[Trade] Bouwmeester to Blues for conditional 2013 1st, Cundari and goaltender Reto Berra

[Calgary4LIfe]

I always think that GMs get overly criticized and overly praised for their draft work.

Feaster didn't spend enough time in Tampa's organization to judge him one way or the other, in my opinion.

In my view, a GM enters an organization and starts to make changes - including the changes to the scouting and development team. They set a 'direction' so to speak, but few GMs have the time to actually scout players themselves - especially in the amateur ranks.

Sutter was overly-criticized (in my opinion) from the first half of his time as Calgary's GM. Remember what he inherited as a scouting and development team. Not much. The drafts reflected this. Over time, he got better at it - not because he gained that 'eye' for talent, but because his scouting staff grew larger and more experienced. Phaneuf was a guy he fell in love with, but I am sure he knew Phaneuf inside and out thanks to Brent. I don't really count him as something to 'praise' him for.

I don't think Sutter ever became 'awesome' at drafting, but he was starting to get there. "High Hockey IQ" was something that was instituted under him, not Feaster and Weisbrod. They just happen to agree with that philosophy. Sutter got better, but it was a slow change (though he also revamped the development process as well).

A GM doesn't get credit for his good picks and his mistakes (not directly, anyways). A GM takes responsibility for his drafting team he is in charge of - and that takes a while for an organization to get better at regardless of how much $$$ they throw at it.

Just what I think anyways.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Feaster didn't spend enough time in Tampa's organization to judge him one way or the other, in my opinion.

Didn't spend enough time? He's was the GM for 7 drafts. He was with the organization for even longer.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by FAN

Didn't spend enough time? He's was the GM for 7 drafts. He was with the organization for even longer.

He was named GM in February 2002, so was well installed by the 2002 draft. He resigned after the draft in 2008, but did so citing his marginalization at that year's draft as a big reason for resigning.

So he was influencing the direction for 6 drafts, '02-'07.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I stand corrected.. for some reason, I kept thinking he spent less than 5 years in Tampa.

Criticism warranted in that case then.

When did that team become a non-cap team? That could have an effect if they are cutting corners on their scouting and development team - just like NYI have a pretty thin team (but had some decent personnel running the show there).

Time will tell what Feaster does with this scouting and development over the long haul. I like his picks thus far (including Jankowski), but still too early to say he has been good. I like the direction on scouting, but only time will tell how good it really is.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mike F

He was named GM in February 2002, so was well installed by the 2002 draft. He resigned after the draft in 2008, but did so citing his marginalization at that year's draft as a big reason for resigning.

So he was influencing the direction for 6 drafts, '02-'07.

The comments on that link are pretty funny. High praise for Feaster in them. Now he is regarded by other fans around the league as a 'joke'. Funny how perception changes on circumstances.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The comments on that link are pretty funny. High praise for Feaster in them. Now he is regarded by other fans around the league as a 'joke'. Funny how perception changes on circumstances.

5 years later and I got to give "Double J" his first thumbs up for his response.

You're right though, amazing what people were saying then compared to now.

[Erick Estrada]

Jay's finally going to get his shot at the playoffs. Will be interesting to see how he performs on the big stage. I'm happy for him as although it didn't work out in Calgary I feel it wasn't due to lack of effort and possibly more to do with him not being a good fit as the top guy.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Mike F

He was named GM in February 2002, so was well installed by the 2002 draft. He resigned after the draft in 2008, but did so citing his marginalization at that year's draft as a big reason for resigning.

So he was influencing the direction for 6 drafts, '02-'07.

not to be picky but shouldn't it be 5 with the lock out

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Robbob

not to be picky but shouldn't it be 5 with the lock out

There was still a draft with the lockout. If anything the GM's should have spent significant time scouting for that draft, what else was there to do for them?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Mike F

He was named GM in February 2002, so was well installed by the 2002 draft. He resigned after the draft in 2008, but did so citing his marginalization at that year's draft as a big reason for resigning.

So he was influencing the direction for 6 drafts, '02-'07.

I would argue that Feaster wasn't "well installed" by the 2002 draft, as it was probably too late for Feaster to tell his scouts the type of players and skillsets he wants his scouts to look for (if he was to do such a thing). But he had ample time to have his scouts adjust the draft lists to reflect more of what Feaster was looking for.

Regardless, the 2002 and 2008 draft were Feaster's best two drafts IMO (scary!) so give him credit for one take away credit for another and it all balances out. I don't give him any credit for drafting Stamkos though.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by FAN

I would argue that Feaster wasn't "well installed" by the 2002 draft, as it was probably too late for Feaster to tell his scouts the type of players and skillsets he wants his scouts to look for (if he was to do such a thing). But he had ample time to have his scouts adjust the draft lists to reflect more of what Feaster was looking for.

Regardless, the 2002 and 2008 draft were Feaster's best two drafts IMO (scary!) so give him credit for one take away credit for another and it all balances out. I don't give him any credit for drafting Stamkos though.

