VOICE OF THE NATION - A CHIP AND A CHAIR

Vintage Flame
January 31 2012 07:52AM

 

So hear it is. After 50 games last year the Flames sat with a record of 23-21-6 and 52 points. This year going into the All-Star break, Calgary had completed 50 games and their record? You got it, 23-21-6. Instantly these numbers usually bring a groan from whoever you just told that too, usually followed by, “Here we go again”.

Are the Flames capable of not just replicating what they did last year, but actually improving upon it? If you were to ask most fans, the answer would be a resounding no. But why? Are the fans just so jaded now by the makeup of this team, or its speculated lack of direction that they just want immediate radical change and are tired of hearing the GM-of-the-week proclaiming to the fan-base like Feaster did that once again “We’re going for it!”

A CHIP

 

 

OK (VF)! You need to tell me who these next games can be considered soft in our favour: Detroit Chicago, Anaheim (one of the hottest teams in last 10 games), San Jose(2 losses already), Phoenix on a B2B on the road (when was the last time we won there?), Vancouver(say no more) then let’s roll into the following week: Toronto (0-1 this year), Dallas & LA (both teams we are fighting & will be playing with urgency). Then we get our soft game against the oilers before we wind up the month of Feb with Phoenix, Philly & St Louis. 13 games from now till the trade deadline. What’s your guess that record would be? Maybe we have a contest. My pick is we go 5-6-2 in these next 12 games & we sit in 11th place on Feb 28th. Just saying, I don’t see a soft schedule when it counts.
- Frequent Commenter Kevin R

One of the biggest changes from last year has to be the way the Flames play out these remaining 32 games. Last year during “The Run”, Calgary found success by beating up mostly on the weaker teams of the Western Conference and winning games from the East. They have to find a more direct route this year, and it has to go through the West. Kevin mentioned the schedule for the Flames leading up to the trade deadline and how it’s a pretty uphill battle. To this I have no issue with, it is indeed going to be a fight, but it is also going to give the Flames the perfect series of case studies before the deadline to see if they can truly go for it, or if the team is on the same dead end trail that they took last year.

Believe it or not, Detroit and Chicago are both winnable games. They aren’t guaranteed wins, but they aren’t guaranteed losses either. The Flames have beaten both these teams already and if Detroit is going with Conklin, then remember, Calgary has had reasonable success against him. Chicago is an elite team no question, and undoubtedly there will be high emotions as the team faces former teammate Brendan Morrison for the first time.

The Flames can’t get by on beating the low-lifes of the conference. It’s a lot of fun to beat-up Edmonton over and over, but somewhere down the line, Calgary has to measure its mettle against playoff contenders. This includes the game against San Jose. The “we almost won” excuse doesn’t mean anything anymore, and these guys are going to have to steal games to give themselves a chance. Three times the Flames have approached the eighth seed and three times they have fallen. My point in all this is that Calgary can’t look at the schedule like Kevin did and try and find the “soft” games, because there aren’t any. This team missed the playoffs last year because they had to win 2 out of every 3 games to get enough points, but they disregarded where those points were coming from. The soft games gave them almost enough points to get in, but the points they needed left the arena with the teams they were chasing.

Kevin, this brings me to your point about Anaheim and Phoenix. Sure the Ducks are one of the hottest teams in the NHL, but that can’t be a factor for the Flames. They are a team that is nine points behind Calgary and it’s a game they had better win. The same goes for Phoenix, who is tied with Calgary, but is also 3-3-4 in their last ten. Now of course, it’s not ideal playing them on the back end of a back-to-back, especially after playing San Jose, but think about it: If the Flames pull one out against the Sharks, then that momentum should be a good shot of adrenaline to get the guys through a game against a team they really should beat. The Flames would hardly be giant killers if they won that one. Winning is contagious, so is losing; the Flames have good success at home and marginal success, to put it nicely, on the road. Something between now and the deadline has to give, to give Feaster the nod to pull the big deal everyone thinks is coming. This should be it.

