VOICE OF THE NATION: Red Red Whine

Vintage Flame
April 09 2013 03:37PM

 

 

I have not always been the voice of logic and reason here in FlamesNation, but have tried to remain the voice of optimism. That’s becoming pretty hard to do given the recent history of this club, even for me. The idea when we started ‘Voice of the Nation’ was to bring a forum that reflected the views and the sentiment of the fanbase. While Kent and others have been able to present scientific explanations as to why we have or have not seen what your Calgary Flames are or are not capable of, sometimes logic is clouded by just what we see on the ice. It’s the heart deceiving the eye and ignoring the mind. It’s illogical but at the same time, compelling; and sometimes it’s the dominating factor that forms our opinions.

Yes, “our” opinions. In the end we are all fans of this team, it’s what brings us here every day and engages us in the multitude of conversations, debates or flat out arguments that brings the Nations together.

It has been anything but good times for Flames fans these days. We have seen the departure of fan favourites and been forced to remain watching some pieces that everyone wants to see shipped out. All while we sit and wait for a collection of “magic beans” to develop into something that will bring this team to the next level. That shouldn’t be too difficult since, from what we saw in the last installment of the Battle of Alberta, the only place to go now… is up.

Some may differ in that opinion though. Some think that the Flames hitting rock bottom has no upside, yet. Instead the fans are due to wallow in less than mediocrity, dejected by the years to come of what is in store for this organization.

I’m not fully on either side, yet. But here are some of my concerns.

Trade Strategy

We all knew it was only a matter of time before the Flames made     the impossible choice of trading off their most valued assets. Many were of the opinion that the likes of Iginla, Bouwmeester and Kiprusoff would fetch a small fortune; something that would be pivotal for a team entering a rebuild. Others, felt that the fans over valued these assets and that the fanbase was due for a major disappointment when they saw what the reality of the return turned out to be.

I wasn’t crazy about the “prospects” that came back in either of the Iginla or Bouwmeester deals, but then again I am not familiar with US College hockey, so me saying “I’ve never heard of these slugs”, doesn’t hold much water. In the end, we are all going to have to wait and see what or even if they ever develop into anything.

It’s easy to jump to conclusions, and it’s even easier to point the finger at Jay Feaster and say that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing. That may be true to some degree, but probably not entirely.

Regardless of what our opinions are of Jay, or even Weisbrod for that matter, they are pretty smart guys. They haven’t gotten to where they are because they are idiots. That’s just my opinion, trying to stay objective and keep my emotional outlook at bay.

It’s understandable that seeing the face of the franchise and a fan icon like Iginla go for what has been deemed “magic beans” is not just frustrating, but infuriating. What is ironic is that the Bouwmeester deal garnered the same response, when many fans couldn’t wait to ship him out of town.

I think the deals are what they are. A return that wasn’t going to really please anyone involved but was probably as good as they were going to get… given “circumstances”. The main focuses of both deals were the Flames priority in getting the first round picks for the upcoming draft. That’s where I believe management wants to make there statement that they are committed to the fans in going through this process as effectively, and hopefully as soon as possible.

I can’t say that I have a problem with that being the priority either. It’s focusing on the long term repair, rather than a short tem Band-Aid that was inevitably going to leave us right back where we started; and still without the face of the franchise.

What I do have a problem with were the “given circumstances”.

The Given Circumstances

I have no problem not criticizing management because of my own ignorance, like when it comes to not knowing anything about the prospects we got in return. What I do have a problem with though is how management came to those decisions.

I understand the hypocrisy I am about to indulge in, but bear with me.

If the idea behind a trade is to get the best return possible, then I have a problem, specifically with the Iginla deal, as to how the Flames management conducted business prior to April 3rd. If we are going with the premise that the alleged deal with Boston was better than the one they ultimately made with Pittsburgh, then why didn’t Jay make the deal with Boston?

There are many factors that go into answering this question. There was the belief that the first round pick offered by the Bruins was conditional. It was also later reported that, no, the pick wasn’t conditional. At this point we don’t really know for certain whether it was or not, but all things being equal, let’s go with that it was not a conditional pick.

There are also the reports that the prospect return was going to be Alex Kockhlachev and Matt Bartkowski. Now Bartkowski was described as being a “Chris Butler” in the making, but the prize here as far as a prospect was definitely Kockhlachev, a big center with skilled hands.

Now I understand that Iginla had a full No-Movement Clause and I respect the decisions he makes, but I also fail to understand the methodology that went into completing this deal. If Iginla supplied a list of four or five teams, and Boston was on that list, then why was the deal done with Pittsburgh? Some have pointed out that both the Pens and the Bruins were on the list so Iginla’s choice was the deciding factor and ultimate destination.

I can’t stress enough what a disastrous decision this was by management. It is one thing to give the player the power that goes along with a NMC. It is another to let him be the GM in his own deal. Does Iginla deserve all the respect that the Flames afforded him when conceding to waive his NMC? Yes, absolutely, but that should never inhibit the GM from doing his job once that decision has been made.

