Hartley Interview in Swiss Newspaper

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Burke took the job because there were no GM vacancies at the time and he had already been out of hockey for a considerable amount of time. He said so himself at the press confrence and numerous interviews later

Ken King is still President and CEO.

But how much do we know about the interaction within the hierarchy from any of this? It would be more helpful if you could cite or link your quote, which is not on its own unproblematic. What does "advisory position" mean in this context, and what specifically falls under this purview of "team decisions"?

As for why Burke took the job, your interpretation is pretty speculative, or at minimum selective. I also remember him stating in interviews that he was attracted to the new position also for the purpose of doing something new within hockey, and that his precise job description and delegation of responsibilities was still in the process of being decided.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nik-

Feaster himself said he wasn't interested in being the GM for a rebuild.

Edit: I believe it was at the fan forum. He mocked Edmonton's rebuild aand said he wasn't the GM that was interested in being here for a rebuild. I can't find the article as I think the Herald one has expired.

I remember thinking it was great news as it was obvious it was coming and I had hoped it meant his tenure would be short. Yet here we are.

I suspect that this is evidence of nothing more than that at some point along the way Feaster —wait for it .......

CHANGED ... HIS ... MIND (*gasp!*)

It's ridiculous how often on the internet no provision is made for people who make on-the-record comments to later reconsider their earlier position. It isn't duplicitous. It's human nature, and actually a pretty healthy character trait to have.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

3) I'm not even sure what you are really trying to say aside from covering your own behind? Basically whatever Burke decides is correct? What kind of opinion is that?

No. That is not what I am saying, since my opinion of both Feaster and Burke is today generally fairly positive. That may change, but for now, I'm happy with what has transpired, and from Burke's public comments I assume that he is also fine with the working relationship he has with Feaster, and with his competence as an NHL general manager.

My point was to diffuse some of the (in my opinion unwarranted, or at least premature) concern regarding the suitability of the Flames hockey operations personnel to oversee the rebuild. I am attempting to remind sceptics of Feaster's work that he is not alone in his charge.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

We were a hot week or two away from not rebuilding last year. The only reason we were not is because things went horribly wrong, but if Kiprusoff had turned in some stellar performances or Iginla got hot, we would be right back to square one. This is the management team that led us down that path that was offering our picks for offer sheets.

Ultimately, the assessment of Feasters comes down to whether you think he had the authority to initiate a rebuild, or he didn't. I'm in the later group. If Feaster can be faulted for anything, it was agreeing with King and Murray that they should keep Iggy and Pals together, because he wanted an NHL GM job. I believe if Feaster stood firm that the Flames needed to rebuild, King and Murray would have sent him on his way and found someone else to try to win now.

But since nobody here knows what really happened between Murray, King, and Feaster over the last couple years, we're arguing from different premises. I doubt anyone is going to persuade anyone else on this matter.

You won't find anyone on this forum who feels more strongly that the Flames should have started the rebuild years ago. And that's not hindsight - I've been beating the rebuild drum since 2009. But this looks like a rebuild to me, and there's no use crying over what they should have done two seasons ago.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This is a group that has shown very little in terms of foresight or long term thinking. I guess, I'm at a loss as to why they would discover it now?

I'd say moving Iginla, Bouwmeester, and Tanguay for picks and younger players (and trying to move Kipper) shows a willingness to think long-term.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by troutman

Feaster presented a re-build plan and a win now plan when he was hired. It was ownership that decided not to re-build then. I don't think Feaster had any illusions about how good the team was.

Let's assume that is true for a minute (I'd very much like to hear more detail on this) - Feaster clearly failed in his 'win now' plan. How does that qualify him for a 2nd chance?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Let's assume that is true for a minute (I'd very much like to hear more detail on this) - Feaster clearly failed in his 'win now' plan. How does that qualify him for a 2nd chance?

How does the first failure disqualify him from the chance of success in a completely different direction? Again, it is silly to make a rigidly narrow argument for human behaviour and performance from the available information.

CliffFletcher is absolutely correct about the ambiguity behind what happened in the head offices between 2010–12. This lack of clarity pretty much precludes ones ability to form sound judgments about Feaster's job performance, since there are a handful of interpretations that are also significantly affected by our biases. I can readily admit that my own ambivalence towards Feaster contributes to the positive spin that I apply to his actions. I will venture to argue further that those who are highly critical of Feaster arrive at their conclusions in no small part based on preconceptions and poorly formed opinions from a dearth of actual information.