Let’s talk about Vancouver! How long are we going to view the Canucks like Edmonton sees us? The Flames played one of their best games of the season on Dec. 23rd and it was against the Canucks with their backup goalie. How did they beat the Canucks? Was it a fluke? They played a system and didn't let Vancouver play theirs - you can’t put it any more simpler than that. Can they do it again? Absolutely, but it comes down to that intangible quality that they seem to find only to let slip through their hands: consistency.

A CHAIR

The play of Miikka Kiprusoff this season is arguably the reason the Flames have a shot at a chair at the table. He has been the one constant for the team this year, and gives them a chance to win every night. His numbers may not have him in the top 5 of NHL goalies, but I think it’s important to consider that the top 5 goalies haven’t had to play behind what Miikka has either.

Kent brought up an interesting point in that in order for the Flames to have any shot at the post-season, they better hope that Kiprusoff doesn’t fall off the pace with his play. I’m going to go against Kent here in questioning why we should even expect that result. Is it because Flames fans are so far gone with scepticism that we expect the collapse? I know it can be a numbers game and there are pages upon pages of statistical data to show regression and percentages that just aren’t maintainable, but there is also the consideration that Kiprusoff has shown no indication as to moving in this direction. He is in better shape this year than he has been in a while and he has stated on numerous occasions that he is excited about the way Brent has managed his time with days off this year. He has also said that he feels better now than he had for the past few seasons.

Now something else that Kent brought up was that we and I mean the fans, the team and the City, had better hope he doesn’t get hurt. An injury to Kiprusoff means an instant tilt...as in game over. However, since you can’t ever predict the occurrence or likelihood of an injury, then there is no point in dwelling on it or factoring it in to any consideration of playoff contention. You can never count in or out injuries...

A PRAYER

... Or can you? If there is any team in the NHL that should have the crystal ball on injuries, it’s the Flames. Calgary has lost over 200 man games to injury, and they have been significant ones too. Mikael Backlund, David Moss, Mark Giordano, Alex Tanguay, Derek Smith, even Jarome Iginla in the beginning wasn’t right, and now Curtis Glencross have had Calgary behind the eight ball all season.

Would the Flames be in any better position if they hadn’t been injury riddled? I don’t know if you can make that assumption. Boston has only lost 32 man games to injury and look where they are in the standings! Now of course I’m being facetious and there is no way I’m comparing the Flames to the Boston Bruins, but you never know where Calgary might be right now if they only had suffered maybe a third of the injuries, and not to key personel. Where would the Bruins be if they went from 32 to 215 lost man-games?

So what is this lovely lass praying about exactly? Maybe it’s the same thing the rest of us are? That Feaster going out and trading a disinterested and apathetic Bourque for “blast from the past” Mike Cammallerri can be the offensive spark we need on the power-play. That getting Alex Tanguay back just as they lose arguably their best all around player will soften the blow, and pay dividends? That the miraculous early return of Mark Giordano was a sign of positive divine intervention for once...

Look.. I'm not saying that Calgary is a team that controls its own fate. They are going to need a series of things happen including probably a perfect alignment of all the planets to pull this off.. But it can be done. They may not control their playoff life, but I think they have a pretty big say in their death.

Tim Tebow might have used up all the prayers that are allotted to professional athletes and their sport, but sometimes, with just a Chip and a Chair, you can produce some pretty amazing results. The Flames are “all-in” this month. The trade deadline should show us what Feaster gets dealt on the river card...or if his game was just a bluff.

E42f2ca09dfb26046c3060ff46473aff
Vintage Flame is a Calgary based sports junkie that prefers to call hockey a "religion" rather than an addiction. He believes there are two types of hockey fans. Those who cheer for the Flames, and those who don't understand the sport yet. Follow Vintage_Flame on Twitter
Avatar
#1 Kent Wilson
January 31 2012, 08:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If the Flames could consistently shut down the Canucks, they wouldn't be on track to finish 10th in the west.

