Flames Hire Jay Feaster as Assistant GM

Kent Wilson
July 08 2010 04:05PM

 

 

According to twitter reports, it looks like Sutter has found someone willing to make balloon animals. Ironically, it's Jay Feaster, the GM of the Tampa Bay Lightning team that defeated the Flames in the 2004 Stanley Cup finals.

That sounds like a good resume, of course, but frankly I'm unimpressed by Feaster. His team slid into terrible territory soon after winning the cup and his writings at the Hockey News since being deposed have caused me to both laugh derisively and raise my eyebrows more than once.

So, yeah...color me less than thrilled.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 Emir
July 09 2010, 09:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'll be the first to say it, I like the summer moves from Sutter so far. Here is why:

Tangs & Jokinen- Tangs had his best time here in Calgary and with no heavy expectations will perform well. Jokinen is a similar cut too, and the 3 mil cap hit is digestible for two years. NTC only makes sense, cuz lets face it, without Sutter will move you, so I can understand why it had to be back in the contract.

If you don't like the signing of either player, please let me know who else was in that free agency pool who could be useful? Paul Kariya? Or lets overpay Manny Malholtra.

Feaster- Feaster has seen what happens things arent addressed now, so bringing him in at this point to me makes sense. Will he be the media conduit? Sure, but lets face it, Sutter only gives a good interview when he needs to, and I don't think that will change and we wont see Sutter anymore.

Next Season: I think the team will have a good year next year, will they be #1 in the league? Not likely, but I think this next team has a good chance at taking the NW. Not an easy task against Vancouver and Colorado, but we are in the mix in my mind.

Avatar
#53 R O
July 09 2010, 10:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

JT provides the first laughs for the day.

The adults here don't talk about the 04 Flames being all that. It was Iginla and Conroy and a hot goalie and then varying shades of poo-brown. I think RCleave made the point once that the shot differential implied a better regular season team than expected, but luck drove the post-season play.

It's alright if you or others don't like it here, it really is. Not everyone can perform the intellectually arduous task of thinking before speaking.

Avatar
#55 CitizenFlame
July 09 2010, 10:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I have only been a citizen for a short period of time (a few months anyway) and I have also found the overall tone to be fairly negative especially directed towards Sutter. That being said, I also believe that this site is one of the better ones for the informed writing (especially you Kent) as well as the connection to the team (mainly through Pat). The voice here can often be critical but is usually honest in its assesment, which a lot of fans don't like to hear. Unfortunately, the team had it's worst season in nearly a decade, so it's not surprising and should be expected that the overall tone is going to be more on the negative side. Even Mr. Optimism (Iggy) has said that the fans have every right to be mad. Calgary is a city with passionate fans and a knowledgeable fanbase. This site is evidence of that. Despite the outpouring of honest assesment/negativity, I still am hooked and log in everyday (usually a few times a day) to see what is going on with the team that I love and to hear from other hockey crazed fans who still want to talk hockey in July!

Avatar
#56 CitizenFlame
July 09 2010, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Now that I got that last part out of the way, I would actually like to comment on the article. I'm not going to say that I'm a huge fan of Feaster but the man has won at every level. I mean, a Calder Cup and GM of the year in the AHL, a Stanley Cup and Sporting News Executive of the year. Those are solid credentials. Not a lot of GM's can claim that success, so either he is the luckiest SOB in the hockey world to just walk into that kind of success or he's been able to build a winner (even if it's only in the short term). Look at his bio, he had quick success in both the AHL and NHL winning a few years after taking over in both leagues, so maybe he can help turn the team around in a hurry with a 1-3 year timeline. That fits with this aging core.

Oh ya, RO you crack me up sometimes. Way to pile on, to the guys who are saying they want to leave if there isn't more positivity!

Avatar
#57 mikeH
July 09 2010, 12:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Don't worry Kent, I love the stuff you spew. Personally, I like that someone out there is doing the math and presenting it in a way that can be easily digested. I think that's how you make comparisons among teams/players meaningful.

A lot of the negativity is just coming from the off-season absence of actual hockey after a bad season. Once we get to camp and start seeing what we've got out of these prospects and trades, I fully expect to read lots of quality commentary on actual performance (good and bad), just like you always read here (or on M&G and FHF).

In the spirit of positivity, I'd like to take back any comments I've ever made calling the ownership a bunch of lying liars because they didn't follow through hiring an AGM. I was wrong, they did what they said they would. For what its worth, he's a very different sort of manager from what we have, we'll see how he does working with the jolly rancher.

Avatar
#58 SmellOfVictory
July 09 2010, 04:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

To get back on topic, Puck Daddy actually found a Feaster Hockey News article I actually agree with:

Overreach in any area - such as when owners solicit the input of players about signings or who the player would like to play with, or when players decide they know more than the coach and don't need to play his system - and you create an environment in which success may not be impossible, but will be inherently more difficult. The no trade/no movement clauses are perfect examples of overreaching. While GMs may have great reasons for agreeing to them at the time, in short order they find their hands tied and options limited."

So that's encouraging, assuming Feaster can convince Sutter of this stuff.

I realize hockey players are professionals, but in terms of who works together and who doesn't (I'm speaking in terms of who becomes trade bait, not who to acquire), I would think that player input could be quite useful; maybe there's someone on the team that very few people get along with.

Avatar
#59 SmellOfVictory
July 09 2010, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@CP is garbage

I know a lot of people fear the witchcraft of mathematics and scientific analysis, and if you feel that having a conversation with a GM or a player will give a person great understanding of hockey, then more power to you. I'm not well-versed in advanced sports statistics, but I am well-versed in statistics in other areas, and I know that you can get a lot of information from those little numbers. You can't get context necessarily, and you can't get a lot of "soft" information, but if someone gave me demographic information about the US, for example, I could tell you which states have a higher standard of living without EVER HAVING LIVED THERE. Shocking, I know. So yes, experience in any area is useful for determining information (eg having played hockey to a high level, as you mentioned in this case) however it's not necessary for a lot of analysis, and certainly not fan-based analysis.

I'd wager that most guys who have played even to the level of junior hockey aren't better than Kent is at analyzing players; simply playing something does not make you good at analysis. In order to analyze properly from the point of view of an insider you need to be good at it. When provided with statistics such as the ones he uses, it makes things a lot more straightforward for at least a partial understanding of whether someone is good/bad/average in relation to the rest of the league.

Comments are closed for this article.