Because of this absence of clarity, all we can really do is judge Feaster based on his PRESENT performance: That is, from the point when the team clearly changed direction, how effective has he been? There are plenty of sound reasons to answer this question positively.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How does the first failure disqualify him from the chance of success in a completely different direction? Again, it is silly to make a rigidly narrow argument for human behaviour and performance from the available information.

It sounds like you are trying to equate that not being a good engineer =/= being a good doctor. Again this is a flawed argument. Feaster has been an NHL GM for the past couple seasons with the Flames and is still an NHL GM with the Flames. His job duties haven't dramatically changed.

What track record of success in terms of rebuilding does Feaster have? There was a team that had a worse track record of drafting and development than the Flames during the 2002-2008 years and that was the Tampa Bay Lightning. What has Feaster shown you to make you place your faith with him?

CliffFletcher is absolutely correct about the ambiguity behind what happened in the head offices between 2010–12. This lack of clarity pretty much precludes ones ability to form sound judgments about Feaster's job performance, since there are a handful of interpretations that are also significantly affected by our biases. I can readily admit that my own ambivalence towards Feaster contributes to the positive spin that I apply to his actions. I will venture to argue further that those who are highly critical of Feaster arrive at their conclusions in no small part based on preconceptions and poorly formed opinions from a dearth of actual information.

Because of this absence of clarity, all we can really do is judge Feaster based on his PRESENT performance: That is, from the point when the team clearly changed direction, how effective has he been? There are plenty of sound reasons to answer this question positively.

You are correct in some ways, but "Just following orders" has been shown to be a poor defense. You also have a GM who proclaimed with enthusiam that he resigned on his own terms from the Lightning, because the ownership group was meddlesome. You would be dead wrong in assuming that Feaster does not share in any lack of accountability for what has transpired here. Whatever you have described Feaster as, I think it comes across fairly clear that he is not a leader and has trouble influencing others to his point of view (if you beleive his view was contradictory to that of the organization).

It doesn't change the fact that Feaster made the moves he made such as trading for poor assets, resigning various "post apex" players, only to have to ship them off for other dead weight.

Feaster may have been given the direction by Management, but one would at least have to beleive that he made those poor decisions or negotiated those contracts himself.

While there have been some better moves as of late, it certainly doesn't scream enthusiam either. If you would like an example of what sort of assets you should be stockpiling for a rebuild, take a look at Buffalo, who has accumulated a large number of very good draft picks in the next few years. Let me know when we start accumulating them.

I've bolded the following point as this is extremely relevent. The "Change in Direction" was pretty clearly decided within about a month's time, as the team went from giving up assets for ROR to rebuild. Given that the organization changed direction in such a short time, what confidence do the most of the same players inspire that they will not change direction at the drop of a hat again? Just one hot streak? Just one trade deadline in 9th place?

[troutman]

http://www.panow.com/node/33860

Interview with Jay when he was hired.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd say moving Iginla, Bouwmeester, and Tanguay for picks and younger players (and trying to move Kipper) shows a willingness to think long-term.

The Flames were essentially forced to move 2/3 of those players (Iginla and Tanguay) - I'm not sure being held over a barrel qualifies as "thinking long term". As you said, the writing had been on the wall for years, I'm not sure reading the wall, fits into that category.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Let's assume that is true for a minute (I'd very much like to hear more detail on this) - Feaster clearly failed in his 'win now' plan. How does that qualify him for a 2nd chance?

In the state Sutter left the franchise, it was going to take years to clean up the mess. Feaster 'stopped the bleeding' (his words). He stopped trading away picks for older assets. He chiseled away at the bad contracts, aging roster, and no trade clauses. Could he have done more sooner? Probably. But as I said, I believe the overriding goal of the Flames franchise in those years was a desire by King and Murray to keep Iginla happy and try to get in the playoffs with him. But the roster Feaster inherited wasn't much to work with. It was already a non-playoff team, and had pretty much no impact players in the 20-26 year age range. The only way to stem that decline in the short-term was to trade again yet more youth and picks for veterans.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yes he was

No, he really wasn't. He was below average defensively, he was often invisible for 50 minutes a night. He produced well, but he was not really that good in Abbotsford.

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

No, he really wasn't. He was below average defensively, he was often invisible for 50 minutes a night. He produced well, but he was not really that good in Abbotsford.

