Jay Feaster update (Stan Fischler interview)

[Muta]

Originally Posted by polak

I guarantee the days of taking a chance on a Gaudreau are over. Just look at this draft. Outside of Bennett we picked size over higher ceilings with pretty much every pick.

Without any proof whatsoever, I would say that I fear this going forward, too. I think size will be a mandated characteristic under Burke / Trevelyan, and high-risk / high-reward skill-type picks (such as Gaudreau) will not be a priority.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by Muta

Without any proof whatsoever, I would say that I fear this going forward, too. I think size will be a mandated characteristic under Burke / Trevelyan, and high-risk / high-reward skill-type picks (such as Gaudreau) will not be a priority.

We've got the bad guy from Goldeneye in our front office?!?!

Sweet!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Muffins

We've got the bad guy from Goldeneye in our front office?!?!

Sweet!

006. Sweet.

[Textcritic]

^
I can't imagine that the mandate is anywhere near that intractably rigid and inflexible. I believe that there are likely many more sophisticated variables in play for EACH INDIVIDUAL pick than just "size" v. "risk".

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
I can't imagine that the mandate is anywhere near that intractably rigid and inflexible. I believe that there are likely many more sophisticated variables in play for EACH INDIVIDUAL pick than just "size" v. "risk".

Of course, but I can't see how size isn't a higher priority now under Burke / Trevelyan than it was under Feaster / Weisbrod. Burke has stated many, many times that this team needs to be bigger and tougher.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by polak

I guarantee the days of taking a chance on a Gaudreau are over. Just look at this draft. Outside of Bennett we picked size over higher ceilings with pretty much every pick.

I wouldn't't say that. Picking Smith was a greater risk than picking Gaudreau. Everyone thinks small players have a bigger bust percentage than larger players. I don't think there is evidence to support that. Small players under 5'8" are a statistical outlier in the draft, just like players above 6'5" are. The smaller players seem to find their way into the league with more consistency than the upper outlier. Smith, with his size, appears to be just as risky a pick as Gaudreau, so the team has assumed just as much risk.

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Only 1255 days? thats 3.5 years, he better have re-stocked the cupboards seeing how terrible the team was in that span.

Yet the guys who were there before him, in longer terms, did even worse.

Originally Posted by Hackey

You do realize Feaster had higher picks and a surplus of them because of our situation at the time. Apples and oranges. Like it was said before if we would have had a more competent GM during those years we would likely be further ahead in our rebuild.

So give the guy some credit for doing something the other regimes were too stupid or stubborn to do. There were more than enough posters who identified a window to move certain players, long before Feaster took control of the club. But those guys didn't do it and actually dealt away high picks to try and improve a crappy team. Yet Feaster gets lambasted for taking over a horrible organization and rebuilding that depth in three drafts.

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Drafting 1st rounders should be pretty simple (although we've failed at that before), so it would be good to compare Feaster's later round picks with prior GMs.

I hate HF posters. They just don't have anything on the ball. Drafting 1st rounders isn't that easy, otherwise there would never be busts. But that point is irrelevant since on the list presented, a list generated by the posters on this site, the number one prospect was a 4th round selection, the number five prospect is a 2nd round selection, the seven prospect is a 2nd round selection, the number ten prospect is a 3rd round selection, the number twelve prospect is a 2nd round selection, and the number 14 prospect was a FA, drafted in e 5th round, that was traded for and signed. So of the top 15 prospects identified by the posters on is site, Feaster was responsible for the drafting of 10 of them, and of those, 60% came outside the first round. Brutal.

[Hanna Sniper]

Half the expects on this forum could have restocked the cupboard by gutting our team.... Hell I would have 100% faith in Cheese would have left our team in better shape than Feaster. I know for a fact he wouldn't have the Flames looking like the b!tch after the Iginla deal

edited: typed have rather then half, no idea why corrected

[Vinny01]

Feaster was GM for 3 drafts. His first year it appeared to be a big winner by snagging Gaudreau in the 4th round. Sven still has good upside but was still 13th overall which would be the 2nd highest pick Darryl would have had as flames GM. Granlund and Wortherspoon were excellent picks but the Flames gave up their best prospect to get those selections (they had no choice).

2012 is pretty much a toss up. Taking a 5 year project when a guy like Maata fell to the next pick is ultra risky for a team that was pledging to contend while rebuilding. Sieloff and Gillies look like decent prospects but were severely overhyped by Feast/Weis.

2013 looks solid at least in the first round but the team had 3 first rounder due to sucking and being forced to trade their captain. Trading Bouw for scraps was not necessary but at least getting the Porier pick helped. The blues did have to make the playoffs or we would have been stuck with their 2014 selection.

Feaster is a good man but he ran this team into the ground. Outside of Monahan no one he has drafted is a regular NHLer yet and Monahan was the sure pick anyone would have made. There is a lot of promise but really he was below average as a GM. He nearly set the franchise back a few years with the offer sheet and the Iginla trade was a bit of a joke

[polak]

I should add to my post, I do think that if Gaudreau meets or exceeds expectations (lol if he exceeds, I'm pretty sure he'll be the second coming) then Burke and co. might change their tune and take more risks.

