet went down.

I agree with this to an extent, but it stops at ownership. Murray Edwards' business is getting oil out of the ground, not knowing the CBA. Can he be faulted for perhaps trusting this management staff too much? yeah, probably, but it's not fair to lump him in for blame on this transaction.

[Reign of Fire]

Both have gots to go. Feaster has had too many close calls and King is too involved in hockey operations.

[DeluxeMoustache]

My answer to this poll would be really quite dependent on something definitive around the offer sheet fiasco, and nobody knows enough about the cases on either side. That aside, I understand the moves that have been made and they have generally made sense.

Langkow for Stempniak gained cap spaced and they still have a valuable asset. But the hold at center that remains is glaring.

Regehr made sense as his stock was down. Butler is serviceable and got a rough ride last year. He is more of a 3-4 than a 1-2 and he and Bouw were a terrible 1-2. Their weaknesses were magnified. Coaching error or GM? He fit the profile agewise and had upside. Plus the cap relief. But Regehr was important for a different reason. And this comes down to Iggy's style of leadership. He was less of a guy to call out teammates and more of a guy to step his game up. Regehr and Warrener would cue off of that, Butler and Bouw would not. Ference would, Stuart would not so much. That is where chemistry is important. Guys playing for each other. Sutter got that when he was coaching and lost it a bit when he stepped upstairs to do only one job.

I like the drafting so far. I understand the trades given their context. The returns for Bouw and Iginla were just fine given the situation.

There is definitely some weakness in identifying and closing the real gaps, but other GMs recognize these pieces and are not giving them away. Chicago's third line is built to do exactly what it needs. But they aren't offering up Bolland, Staalberg and Bickell for Flames players that don't fit their needs.

It is tough being a GM and retooling given the cards you are dealt.

I admire the effort reconciling the difficult mandate and difficult situation. And I understand Feaster's communication about the philosophy. You can't declare that it is ok to not be competitive, that would be slammed as badly or worse than outlining that it is unacceptable.

And most importantly, rebuilds take time. More than one GM has spoken in terms of a 5 year plan, and getting our panties in a bunch 2 years in to a tenure and mere weeks in to an accepted change in philosophy does not make sense. That is barely any time to see how the draft picks pan out, and no chance to measure success.

And I also have no trouble in spending thoughtfully on FAs. If they want to bring in more youth, great, but why leave 20.M sitting on the shelf for 2 years when short term commitments could plug a couple of huge holes and make the team more competitive while the prospects develop?

Too much knee jerk reaction. There are a lot of moving parts and the job to create room to have optionality has been done, and not too poorly.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I don't like Feaster but he can not be blamed for this on his own. Ownership and KK knew what they were getting into when the offer sheet went down.

I disagree. Why would ownership and KK be blamed here? It's certainly not the owners job to be well versed in the rules of the CBA. It's not KK's job either. Feaster should have known better. It's not fair to complain about meddling and then blame KK and ownership for rubberstamping something.