Something that's still bothering me about the ROR debacle and NOW.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Pretty simple - they were dragged kicking and screaming into a rebuild and only initiated that approach when they had to.

Doesn't exactly leave you hopeful that they have fully bought into the rebuild.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's a pretty safe assumption to that ROR would not have materially impacted the fortunes of this team, we might have been slightly better to finish 9th or 10th again and watched Colorado pick two franchise players and return to a contender 5 years ahead of us. What a total joke the management team is.

The safer assumption would've been that Kipper would have a 0.900+ SV%... whoops.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Doesn't exactly leave you hopeful that they have fully bought into the rebuild.

I don't think this point can be understated.

The guys they have brought in during both the Iginla and Bouw trades are young - either college, AHL or 26 year old Gs, perhaps being able to step in to NHL roles next year or the year after.

I think the organization might be tricking itself into thinking that this may be a situation where they could hit on all their 2013 and 2014 picks, have the new guys step in, sign some FAs and poof, you're in the playoffs in 2 years.

This organization has been cutting corners for a long time. I hope they don't see this as less than a 4-5 year rebuild.

[Clarkey]

You're forgetting that up until lately the inmates ruled the asylum. With Iginla finally accepting a trade that changed and allowed them to officially kick off a real rebuild.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Ok, I don't think the ROR offer sheet was a great idea, especially with the term that were being offered to him.

But signing a kid who is like 20 years old and already in the NHL is *perfectly consistent* with rebuilding. In fact, it's EXACTLY the kind of thing you should do when you are trying to rebuild.

Turning a 1st round pick into exctly the kind of player you are tryin to get in the 1st round, except that he's already got 2 years of NHL experience, is not a 'win now at the expense of the future' move.

I really don't understand why people don't see that. Its really, really simple.

What it your logic behind claiming that its the opposite of rebuilding? A 19 year old prospect means you're rebuildingm but a 20 year old NHLer means you're only trying to win now?

1. ROR is 22
2. giving up a top 3-5 pick and a 3rd for him is INSANE
3. $$$ and term was stupid too, you need to take advantage of players on entry level deals where we'd be paying largely unproven ROR top dollar

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

1. ROR is 22
2. giving up a top 3-5 pick and a 3rd for him is INSANE
3. $$$ and term was stupid too, you need to take advantage of players on entry level deals where we'd be paying largely unproven ROR top dollar

Yep. Huge emphasis on point 3 IMO.

While building through the draft isn't the ONLY way to build a successful team, it's certainly the best one. If you could sign every UFA at a discount, you'd compete for the cup every year. However....well, you simply can't. You have to find other ways to take your budget (limited by the cap in our case) and get the most of it. Every underpaid player is like extra cap space in a way. Drafting and developing your own players is the best way to do this. Simple.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

1. ROR is 22
2. giving up a top 3-5 pick and a 3rd for him is INSANE
3. $$$ and term was stupid too, you need to take advantage of players on entry level deals where we'd be paying largely unproven ROR top dollar

when they made the offer they still thought they were in the mix, they didn't think that pick would be top 3-5. ROR would still be nice going forward.

[calgarywinning]

I thought Kipper played great last year but is missing in action this year. I think J Bo said it best today on the way out that the remaining players are demoralized and sitting around with no heart in the games.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yup. I think Kipper has had two really suberb games this season and the rest crap. We all knew at some point he'd fall off, he's 36 but don't know if anyone knew he would be this bad this year.

Hopefully a team like Toronto chalks it up to bad team defense and hoping he can bounce back. Honestly wouldn't be surprised of he still has a season or two of high level play left in him.

[Tinordi]

The lack of 1st rounders moving around today (barring alot of late deals) is really showing just how valued this draft is and how effin' insane Flames management were being on this move. Just mind boggling the recklessness that these clowns are showing to the long term prospects for this team.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

I thought Kipper played great last year but is missing in action this year. I think J Bo said it best today on the way out that the remaining players are demoralized and sitting around with no heart in the games.

Is there a link to a press conference or an article? Thanks.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The lack of 1st rounders moving around today (barring alot of late deals) is really showing just how valued this draft is and how effin' insane Flames management were being on this move. Just mind boggling the recklessness that these clowns are showing to the long term prospects for this team.

If you had the opportunity to move a 1st in the middle ranges and a 3rd for ROR, you make that move any day of the week.

Feaster took a gamble similar to Burke before, but nothing came of it in the end making it a moot point.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Anduril

If you had the opportunity to move a 1st in the middle ranges and a 3rd for ROR, you make that move any day of the week.

Feaster took a gamble similar to Burke before, but nothing came of it in the end making it a moot point.

Sorry, but it is not a moot point. If a drunk driver drives home without getting into an accident, no one says that it is a "moot point" so I don't see how this is any different. The whole thing was reckless and shows extremely little foresight.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Sorry, but it is not a moot point. If a drunk driver drives home without getting into an accident, no one says that it is a "moot point" so I don't see how this is any different. The whole thing was reckless and shows extremely little foresight.