If our small guys have success, they'll be forced to acknowledge it... right? RIGHT?!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Iginla should have been traded a couple years earlier, when it was obvious the team was going no where fast. That wasn't Feaster fault. Iginla's no-trade also handcuffed the organization. Again, Feaster did pretty well given the circumstances and what he was left to work with. He was far from great, but he was also far from horrible. He was given a team in full decline, with nothing in the minors, and managed to turn it around to where we have a future to speak of. We did not have that when Sutter left.

[Coach]

Feaster mentioning CP and StalkerSteve is fricken hilarious and awesome.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Hahahaha wow! StykerSteve's going to get a restraining order against him from Feaster.

That's hilarious that he found out about that. That's one of my top 10 CP moments for sure.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Feaster mentioning CP and StalkerSteve is fricken hilarious and awesome.

[Coach]

Yup, we both found it hilarious.

[AC]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yup, we both found it hilarious.

But...

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Ugh, I suck. I didn't realize Stryker made up that quote. Your a dick Steve

[Coach]

Oh son of a b....


Damn you AC! Stick to the videos!

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by New Era

Iginla should have been traded a couple years earlier, when it was obvious the team was going no where fast. That wasn't Feaster fault. Iginla's no-trade also handcuffed the organization. Again, Feaster did pretty well given the circumstances and what he was left to work with. He was far from great, but he was also far from horrible. He was given a team in full decline, with nothing in the minors, and managed to turn it around to where we have a future to speak of. We did not have that when Sutter left.

Nice try putting lipstick on a pig there. Feaster got owned in every major trade except Bourque-Cammy where he came out slightly on top (giving away the 36th pick in 2013 draft hurt but Ramo/Cammy was a nice return for a cap dump) he got destroyed on the Regehr and Bouwmeester trade. The Tanguay trade was awful as well.

Feaster may have taken the job with no choice but to push for the playoffs but did a bad job building. Yes we have some nice prospects but 3 drafts have produced 1 regular NHLer who was taken 6th overall. Again a monkey could have made that pick.

Iggy did have a no trade so it was hard to move him I agree. Just like the RoR offer sheet Feaster did not do all his homework and assumed since he was allowed to negotiate a trade with Boston Iggy was going to waive his NMC. Instead he goes ahead tells Boston the deal is done and Iggy blocked it. Ken Ling even admitted on prime time sports they made a mistake in how it was handled. Feaster also signed Wideman to that terrible 5 year deal with a full NMC. He is our 4/5 Dman and is the highest paid guy on the back end.

The flames missed the playoffs 2 years when Sutter was GM picking 9th and not had traded away 13th in 2010. Feaster was around for 3 drafts and held picks in the top 15 ever year. He trades away the 2012/13 2nds in cap dump/win now deals. He inherited a tough situation but still did a fairly poor job. He had a real prize asset in Bouwmeester yet refusing to eat salary diluted the return because he overestimated the value of cap space.

I hope our group of prospects pans out and I am hopeful some will. I just can't give Feaster much credit for it today when none outside of Monahan have proven much at the NHL level. I would also suspect any GM that had 3 1st round picks in a deep first round would turn the prospect pool around when compares to the GM that made the playoffs 5 out of 8 years as GM (1 year was also lost due to lockout so 7 years of play)

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well besides the "innovation" of a simple user interface, one could say Jobs was good at what he did because he was a complete a-hole, micro-manager (Feaster was not, ex: Weisbrod was never around), short production cycle and time to market (Feaster really did not implement this), had his hand in many cookie jars (Feaster had none, ex: did not watch Cervenka play before he was signed) and demanded perfection in verification steps (Feaster did not, see: CBA screw up), and the most demanding player in the market of NDA's (Feaster sure wasn't, ex: Regehr trade leak among many other leakes).

In fact, the only resembalance Feaster has to Steve Jobs is just that he had to deligate work because he wasn't an expert. Unfortunately, Feaster was not the Steve Jobs of the NHL...

This round... is yours.

I just wanted to point out the positives of delegation, bit I can't ignore a well put smack down.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by New Era

So give the guy some credit for doing something the other regimes were too stupid or stubborn to do. There were more than enough posters who identified a window to move certain players, long before Feaster took control of the club. But those guys didn't do it and actually dealt away high picks to try and improve a crappy team. Yet Feaster gets lambasted for taking over a horrible organization and rebuilding that depth in three drafts.

Seriously? Were giving Feaster the credit for the rebuild now? If he was actually a half decent GM the rebuild would have started a year or two before it actually did. I'm not giving him credit because he failed so miserably that the organization was forced into a rebuild.

[bax]

I hate when people get bent out of shape over not getting the deal with Boston. We ended up getting a better deal in my opinion anyways and if not, it was very close. The main pieces being Klimchuck > Dickinson

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by bax

I hate when people get bent out of shape over not getting the deal with Boston. We ended up getting a better deal in my opinion anyways and if not, it was very close. The main pieces being Klimchuck > Dickinson

Klimchuck could have been available at 29 had we got the Boston deal. Koko and Bartowski >> Agostino and Hanowski. No guarantee Pitt takes Klimchuck with the 28th pick and we would have ended up with 29 (maybe 30th if the Bruins won the cup)