[News] Friedman: Feaster/Flames are not going to blow it up

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He doesn't even need to be fired - just give him a different corporate position.

But the Flames need someone in charge of hockey operations that can instill a proper team vision

Like John Davidson? He was there for the taking but King just can't let go as he's living the dream.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

You don't know what vitriol means.

yes I do

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Like John Davidson? He was there for the taking but King just can't let go as he's living the dream.

I have said many times that I think he was the perfect candidate, yes.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have said many times that I think he was the perfect candidate, yes.

And this is the stuff that drives fans like myself crazy. We all know what JD could have done for the franchise just by looking at the Blues. He's smart, credible and a home boy to boot. It would have been perfect but it seems this organization simply has too much internal politics going on that prevents them from improving themselves. Frustrating.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And this is the stuff that drives fans like myself crazy. We all know what JD could have done for the franchise just by looking at the Blues. He's smart, credible and a home boy to boot. It would have been perfect but it seems this organization simply has too much internal politics going on that prevents them from improving themselves. Frustrating.

Hard to say how it went down though. Maybe those rumours of the Flames being interested in hiring JD and moving KK up to a role overseeing the entire Flames enterprise were indeed true? And perhaps the two parties talked, and once JD realized he would be answering to King and Edwards (and likely realized they'd both keep their hands firmly in the pie) decided this wasn't a good fit for him? If that did occur it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Hard to say how it went down though. Maybe those rumours of the Flames being interested in hiring JD and moving KK up to a role overseeing the entire Flames enterprise were indeed true? And perhaps the two parties talked, and once JD realized he would be answering to King and Edwards (and likely realized they'd both keep their hands firmly in the pie) decided this wasn't a good fit for him? If that did occur it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

That's right, we'll never know. And it is possible that they did talk to him.

That window is closed, so for me, the only question is: who else is there to consider? Jim Nill would be nice.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That's right, we'll never know. And it is possible that they did talk to him.

That window is closed, so for me, the only question is: who else is there to consider? Jim Nill would be nice.

I'd love to see a guy like Nill brought in. But I honestly don't see that happening until both Feaster and King are moved out. Rightly or wrongly, the opinion in the hockey world (if you believe the media anyway) is that King meddles in hockey operations. I have to think most guys like Nill (ie. guys with a strong resume) aren't going to want to come into a situation like this and be dictated to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Don't worry as soon as the Flames win a game they will be back. I think even the positive fans understand that the team is heading into the dumpster. They are just hoping that something miraculous happens and the team makes an improbable run.

Some people can just enjoy a win for what it is, one win, and enjoy the sport of hockey and their favorite team playing it better than the other team on a given night. Enjoying a win doesn't equate to being ok with things as a whole or only hoping in a miraculous run, that's flawed reasoning.

Why don't they show up after a loss? I think lots do (I've done database queries out of curiosity to see # of posts after wins and after losses), but I certainly could see why they wouldn't since it's predictable what posts are going to be made, over and over and over.

It's annoying not so much because it's negative (there's lots of great posts as to why the team sucks like it does, how it got there,etc) it's annoying because it's exhaustively banal.

Or they're just disappointed with the loss and the team but don't want to wallow in it.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I can't fault them for hoping for the best as some people have issues dealing with reality when it's not positive.

This is outright trolling, if you want to know why you get negative feedback sometimes, this is exactly why. You're making an assumption because it's convenient to your point, you're being mean spirited, and you're targeting a group of people that you've created for your argument rather than actually arguing a specific point that someone has made.

[JurassicTunga12]

This is what Feaster said leading up to the deadline last year:

"if we don't see a whole lot more urgency heading into Monday, you guys will be busy on Monday as to the goings on in Calgary"

"we have to talk about intellectual honesty. if we're not showing that we're serious about being a playoff team, and our play isn't trending to be a playoff team, then we have to be honest about and we have to start looking to marshal some assets"

I don't believe what he says.

[browna]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Hard to say how it went down though. Maybe those rumours of the Flames being interested in hiring JD and moving KK up to a role overseeing the entire Flames enterprise were indeed true? And perhaps the two parties talked, and once JD realized he would be answering to King and Edwards (and likely realized they'd both keep their hands firmly in the pie) decided this wasn't a good fit for him? If that did occur it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

There's lots of things that could've happened that we don't know.

Firstly, did Davidson even say that the Flames ever talked to him? The moving up of KK was just idle speculation as well.

Maybe they did talk and the Flames wanted to give Feaster and his newly hired buddy of a coach, a chance to turn things around, where Davidson maybe doesn't like Feaster, wanted to bring in his guys right away before Hartley even coached? Maybe Davidson didn't want to be in a big hockey market?

Too many variables and not nearly enough fact to make assumptions about Davidson, let alone draw conclusions from the structure of the Flames hierarchy.

IMO, think the timing of that was off by a year.

[nik-]

My assumption would be that they never even seriously inquired.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The reason I don't subscribe to the "blow it up" camp is that creating a fire sale of our assets, especially around trade deadline day, is tainted by emotional trades that rarely ever work out well.

It's hardly an emotional situation when you could make easy arguments that the team should've been blown up two trade deadlines ago. This team has had two years to think about the decision to blow it up. If anything, standing pat is the emotional decision - believing in a group of players who can proven over and over they just aren't good enough.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by JurassicTunga12

This is what Feaster said leading up to the deadline last year:



I don't believe what he says.

Impeded, overruled ,incapable, "intellectually dishonest" and/ or "fooled again"?