Alternatively, if the Canucks could be consistently shut down by the Flames, they wouldn't be first in the west.

Consistency is just another word for begin good.

Avatar
#3 Rain Dogs
January 31 2012, 08:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

In one hand "scepticism", in the other hand "delusion".

I don't like feeling that my team is not going to make the playoffs, but we have to be realistic.

If we were in 5th with games in hand, I'd be singing a completely different tune. But we've go to look at the facts. 1000 words of "we COULD" do this, we "COULD" do that doesn't change the likelihood of it happening.

We COULD go 32-0 for the stretch and finish in first as well...but I wouldn't bet on it.

We've missed the playoffs for two consecutive years. We're 1 game above .500 this year. We've got the month from hell in March. We've got 5 teams fighting for one spot. We score the 2nd least goals per game of the 5. We've got the 2nd worst 5v5 ratio GF/GA of the 5 at .88. We need to play ~.625-.650 hockey (elite hockey)...

but we keep beating the "I think we're going to do it drum."

Sure, we could. Doubtful. It's not scepticism because I'm not doubting the facts. It's realism because I'm aware of the facts.

Avatar
#4 Graham
January 31 2012, 10:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Feaster and his “We’re going for it!”...

Will making the playoffs (or not) change managements approach for next season? I suspect not, and that next year will be another status quo year. Yes, we have a bunch of mid and lesser names becoming UFA, but with the Cammalleri addition, a fairly restrictive amount of money to actually spend.

This team is simply not strong enough at center to be anything other than an 8 - 10 place team.

Avatar
#5 jeremywilhelm
January 31 2012, 10:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't think the Flames are gonna make it. :(

Avatar
#7 T&A4Flames
January 31 2012, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sorry, completely off topic but I have to know; I know we can send Karlsson down for a conditioning stint but have to have him up with 2 weeks, I believe. Is Irving protected in any way if we send him down again?

Oh, and I do think with one more solid addition to the top 6, the Flames can make it. That said, what do we have to give up to get that and does it create too big a hole elsewhere?

Avatar
#9 T&A4Flames
January 31 2012, 11:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

Irving would not have to clear waivers to go back down, so he is probably the one after Karlsson does his conditioning stint with Abby.

That being said, I don't think anyone would claim Karlsson if they did put him on waivers to be sent down.

Thanks VF. So, what are the circumstances that give Irving "immunity?" Also, please confirm that with Karlsson, he can be sent for conditioning to Abby and will only be subject to waivers on recall if that happens after 2 weeks or subsequently gets sent down after being recalled. Thanks.

Avatar
#10 schevvy
January 31 2012, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Looking at the Flames schedule, I still think that they don't need help from other teams. THEY CONTROL THEIR OWN DESTINY. Think about it: aside from Nashville, they have multiple games left against every team competing for the last few playoff spots: 2 vs LA, 2 vs MIN, 2 vs COL, 4 vs DAL and 4 vs PHX. If they can manage to win 3/5 of those games, that would roughly leave them with a record of somewhere near 9-5 or 8-6. Remember, they also have 6 games left against the bottom 3 teams in the conference, Anaheim, Edmonton, and Columbus. If they can go 5-1 in those games, that puts them through the 20 games I just listed at roughly 13-7, add in overtime losses more likely around 12-6-2 or thereabouts.

Now, that is asking quite a bit from Calgary in that section of 20 games. But I think going 12-6-2 in that stretch a games will mean a playoff spot.

Now look at the 12 remaining games that are not included in the 20 game section I just talked about: 3 vs VAN, 1 vs DET (tonight), 1 vs CHI (Friday), 1 vs STL, 2 vs SJ, 1 vs PHI, 1 vs WPG, 1 vs MTL, 1 vs TOR. Realistically, the record in those games would be somewhere around 7-5, as a lot of those games are at home. Maybe 7-4-1, depending on OT losses and such.

