Does Jay Feaster get consideration for a GM Job?

[OldDutch]

I think he obviously made some good moves, but so did Sutter. Sutter brought in Kipper, assembled key role players in 2004, resigned the core that no one said would happen. The Phaneuf trade was the right one, for cap reasons alone. That said, he deserves rightfully never to GM based on that fateful last season when he just lost it.

So I see Feaster in the same boat. RoR, Iggy trade, Richards signing, jankowski, etc are all blunders. jankowski simply because he could be had in round 2.

I think that Iggy trade really stands out. We should and could have got more. I know it was be good to Iggy, but you go to him and get his picks and trade him. The way it went down was a joke. I really think he bungled a lot that people don't remember.

So both guys I think will never GM again. Way too many good young candidates, and proven guys out there. I think he's a good guy, with best intentions but in this business you can't screw up that many times despite the Flames current success.

[chubeyr1]

Will Feaster get a job as a GM now?

Does he want a GM job again?

Hey I like Jay Feaster, Think he would be a great president of hockey ops or PR guy on a good team. As a GM? He could point to the Flames right now and say " I did that "! Hudler Gaudreau Monahan! He did too although Monahan was an easy pick!

Hiring of Hartley as well!

If MacT north of us can be a GM in this league Feaster is definately as qualified if not more so!

Feaster came to this team and had no prospects, in Cap hell from Sutter. Some may not like his trades but to me all of the trades were from a position of weakness.

Would I want Feaster as a GM again? A reluctant No! I could see him getting another job where he would be the scapegoat if things go south.

Dont think he wants that. Happy where he is at.

[HOWITZER]

I think Feaster was exceptional at "managing" his people and relying on contributions from Weisbrod, Button et. al. to make informed decisions. That is the mark of a good communicator, and manager. However, I do believe he lacked adequate knowledge in the "hockey ops" world to be truly successful. With that knowledge he could possibly have put the brakes on the Richards/ROR situations, or at least have the ability to question the merit.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

jankowski, etc are all blunders. jankowski simply because he could be had in round 2.

...Pretty sure they anticipated another team taking him before round 2, I think the Devils at #29 just as they anticipated Montreal taking Poirier before #28. Just the year prior they had lost the chance to draft Kucherov thinking he''d be around in a later round, too, and Gaudreau was a bit of a panic pick in the fourth round too, which I think they were planning on waiting til the sixth round rolled around.

You can't just explicitly state Jankowski "could" be had in round 2 - every team has a different list and feaster played it safe for a player who was high on their OWN list.

EDIT: I dug up the quote:

“I don’t want to share anyone’s business,” said Weisbrod, “but I know he wouldn’t have made it through (the first round). I know at least two teams that would have taken him."

[Dagger]

The success of the Flames this season, and their bright future reflects well on him, but he made some pretty glaring mistakes. His biggest asset is that he seemed like he could delegate roles well, and not interfere when he was out of his depth. The downside is, he doesn't really bring any qualities to the table another GM candidate doesn't have.

If an owner needs a yes man, they can do worse but it's hard to see a team hiring him for any other reason. He definitely doesn't deserve to be director of community relations or whatever it is with Tampa, and should garner a better role in time.

[liamenator]

There is no way he ends up in Toronto. Not because he isn't a good fit, but because he is far too cardboard to placate that fan base and media market. Shanahan needs to make a sexy hire. That's why it will be an ex-player (e.g. Burke, Blake, etc.) or one of the hyped rookie candidates (e.g. Futa, Fenton).

If Chiarelli gets canned, I could see Feaster end up in Boston. (The rumour there is that Neeley would take on a much larger role in Hockey Ops without Chiarelli). Feaster would be a good guy to have around in that situation as he's proven to work well in unusual circumstances and to be deferential to those above and below him.