Nothing encouraging about any of those options, then or now.

[The Professor]

Posted this in the trade spec thread - thought it would be better here...

Food for thought - not sure which of the many "this is the only way we can go and anyone who thinks different is wrong" threads to put this in...

Very few, (if any), teams actually purposefully go the scorched earth route to a rebuild. Take Edmonton for example - they traded ONE main piece (Smyth) that signalled their descent. They held onto pretty much all the other main pieces from their run in 06 (with the obvious exception of Pronger who forced a trade). Most are still there. On top of that, they tried to sign many top UFA's. They were NOT trying to finish last, ever. They were trying to be a good hockey team. Islanders are trying to save money, Columbus has been trying to be a good team for years, they just suck at it...

The Flames are not going to trade every player over the age of thirty, it just ain't gonna happen. The approach I wish the Flames had been taking the last few years (but I would accept starting this year), is to accept that not every year is a cup run year. Teams like Ottawa, or Philly, or NJ, or LA have been competitive for years, BUT every now and then, when they are low in the standings for a year, they trade off a couple assets, gather a few extra picks, keep the pieces of their core they want to keep, and get ready to compete next year.

Ottawa in particular has been adept at this, by keeping Spezza, and Alfredson, the assured that when their newly aquired young players emerged they didn't have to carry the whole team - obviously they were incredibly fortunate (via excellent scouting) to land Karlsson... The main difference between them and the Flames is that too much of our core is Alfredson, and too little Spezza!

Anyway - just some thoughts. Even if the Flames keep Iggy, Kipper and Jbo, but move (as random examples) Stemp, Gio and Glencross, we would be better off in the long run. No they won't generate a generational talent, but neither will Iggy or Kipper at this point. At least our team won't be a bottom feeder.

Say what you want about the wisdom of our management planning for the future. I'd rather have management trying to ice a good hockey team than trying to save a buck as their main objective.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by photon

This is outright trolling, if you want to know why you get negative feedback sometimes, this is exactly why. You're making an assumption because it's convenient to your point, you're being mean spirited, and you're targeting a group of people that you've created for your argument rather than actually arguing a specific point that someone has made.

There is nobody and I mean NOBODY less mean spirited here than me. I have taken a lot of crap and personal attacks here and still to this day you will never see me make a post about a poster like you just did about me.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by The Professor

Say what you want about the wisdom of our management planning for the future. I'd rather have management trying to ice a good hockey team than trying to save a buck as their main objective.

When the final results end up being the same, who cares what their objective is?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The reason I don't subscribe to the "blow it up" camp is that creating a fire sale of our assets, especially around trade deadline day, is tainted by emotional trades that rarely ever work out well.

There's no reason to blow it up to get a top five pick, when we are already on our way to getting a top five pick with the assets we have. I believe it would be a lot better if we make one or 2 good moves to get another 1st rounder, and then still end up with an injection of young talent while still having players that can make up a complete team.

Some of the suggestions here are so over the top that you have to assume they just believe what works in NHL 2013 works in real life as well. You don't trade away half your team an expect any results by next year. You don't build a lineup that is 75 percent rookies and 2nd year pros and expect anything expect terrible results.

I think of the big challenges is the salary cap distribution...by having a team so close to the cap, its hard to bring in the young players, as it doesn't really make sense to - you can't send the older vets down to the minors because they are on one way contracts or they'd have to go through waivers.

So, you'd only be able to bring in one or two young players - the rest of the cap would be eaten up by guys who are playing to their contracts or below. None of the vets would be outplaying their contracts tho.

How much of a team's culture can be changed then?

I'd argue not enough to make this team a contender...maybe enough to bump up to 7th (depending on the player), but even a guy like Sven whom a lot was expected of, isn't elite (currently) to change the dynamics of the team on or off the ice.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The reason I don't subscribe to the "blow it up" camp is that creating a fire sale of our assets, especially around trade deadline day, is tainted by emotional trades that rarely ever work out well.

There's no reason to blow it up to get a top five pick, when we are already on our way to getting a top five pick with the assets we have. I believe it would be a lot better if we make one or 2 good moves to get another 1st rounder, and then still end up with an injection of young talent while still having players that can make up a complete team.

Some of the suggestions here are so over the top that you have to assume they just believe what works in NHL 2013 works in real life as well. You don't trade away half your team an expect any results by next year. You don't build a lineup that is 75 percent rookies and 2nd year pros and expect anything expect terrible results.

It is unlikely, well impossible that the team will do bugger all for 4 to 5 years no matter what the management does, without adding several firsts and seconds the 4 to 5 years will stretch out to 7 or 8. As such the only thing a prudent GM should be doing is ignoring the next few years conpletely and acrueing picks

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by moon

Adding scouts and investing more in scouting systems has nothing to do with intellectual honesty and hardly shows anything other than they are willing to spend cash.

Or it might mean that they have been intellectually honest in recognizing that their drafting has been horrible and are trying to address it.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I think of the big challenges is the salary cap distribution...by having a team so close to the cap, its hard to bring in the young players, as it doesn't really make sense to - you can't send the older vets down to the minors because they are on one way contracts or they'd have to go through waivers.

A team close to the cap should be a contender and bringing in young players wouldn't be a priority but a bonus or attempt to prolong the team's success. The problem, and the reason why the Flames have become somewhat of a laughing stock, is that the team has been right up against the cap for years but are no way close to being a contender, yet the team keeps trading away draft picks for players who can help now or closer to helping now.