So let's add this up: 12-6-2 + 7-4-1 = 19-10-3, which adds up to 41 pts. They currently have 52 pts, which means if they can garner 41 pts in the remaining games, that would result in 93 points. Because they play so much vs other teams fighting for 8th, I think 93 would be enough for a playoff spot.

However, if they win against teams fighting for the playoffs, it would be far, far better if they could stay away from the 3 point games. Winning in regulation will help make up ground in a hurry, where as winning in OT/losing in OT will help lose ground or gain ground very, very slowly. It's gonna be a battle. But I don't think it's an impossible feat. Playing well and consitent will be the key. It hasn't happened yet, but it's gonna have to happen now.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I feel somewhat like Rex now for a lengthy post like this... :)

Avatar
#11 everton fc
January 31 2012, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

Irving would not have to clear waivers to go back down, so he is probably the one after Karlsson does his conditioning stint with Abby.

That being said, I don't think anyone would claim Karlsson if they did put him on waivers to be sent down.

No one picked up Carson. Why would anyone pick up Karlsson, other than maybe Columbus??

I hope they waive him. But then if he is poached off the waiver-wire, Abby has one keeper. Not good.

Perhaps off topic... While I think on the surface Feaster appears to be moving us in a different direction, I'm still not sure what it is. No doubt the Regher deal can be questioned, as Butler has not convinced most he is a capable everyday 3-4 d-man. Byron's back in Abby, and did not blow anyone away when he was up here. He's simply too small. That's my take.

On the surface, Connelly looks good for Morrison. I have no qualms w/this one really. But Connelly's also a guy who'll be 26 this summer, whose been in the AHL now since 2008, and has never seen an NHL game. Sure, he's got speed, "offencive-minded",I suppose... But he's also 5'11" 185lbs "on paper"... Probably a smidge smaller in "reality". Chicago's a pretty strong organization these days... Interesting they'd find him expendable, but again, I'm all for the trade, though it certainly doesn't prove anything about Feaster.

In Cammy, we have a $6mill/year 40-50pt guy. We got the guy back for more than he's worth. Will he ever score 25 goals again, let alone 30? And he's 30 this summer, and smallish... Again, moving Bourque's one thing. He's producing for the Habs. Cammy has yet to produce here. Will he? And since Feaster made this signing to get us closer to the playoffs, if we fall short, who's at fault? Brent?? Feaster???

We should have never signed Morrison. Nor Babchuk. Nor PL3. But we did. And PL3 for a 5th round pick. Things to consider...

Baertschi at 13th in the draft last year - most teams would have taken him. Our other picks under this regime remain up-in-the-air, and the forwards all on the small side. Reinhart, Ferland, others oft-mentioned were picked by Darryl.

Here's what I'd like to see:

Ward promoted from Abby to coach this team when Brent's contract runs out.

Hopefully a new GM and President.

Don't forgett he offer Feaster had on the table for Richards. Madness, in my opinion, for a guy coming of a concussion, currently with less goals than Glencross, and less points than Jokinen. And why anyone would trust Feaster at the trade deadline at this point... Not sure I do. I keep thinking Freddy Modin for last season's playoff run, when we could have kept Conny on the roster and had more success, especially when Moss and Morrison went down, almost in cadence.

Hindsight's 20/20, of course...

Avatar
#12 steveluke1999
January 31 2012, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

stajan, horak, 1st round pick for carter

come on uncle feaster make that trade get us in the playoffs

Avatar
#13 everton fc
January 31 2012, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I will say the pickup of Jones was a good one. Not sure if Feaster made the call on this one, or Brent, since he had him up in Red Deer.