[Textcritic]

Jay Feaster discussions are often very polarising, and peculiarly so. This is one of the bits that I don't get in that regard:

Originally Posted by #-3

...his lack of hockey knowledge and mouth mean he cannot succeed as a GM.

Originally Posted by edslunch

...he isn't fundamentally a hockey guy and I think that's ultimately his achilles heel as a GM

What the hell does this even mean? Lacks knowledge in a field in which he has worked full time for the past twenty years, and had success at the highest level? What exactly is a "hockey guy"? Does the fact that Feaster never played professionally weigh heavily against him as such? What about Brad Treliving or Ken Hitchcock? Are they also "not fundamentally hockey guys"?

I have said so before: Jay Feaster was not a great GM, neither was he a terrible GM. He served the Flames very well and also made some serious mistakes, but in the end I think that his body of work is pretty solid. He has already interviewed for another position in the League, and with the Flames recent success, I wouldn't be surprised to see him audition for more in the near future. There are a lot of teams that could do ALOT worse.

I hope for the best for Jay Feaster.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Dagger

The success of the Flames this season, and their bright future reflects well on him, but he made some pretty glaring mistakes. His biggest asset is that he seemed like he could delegate roles well, and not interfere when he was out of his depth. The downside is, he doesn't really bring any qualities to the table another GM candidate doesn't have...

That is an enormously presumptuous statement. How do you know what he does and does not do behind closed doors comparatively speaking to other NHL GMs and would be GMs? What exact unique qualities do Jim Benning? Brad Treliving? Tim Murray? "bring to the table" that other GM candidates did not when they were hired last year?

I'm not suggesting that any of these people were poor choices, nor that Feaster is a better choice, only that your assessment of Feaster is practically vacuous. And I would argue further that the ability to manage effectively IS a skill that not everyone holds in equal measure—a very important skill that Feaster arguably DOES possess in spades, possibly well beyond many of his peers.

[neo45]

^Treliving played pro I think

Feaster's tenure was alright. He restocked the shelves. All his bad moves seem distant now (Regher, Iggy trade etc). His near misses like ROR fiasco and trying to sign Richards would still be hurting us today if he was successful in those attempts. All in all, Burke let him go at the exact right time.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is an enormously presumptuous statement. How do you know what he does and does not do behind closed doors comparatively speaking to other NHL GMs and would be GMs? What exact unique qualities do Jim Benning? Brad Treliving? Tim Murray? "bring to the table" that other GM candidates did not when they were hired last year?

I'm not suggesting that any of these people were poor choices, nor that Feaster is a better choice, only that your assessment of Feaster is practically vacuous. And I would argue further that the ability to manage effectively IS a skill that not everyone holds in equal measure—a very important skill that Feaster arguably DOES possess in spades, possibly well beyond many of his peers.

Maybe that was a little bit unfair to him, and delegating is an important task of any job. He was seemingly good at not interfering in areas he knew he was out of his depth at. However as a GM, he doesn't bring a scouting background and leaves pro and amateur scouting exclusively to others. Do other GMs do this? Yes, of course. However from what it sounds, Feaster wasn't a guy who could make the definitive call with his own eyes, he needed Weisbrod to do it for him. He was a seemingly poor when it came to trade negotiations, as the Iginla, Regehr point to(albeit his hands were tied). His strength should be his legal background, but the ROR fiasco doesn't really do him any favours.

Tim Murray was an excellent drafter with Ottawa, Benning was well regarded within the Boston front office, and Treliving spent years cutting his teeth to reach where he was. I think it speaks volumes about how Feaster is regarded amongst the league that after he was let go in Tampa he couldn't find work for a few years, and after being let go here he's working outside of hockey operations in Tampa Bay.

Perhaps the best role for him is as Director of Hockey Operations. It sounds weird, as it would be a promotion on the role of a GM, but it's about hiring the right hockey people, and establishing an organizational philosophy. He did both of these things well in Calgary, and he can leave the hockey decisions to others, which he has no problem doing.