Consider that he only grabbed one NHL player in 2002(Paul Ranger) and in 2008 aside from Stamkos, which was a no-brainer he didn't have a 2nd because he traded it for Chris Gratton, who was fresh off a 35 point season, a year prior. Only 8 games were played by any other player he draft in 2008, and they were all due to injuries and an awful goaltending situation. He possessed the top pick in every round, and traded down in many instances to take high potential guys...they all busted.

edit: not saying that he knew that his team would be that bad, just saying that it was awful value for his 2nd at the time

Does it sound like he's changed? His philosophy is still to take big time risks, and disregard non-first round picks for short sighted moves. Then he goes to the draft, wants to take his under the radar guy and trades down to re-coup some of those picks.

He's possibly the worst drafter of all time.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Consider that he only grabbed one NHL player in 2002(Paul Ranger) and in 2008 aside from Stamkos, which was a no-brainer he didn't have a 2nd because he traded it for Chris Gratton, who was fresh off a 35 point season, a year prior. Only 8 games were played by any other player he draft in 2008, and they were all due to injuries and an awful goaltending situation. He possessed the top pick in every round, and traded down in many instances to take high potential guys...they all busted.

edit: not saying that he knew that his team would be that bad, just saying that it was awful value for his 2nd at the time

Does it sound like he's changed? His philosophy is still to take big time risks, and disregard non-first round picks for short sighted moves. Then he goes to the draft, wants to take his under the radar guy and trades down to re-coup some of those picks.

He's possibly the worst drafter of all time.

I think that's the problem when you have a GM who doesn't do any amateur scouting. Unless the team has a super scout running the draft, the odds are that the team is going to be a poor drafting team.

Some people think that it's okay for a GM to be a delegator, but when you have a leader who has no idea how to evaluate talent, how is he able to evaluate the quality of his staff? What is he going to do? Look over the players his scouts recommended over the past years to see if those recommendations were any good? I just think it's totally inefficient.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Dagger

Consider that he only grabbed one NHL player in 2002(Paul Ranger) and in 2008 aside from Stamkos, which was a no-brainer he didn't have a 2nd because he traded it for Chris Gratton, who was fresh off a 35 point season, a year prior. Only 8 games were played by any other player he draft in 2008, and they were all due to injuries and an awful goaltending situation. He possessed the top pick in every round, and traded down in many instances to take high potential guys...they all busted.

edit: not saying that he knew that his team would be that bad, just saying that it was awful value for his 2nd at the time

Does it sound like he's changed? His philosophy is still to take big time risks, and disregard non-first round picks for short sighted moves. Then he goes to the draft, wants to take his under the radar guy and trades down to re-coup some of those picks.

He's possibly the worst drafter of all time.

It's difficult to compare without knowing the exact situation he was in. One mistake fans often make is that they assume GMs for every team have the exact same roles. It's true that the GM has to "ok" which players are drafted, but not all GMs are explicitly picking those players. The success of these GMs hinges on the people they have on their staff and how much stock they put into them. Feaster seems like this type of GM. It's often been mentioned that Button, Weisbrod and even Conroy are the guys coming up with the selections.

We don't know if Tampa was structured like this or even he was able to hand pick the people he wanted (and the fact Tod Button is still around makes me think he doesn't have 100% control here either, but on the other hand, Tod Button has survived like 4 GMs now, so maybe he deserves it).

On some teams though, the GM exercises 100% control. Sutter was probably more along those lines (at least in the early rounds).

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We don't know if Tampa was structured like this or even he was able to hand pick the people he wanted (and the fact Tod Button is still around makes me think he doesn't have 100% control here either, but on the other hand, Tod Button has survived like 4 GMs now, so maybe he deserves it).

Boggles my mind. For serious, either that guy has dirt on the owners or he has never had real control.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's difficult to compare without knowing the exact situation he was in. One mistake fans often make is that they assume GMs for every team have the exact same roles. It's true that the GM has to "ok" which players are drafted, but not all GMs are explicitly picking those players. The success of these GMs hinges on the people they have on their staff and how much stock they put into them. Feaster seems like this type of GM. It's often been mentioned that Button, Weisbrod and even Conroy are the guys coming up with the selections.

We don't know if Tampa was structured like this or even he was able to hand pick the people he wanted (and the fact Tod Button is still around makes me think he doesn't have 100% control here either, but on the other hand, Tod Button has survived like 4 GMs now, so maybe he deserves it).

On some teams though, the GM exercises 100% control. Sutter was probably more along those lines (at least in the early rounds).

I understand that Feaster ins't the "hockey" guy and he's admitted as much. I know that he leans on his staff to make recommendations and do as such so it's not like I think he's just asking their opinion for the sake of it and not considering it.