Avatar
#14 Kevin R
January 31 2012, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

First off, I feel honoured to have my post answered by a blog.:)

What you say here really enforces my feeling that there is no way Feaster pull the trigger on a major deal for a top 6 with a long contract as has been the Carter rumours floating out there. That could be a career killer for Feaster if we still fall flat & miss the playoffs after giving up the farm & putting an a longterm anchor around our necks. We need top 6 help to pull off the miracle against the odds playoff appearance. The only move that makes any kind of sense for Feaster that wont blow up if it fails & wont cost the farm is with the cap strapped Sabres for Roy.

We need a punishing Dman on the blueline if we are serious about the playoffs as well. I dont see one available that costs reasonable & there isnt a lineup around the block for.

As for the schedule, if we get through February (& I agree with Wolf that February is the crossroads for this team) there will be a lot more credibility for this playoff push than what we had last year. A successful February will shut the naysayers on the quality/ability of this team. Enjoy the ride, the playoffs for the Flames really start tonight.

Avatar
#15 johnski_rude@hotmail.com
January 31 2012, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
steveluke1999 wrote:

stajan, horak, 1st round pick for carter

come on uncle feaster make that trade get us in the playoffs

Id rather get Vishnovsky from the Ducks than Carter. Great puck moving dman, great on the pp, and only 1 more year on his contract rather than 10 more. A legit puck moving dman and pp shot from the point is something the Flames have been lacking for a while. JBO can move the puck with his feet and is better defensively than Vishnovsky, but his offensive upside was always overated.

Avatar
#16 the-wolf
January 31 2012, 12:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Graham wrote:

Feaster and his “We’re going for it!”...

Will making the playoffs (or not) change managements approach for next season? I suspect not, and that next year will be another status quo year. Yes, we have a bunch of mid and lesser names becoming UFA, but with the Cammalleri addition, a fairly restrictive amount of money to actually spend.

This team is simply not strong enough at center to be anything other than an 8 - 10 place team.

Nothing will change in terms of direction until Iginla is either gone or has a serious decline in production. And not an advanced stats decline, but one that even the most casual fan can look at and say "he's done."

Which is why I maintain Iginla is a millstone around the neck of the franchise. Not really his fault, but as long as he is here and productive the owners will dicate the 'win now' approach.

2004 - the best of times/the worst of times. Undoubtedly the greatest ride fans have had since 1989, but not exactly a model (hope & a hot goalie) to build around.

Avatar
#17 the-wolf
January 31 2012, 12:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

First off, I feel honoured to have my post answered by a blog.:)

What you say here really enforces my feeling that there is no way Feaster pull the trigger on a major deal for a top 6 with a long contract as has been the Carter rumours floating out there. That could be a career killer for Feaster if we still fall flat & miss the playoffs after giving up the farm & putting an a longterm anchor around our necks. We need top 6 help to pull off the miracle against the odds playoff appearance. The only move that makes any kind of sense for Feaster that wont blow up if it fails & wont cost the farm is with the cap strapped Sabres for Roy.

We need a punishing Dman on the blueline if we are serious about the playoffs as well. I dont see one available that costs reasonable & there isnt a lineup around the block for.

As for the schedule, if we get through February (& I agree with Wolf that February is the crossroads for this team) there will be a lot more credibility for this playoff push than what we had last year. A successful February will shut the naysayers on the quality/ability of this team. Enjoy the ride, the playoffs for the Flames really start tonight.

Look at it this way. Feaster wants another legit top 6 player. Carter's contract is the only thing that would allow the Flames to actually make that happen.

Avatar
#18 funkyjaman
January 31 2012, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

We will be sellers this year. The Flames made their feel good trade for the "every day fan" by getting Cammy back and ridding us of Bork. Everything else has/ will be smoke and mirrors.

It"s not like Feaster is going to call it quits publicly this early, he'd get roasted. The players would lack the emotion to play hard and revenues would fall. So he makes one splash early, keeps people talking then tinkers a bit more for depth and for the Heat...keeps people interested. Then just before the deadline when the team is still in 11th place he starts the yard sale, tells everyone they tried to make a go of it but really they need to look to the future. Seems logical to me!