I feel like this is going to just degrade into debates that have already been rehashed multiple times (especially the weak drunk driving analogy) so this will be a final point on my part.
Because this was an unprecedented situation, I still believe that Feaster had solid ground to work with in making the offersheet to ROR. Even if this issue was brought to light after the fact of the offersheet going through, Feaster gets the opportunity to offer his interpretation of the MOU, versus the media picking up on a single reporter's interpretation and running with it as the glorified standard.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Anduril

I feel like this is going to just degrade into debates that have already been rehashed multiple times (especially the weak drunk driving analogy) so this will be a final point on my part.
Because this was an unprecedented situation, I still believe that Feaster had solid ground to work with in making the offersheet to ROR. Even if this issue was brought to light after the fact of the offersheet going through, Feaster gets the opportunity to offer his interpretation of the MOU, versus the media picking up on a single reporter's interpretation and running with it as the glorified standard.

I'm not even talking about the whether or not ROR would have had to pass through waivers. For the sake of argument, let's say that he wouldn't have had to and that Colorado didn't match. What is so reckless about this is making a move like this without knowing whether or not you can re-sign Jarome Iginla. Imagine this whole thing goes through and then 3 weeks later, Feaster is forced to trade Calgary's best player because Jarome doesn't want to re-sign. The very thought of having to trade Iginla when we don't have our own first round pick is scary enough, nevermind that it would be a division rival that would get to exercise it. The drunk driving analogy is not weak because it illustrates just how little regard for the future actually went into that offer sheet and how just because we got away scot free, does not change how poorly this reflects on management's ability to make sound decisions going forward. By all means, bury your head in the sand, I just pray that ownership is not doing the same.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Anduril

I feel like this is going to just degrade into debates that have already been rehashed multiple times (especially the weak drunk driving analogy) so this will be a final point on my part.
Because this was an unprecedented situation, I still believe that Feaster had solid ground to work with in making the offersheet to ROR. Even if this issue was brought to light after the fact of the offersheet going through, Feaster gets the opportunity to offer his interpretation of the MOU, versus the media picking up on a single reporter's interpretation and running with it as the glorified standard.

I might agree with you if everything else Feaster had done in Calgary and Florida was exceptional, Burke, for instance, has earnt a pass on the Kessel trade as he has a track record of good drafts, good team building and generally good management.

Feaster has none of this, he was lousy in Florida and has been lousy in Calgary up until now, admiting, 2 years to late, after Iginla has lost most of his value, that the team needed to be rebuilt, is a damning indictment of how bad Feaster is, as such I have zero faith in his interpretation of the ROR wiaver fiasco. He doesn't get the pass I would give Sutter even, at least Sutter built the team that he obviously overvalued and hung on to for too long, Feaster has no such an excuse, the whole point of a new GM is to be uncompromisingly honest in assessing a teams present and future, Feaster failed at the basic qualification for a GM.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm not even talking about the whether or not ROR would have had to pass through waivers. For the sake of argument, let's say that he wouldn't have had to and that Colorado didn't match. What is so reckless about this is making a move like this without knowing whether or not you can re-sign Jarome Iginla. Imagine this whole thing goes through and then 3 weeks later, Feaster is forced to trade Calgary's best player because Jarome doesn't want to re-sign. The very thought of having to trade Iginla when we don't have our own first round pick is scary enough, nevermind that it would be a division rival that would get to exercise it. The drunk driving analogy is not weak because it illustrates just how little regard for the future actually went into that offer sheet and how just because we got away scot free, does not change how poorly this reflects on management's ability to make sound decisions going forward. By all means, bury your head in the sand, I just pray that ownership is not doing the same.

Excellent post, a better elucidation of my point.

[renny]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The lack of 1st rounders moving around today (barring alot of late deals) is really showing just how valued this draft is and how effin' insane Flames management were being on this move. Just mind boggling the recklessness that these clowns are showing to the long term prospects for this team.

And these "clowns" now have 3 picks in the first round. Calm down.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by renny

And these "clowns" now have 3 picks in the first round. Calm down.

Bouwmeester and Iginla should return a first round pick at minimum(barring a major prospect coming) and he already tried trading ours. It's not like they pulled a rabbit out of a hat.

[Manhattanboy]

The sad truth is that all of us, with not one day of experience as a GM, could have made the same deals for Iggy and JBou as Feaster did.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I might agree with you if everything else Feaster had done in Calgary and Florida was exceptional, Burke, for instance, has earnt a pass on the Kessel trade as he has a track record of good drafts, good team building and generally good management.

Feaster has none of this, he was lousy in Florida and has been lousy in Calgary up until now, admiting, 2 years to late, after Iginla has lost most of his value, that the team needed to be rebuilt, is a damning indictment of how bad Feaster is, as such I have zero faith in his interpretation of the ROR wiaver fiasco. He doesn't get the pass I would give Sutter even, at least Sutter built the team that he obviously overvalued and hung on to for too long, Feaster has no such an excuse, the whole point of a new GM is to be uncompromisingly honest in assessing a teams present and future, Feaster failed at the basic qualification for a GM.

I'm assuming you mean Tampa Bay when you say Florida?

Anyways, that is a fair point. It seems that I was talking about something separate when I quoted ark.

I wonder though, at what point do you distinguish Feaster's move as those of a bad GM and others to be the result of the ownership dictating his choices?
Considering how ownership has been constantly thinking "we have a chance" over the last 3 years, and would have naturally only brought up somebody who would follow that train of thought, wouldn't any GM they would have hired failed that 'basic qualification'?

Hopefully this isn't coming off as defensive on behalf of Feaster as I have no confidence in him nor do I want him to stay beyond this season, but the root of the issue seemingly remains with the meddling ownership with a figurehead instead of having what I think is a below average GM.