What I do find alarming is his history of being apart of organizations where high risk players are consistently taken and have for all intensive purposes a 100% bust rate. Zainullin, Alexeev, Svitov(and Lecavalier) were his top 35 picks as an AGM, and guys like Egener, Rogers, Mihalik, Helenius(and Stamkos) are his picks inside 35 as a GM in Tampa.

I mean, is it not weird that aside from the two absolutely can't miss guys(both of which were selected with orders from ownership) that he has a history of selecting big guys(smallest was 6'3, tallest 6'7) who "if they grow into their frame" or "are raw but tools and frame are there" "is a few years away" are ALWAYS taken by teams in which Jay Feaster has a high level of say in the process? Sven Baertschi is the ONLY prospect Jay Feaster has taken who doesn't match that description and he's already Feaster's best ever selection for a high pick in which he had a real decision on his hands.

I mean, he's drafted in the top 35 9 times in his career and of those 9, 8 are these hulking prospects who are high risk/high reward and he's whiffed(being polite) on 7 of those(Jankowski still up has time).

He also seems to be involved in picking players that are less well known due to leagues they play in. Helenius was picked because he played well in a u-18 tournament, Svitov played 5 games in his draft year(and had drifted between the Russian Superleague and the Russian 3rd league the years prior), Mihalik out of the Slovakian 2nd division, and Zainullin out of a weak Russian Superleague. And he just nabbed someone from Canadian high school.

Feaster has shown a history of patterns, and he makes it clear he isn't the talent evaluator in the room or anything like that, but in a position of power he always comes home with the same kind of prospect, taken out of leagues that make them look a lot better than they are and has whiffed on every single one of them.

And it's not like he finds late round gems either....I think he's drafted 1 guy who wasn't a plug in all his drafts as GM. Not that he founds those good depth guys either.

[Get-Iggy-With-It]

Any update on Cundari?

I'm looking forward to seeing this guy compete

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by Get-Iggy-With-It

Any update on Cundari?

I'm looking forward to seeing this guy compete

My post from the Heat game last night: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1245

Ward had this to say about him after the game:

“He’s an old school guy for a young school kid. He plays like an old guy from the ‘70s and ‘80s. There’s dirt underneath his finger nails and the other hand he’s got a glove on and it’s real nice. And in the next two shifts he’s just a dog again. He’s chewing the other guy’s rear end off in between shifts. He’s just a throwback – a real good throwback.”

[Get-Iggy-With-It]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

My post from the Heat game last night: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1245

Ward had this to say about him after the game:

Thanks PMM, just checked that out in the Heat thread, awesome news. This guy really sounds like a gamer.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Dagger

I understand that Feaster ins't the "hockey" guy and he's admitted as much. I know that he leans on his staff to make recommendations and do as such so it's not like I think he's just asking their opinion for the sake of it and not considering it.

What I do find alarming is his history of being apart of organizations where high risk players are consistently taken and have for all intensive purposes a 100% bust rate. Zainullin, Alexeev, Svitov(and Lecavalier) were his top 35 picks as an AGM, and guys like Egener, Rogers, Mihalik, Helenius(and Stamkos) are his picks inside 35 as a GM in Tampa.

I mean, is it not weird that aside from the two absolutely can't miss guys(both of which were selected with orders from ownership) that he has a history of selecting big guys(smallest was 6'3, tallest 6'7) who "if they grow into their frame" or "are raw but tools and frame are there" "is a few years away" are ALWAYS taken by teams in which Jay Feaster has a high level of say in the process? Sven Baertschi is the ONLY prospect Jay Feaster has taken who doesn't match that description and he's already Feaster's best ever selection for a high pick in which he had a real decision on his hands.

I mean, he's drafted in the top 35 9 times in his career and of those 9, 8 are these hulking prospects who are high risk/high reward and he's whiffed(being polite) on 7 of those(Jankowski still up has time).

He also seems to be involved in picking players that are less well known due to leagues they play in. Helenius was picked because he played well in a u-18 tournament, Svitov played 5 games in his draft year(and had drifted between the Russian Superleague and the Russian 3rd league the years prior), Mihalik out of the Slovakian 2nd division, and Zainullin out of a weak Russian Superleague. And he just nabbed someone from Canadian high school.

Feaster has shown a history of patterns, and he makes it clear he isn't the talent evaluator in the room or anything like that, but in a position of power he always comes home with the same kind of prospect, taken out of leagues that make them look a lot better than they are and has whiffed on every single one of them.

And it's not like he finds late round gems either....I think he's drafted 1 guy who wasn't a plug in all his drafts as GM. Not that he founds those good depth guys either.

So what you're saying is he's due to win one with Jankowski. I like your thinking.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Boggles my mind. For serious, either that guy has dirt on the owners or he has never had real control.

Or the owners have never really cared about drafting as it doesn't fit in with a 'win now' view of the world therefore they have hired GM's that agreed with them and those GM's havn't taking the dept that seriously, they may also be seen as low on the financial priority for the organization, there is way more than just 'spending to the cap' these days and if you take money away from scouting to make a high payroll it would also explain alot.