Avatar
#19 Kevin R
January 31 2012, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

First off, I feel honoured to have my post answered by a blog.:)

What you say here really enforces my feeling that there is no way Feaster pull the trigger on a major deal for a top 6 with a long contract as has been the Carter rumours floating out there. That could be a career killer for Feaster if we still fall flat & miss the playoffs after giving up the farm & putting an a longterm anchor around our necks. We need top 6 help to pull off the miracle against the odds playoff appearance. The only move that makes any kind of sense for Feaster that wont blow up if it fails & wont cost the farm is with the cap strapped Sabres for Roy.

We need a punishing Dman on the blueline if we are serious about the playoffs as well. I dont see one available that costs reasonable & there isnt a lineup around the block for.

As for the schedule, if we get through February (& I agree with Wolf that February is the crossroads for this team) there will be a lot more credibility for this playoff push than what we had last year. A successful February will shut the naysayers on the quality/ability of this team. Enjoy the ride, the playoffs for the Flames really start tonight.

Avatar
#20 Kevin R
January 31 2012, 12:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sorry for double post my computer went weird.

Avatar
#23 T&A4Flames
January 31 2012, 02:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:

Irving is on a 2-way contract which means he doesn't have to clear waivers to be sent back to Abbotsford.

Karlsson can be sent to Abby twice I believe for conditioning, just like Brett Carson was. After that he would need to clear waivers to be sent down. He wouldn't be subject to waivers because the Flames have to bring him back after the stints. They would have to bring him back and then physically put him on waivers to be sent back to Abby.

Awesome. Thanks again VF.

Avatar
#24 kittensandcookies
January 31 2012, 02:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

Avatar
#25 everton fc
January 31 2012, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
No one picked up Carson. Why would anyone pick up Karlsson, other than maybe Columbus??

Exactly.. I don't even think Columbus would.

In Cammy, we have a $6mill/year 40-50pt guy. We got the guy back for more than he's worth. Will he ever score 25 goals again, let alone 30? And he's 30 this summer, and smallish... Again, moving Bourque's one thing. He's producing for the Habs. Cammy has yet to produce here. Will he? And since Feaster made this signing to get us closer to the playoffs, if we fall short, who's at fault? Brent?? Feaster???

I have NO problem with the Cammy for Bork deal. Rene had a bad attitude and it obviously went noticed by the staff AND the players. Sarich even made reference to it the night of the trade. I know it's easy to think Oh great Bourque is scoring in Mtl and Mike hasn't lit it up here like hoped, or expected, but it's still too small of sample size. Wait til Bourque becomes Bork again and you'll be happier.

We should have never signed Morrison. Nor Babchuk. Nor PL3. But we did. And PL3 for a 5th round pick. Things to consider...

Agree... 100%. I remember at the start of the year, Kent had us predict our stars and goats of the year. If I remember correctly, I chose Morrison as my goat. ;)

Don't forget the offer Feaster had on the table for Richards. Madness, in my opinion, for a guy coming of a concussion, currently with less goals than Glencross, and less points than Jokinen. And why anyone would trust Feaster at the trade deadline at this point... Not sure I do. I keep thinking Freddy Modin for last season's playoff run, when we could have kept Conny on the roster and had more success, especially when Moss and Morrison went down, almost in cadence.

I was never a fan of the attempt on Richards, not with the injuries and the length of contract. I was happy when Calgary didn't get him, but I can still see why Feaster made the attempt. Is it really any different than the Flames maybe going after Jeff Carter though? Carter has injury issues and an even longer contract, why is he seen as a viable possibility. Most likely because he's younger than Richards but still the theory behind the move is similar to that of going after Brad. (Cause you know we're on a first name basis and all...)

Don't get me wrong - I am glad Bourque's gone. He had to go. So I get that. Agreed. I guess Cammy serves that purpose...