Talking about Berra :P

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the state Sutter left the franchise, it was going to take years to clean up the mess. Feaster 'stopped the bleeding' (his words). He stopped trading away picks for older assets. He chiseled away at the bad contracts, aging roster, and no trade clauses. Could he have done more sooner? Probably. But as I said, I believe the overriding goal of the Flames franchise in those years was a desire by King and Murray to keep Iginla happy and try to get in the playoffs with him. But the roster Feaster inherited wasn't much to work with. It was already a non-playoff team, and had pretty much no impact players in the 20-26 year age range. The only way to stem that decline in the short-term was to trade again yet more youth and picks for veterans.

Except he didn't really do that. He helped create the mess. I'm not saying he was given the greatest starting position, but he clearly sewed some bad seeds himself.

He screwed up the Regehr trade. Which he used to sew up his next poor move, which was to:

He resigned Tanguay for 5 years (and gave him an NTC!), whom he had to dump for more poor contracts in David Jones and O'Brien.

He resigned guys like Sarich (NTC!), Babchuk (NTC!) to poor contracts.

He traded away lower round picks for junk like Modin and PL3.

[kipperfan]

Wow, surprised so many people are on the Berra train, I guess I’m missing something because I see a lackluster NHL level goaltender with limited to potential to improve and a propensity for giving up very weak goals, but I’ve been wrong before. Gillies probably plays next year in the AHL (assuming he signs), but my personal dream is that he plays his arse off in camp and earns an NHL job next season. Ramo is starting to round into form and assuming he keeps that form, a Ramo/Gillies 1A/1B scenario for the next couple of seasons would make me happy.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

While there have been some better moves as of late, it certainly doesn't scream enthusiam either. If you would like an example of what sort of assets you should be stockpiling for a rebuild, take a look at Buffalo, who has accumulated a large number of very good draft picks in the next few years. Let me know when we start accumulating them.

We started last trade deadline. Not sure how you missed the Iginla and Bouwmester deals. We actually had more first round picks than the Sabres. I'd expect some more stockpiling of picks this trade deadline as well.

Other rebuilding moves Jay has made include acquiring Knight, Russell and Colborne for mid round picks. All young, all have shown good potential. In fact Russell's been one of our best defenseman. Colborne has shown some nice development. Knight's been one of the best players on the successful Heat and has definite NHL potential.

I'd say Jay's track record during the early part of this rebuild looks quite good. He got two extra 1st rounders in a deep year. Picked up Berra, Agostino and Hanowski in those deals as well. Traded some mid round picks for some promising young players. What's to complain about so far except that we didn't start this process earlier? And I understand why they wanted to win with Iginla and Kipper. I think Jay has shown more intellectual honesty since last season.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I suspect that this is evidence of nothing more than that at some point along the way Feaster —wait for it .......

CHANGED ... HIS ... MIND (*gasp!*)

It's ridiculous how often on the internet no provision is made for people who make on-the-record comments to later reconsider their earlier position. It isn't duplicitous. It's human nature, and actually a pretty healthy character trait to have.

Of course he changed his mind. This is his last shot at a GM job and he likely knows it. It's not like he changed his assessment of a player, he stated he was not a GM to do a rebuild and now he's doing it. That's a philosophical chasm to cross, not an evolution of thought.

Job preservation. Too bad the men in charge didn't agree with his initial assessment.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nik-

Of course he changed his mind. This is his last shot at a GM job and he likely knows it. It's not like he changed his assessment of a player, he stated he was not a GM to do a rebuild and now he's doing it. That's a philosophical chasm to cross, not an evolution of thought.

Job preservation. Too bad the men in charge didn't agree with his initial assessment.

Chasm?

[nik-]

Relatively, yes.

It's not "I don't think we need to rebuild" and then a year or so later rebuilding because of changing circumstances. It's saying he's not the GM to participate in a rebuild, and then doing it. There is a difference there, and it's significant.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by nik-

Relatively, yes.

It's not "I don't think we need to rebuild" and then a year or so later rebuilding because of changing circumstances. It's saying he's not the GM to participate in a rebuild, and then doing it. There is a difference there, and it's significant.

You're surmising his philosophy based on one thing he said, which granted is all you have to go on, but lets not pretend that GM's don't say things allll the time to appear completely confident and with an absolute direction. If anything, you could lay the job preservation claim on his original statement.

Either way, he didn't leap some philosophical chasm, he just took the team in a different direction once it was very obvious the current one wasn't working and (presumably) permission was granted from the owners.

GM's are salesmen. If you're putting that much stock in his "not the GM for a rebuild" speech, then you got sold hard. You even bought the extended warranty, you silly goose.

[nik-]

Well I'm putting my stock in his statement and the fact that he's performed poorly in the GM role in both the distant and recent past.