I hear Carter and Richards had issues in Philly, which is why Holmgren moved them. Carter may simply be responding accordingly in Columbus. He could be a high-priced mistake...

Who knows? Easy to sit here and be GMs, hey?!

What I am getting at is this: I see no proof Feaster is the answer here. And if we want an organization w/a consistent winning attitude, top to bottom... To me, Feaster's not part of the equation.

I do believe Ward in Abby may be a good choice to replace Brent at season's end, as I think Brent's departure from the organization is a sealed-deal.

Avatar
#27 schevvy
January 31 2012, 04:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
I hear Carter and Richards had issues in Philly, which is why Holmgren moved them. Carter may simply be responding accordingly in Columbus. He could be a high-priced mistake...

Yeah, from what I've hear is they were kinda party animals or something and just didn't like adhering to team rules.

What I am getting at is this: I see no proof Feaster is the answer here. And if we want an organization w/a consistent winning attitude, top to bottom... To me, Feaster's not part of the equation.

I get that, and I'm sure you're not the only one.
Myself.. I agree with Steinberg in that it's just too early to drop the hammer on Feaster. He hasn't even had a full year as GM yet.

It's hard enough to build up a crappy team, but when you have to repair the damage of the previous GM before you can build a team, man that's gotta be a lot tougher than I think we as fans give him credit for.

Moves like Modin and PL3 are totally stupid, I agree, but I think he has made a lot of good moves as well.

sorry to be a complete ass, but Feaster officially has had a full year at GM. He came in December 28, 2010 and now it is January 31, 2012. Sorry...

Avatar
#28 kittensandcookies
January 31 2012, 04:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Both Carter and Richards were (are?) party animals and heavy drinkers. There's lots of photos on the interweb of them on the night train...

Avatar
#29 everton fc
January 31 2012, 05:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
I hear Carter and Richards had issues in Philly, which is why Holmgren moved them. Carter may simply be responding accordingly in Columbus. He could be a high-priced mistake...

Yeah, from what I've hear is they were kinda party animals or something and just didn't like adhering to team rules.

What I am getting at is this: I see no proof Feaster is the answer here. And if we want an organization w/a consistent winning attitude, top to bottom... To me, Feaster's not part of the equation.

I get that, and I'm sure you're not the only one.
Myself.. I agree with Steinberg in that it's just too early to drop the hammer on Feaster. He hasn't even had a full year as GM yet.

It's hard enough to build up a crappy team, but when you have to repair the damage of the previous GM before you can build a team, man that's gotta be a lot tougher than I think we as fans give him credit for.

Moves like Modin and PL3 are totally stupid, I agree, but I think he has made a lot of good moves as well.

The one real good move was Jones. But me thinks Brent had a piece of that one.

Stempniak's a pass.

Cammy for Bourque... I wonder what a more savvy GM could have done w/Bourque? Perhaps a prospect and picks??

Regher move was not good.

Nor were Modin, PL3, Babchuk, Morrison....

He's in the minus. The Richards deal would have been madness.

Avatar
#30 Kevin R
January 31 2012, 06:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
everton fc wrote:

The one real good move was Jones. But me thinks Brent had a piece of that one.

Stempniak's a pass.

Cammy for Bourque... I wonder what a more savvy GM could have done w/Bourque? Perhaps a prospect and picks??

Regher move was not good.

Nor were Modin, PL3, Babchuk, Morrison....

He's in the minus. The Richards deal would have been madness.

Hey Everton, your conclusions really contradict. You say the Cammy for Bourque is questionable as you think picks & prospects is the way to go, I think, then you say trading aging Regehr & Morrison were bad moves & I dont think you're happy that Langkow for a younger 2.5 million cheaper Stempniak isnt that great either. I'm not sure about what direction you want to go, but if you're boss, like Feaster's bosses are pushing, his trades make sense, like try to win, shed some salary & get the team younger. A little much to ask for but who says any boss is reasonable.

Comments are closed for this article.