Once the list was given to management, the only thing left for Iggy to do was wait and hear where he was going. That’s it, that’s all. I’m not sure how it all came about but what was Feaster… King… or even Edwards thinking when they had offers from both Pitt and Boston, and then they ask Iggy what his preference was? The team gave Iggy his due respect by approaching the teams on his preferred list. Once that was done, they should have been focused on the interests of the team and the organization. If the Boston deal was in fact the better deal, then they should have made it clear to Iginla that they honoured his wishes to the full extent. Despite Jarome having a preference of going to play with Crosby, the deal with Boston would have better served the needs of the team and it was managements responsibility to stand their ground.

The Inmates in the Asylum

The Calgary Flames as an organization are getting far too comfortable in affording their employees the luxury of full autonomy. They seem more than content in appeasing the future alumni than building a competitive team and strengthening the crrreunt organization.

I can understand the delicate line that they have to paint when separating organizational business from the PR game they play with the fans, but it also makes me think back to a different time. A time under Cliff Fletcher, who took less financial resources than this installment has had to deal with, and turned them into Stanley Cup Champions. Fletcher wasn't always fair, he may not have even been liked by some, but he was diligent and he knew what his job was; and damn anyone who stood in his way.

I wish I could believe that this trade was a one off, a fluke or a bad decision, but it appears to be the norm. Maybe not on the same scale, but it happened with Bouwmeester and the non-deal with Kiprusoff was just the other side of the same coin.

The Flames had a deal in place with the Maple Leafs to actually get a return for a player, without a NTC, that was gone at the end of the season, and they let him make the call. That baffles me. The reasoning was even more baffling.

To say that they felt it necessary to respect the wishes of Kiprusoff after all that he has done for the organization was perhaps the single most idiotic thing they could have ever told the public. Look, I feel for the guy as a father and as a husband, but players all know the deal when they sign up for the life as a professional athlete. Not to mention, you can’t discount the $35 Million they have paid Kipper over the term of just this contract alone.

In the end, I’m getting tired of the upper echelon of this organization justifying decisions by saying it’s all part of the business. If that’s true Jay… Ken… Murray… then get serious about running this team as a business. Make some decisions that might anger some people, fans, or even players, but that will make this team better. Stop being so empathetic to the needs of your employees because the fans are growing less and less sympathetic.

You have now jumped into whatever your future holds for you, feet first. Be smart, diligent and in need be, ruthless. You are a professional organization in the National Hockey League, not a club med. It’s time you start behaving that way.

Govern yourselves accordingly.

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 season not played
April 09 2013, 04:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Khokhlachev is actually a pretty small center.

Never let accuracy get in the way of a good story....

Avatar
#2 rubbertrout
April 09 2013, 04:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

I like how the "prospects" they got from Pitt aren't even on Pittsburgh's radar (at least according to THN). Meanwhile, the guy rates as Pitt's #2 prospect is Olli Matta, the guy the Flames could have drafted if they didn't mess about going for Jankowski.

Avatar
#3 Parallex
April 09 2013, 05:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

A quibble: Kockhlachev isn't big. He's skilled but he's listed as 5'10 172Ibs. So below average NHL size.

Avatar
#4 calgaryfan
April 09 2013, 05:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

stopped reading after a big centre with skilled hands. 5ft 10in /172 lbs ????? do some research

Avatar
#5 negrilcowboy
April 09 2013, 05:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Captain Feaster, Captain Feaster sir, iceberg dead ahead sir!

"don't worry mere flames fan, we are post apex."

The Flames upper management has become a can't miss reality tv show, with all the dysfunction of the Jersey Shore gang, the business missteeps of the Apprentice, and the honesty of Survivor. Quite frankly, i can't wait for the next promise, buzzword and screw-up. The mishandling of assets, the dillusional thoughts of a contending team, the best this or that player whom no one in the hockey world has heard of all add up to disaster.

Feaster, could be the PR guy for BP and equate the Gulf of Mexico spill as a drop in the bucket, Bhopal as a small leak and Chernobyl as a oops thats going to leave a mark.

Honestly, it won't shock me a bit if this ship of fools screws up the draft by moving down in the order to select an unheard of goat farmer from Kazakastani high school league.

The icing on the cake is how this group portrays themselves as brilliant and the fans as village idiots. Personally this Intellectual Honesty phrase belongs on a 3 am infomercial proclaiming a get rich quick scam.

Avatar
#6 FireOnIce
April 09 2013, 08:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Off topic, but looks like Blair Jones has been called up by the Flames. Guess Stajan's out of commission.

Avatar
#7 Kevin R
April 09 2013, 09:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

VF, either deal for Iggy was underwhelming. Problem is, it was all we could get. Zippo or a late 1st & a couple of College prospects Feaster/Weisbrod felt they knew more about than the Pitt organization. Whatever! I 'm sorry, I love reading your stuff but you are dwelling too much on the actual trades. Your last bit about calling out Flames Ownership & upper Management is bang on. But for the wrong reasons. They missed the boat & poorly assessed their player assets last year & the year before. Kipper should have been moved last summer when you knew for sure he wouldnt have walked away from 5.0million. We need a GM who will make decisions that will benefit the team, not decisions to protect a his job & do anything for just making the playoffs. That is where King & Edwards need to smarten up, either Feaster is the guy for this rebuild or bring in somebody who can & by God let them do their job. The JBO deal makes me scratch my head. Feaster could have had almost ready decent NHL prospects & a 2nd but opted for the Iggy style prospects & a 1st with no salary coming back. There is a reason for this & my fear is that its not for the right reasons. I hope we dont see a version of Jay "offer sheet" Feaster this summer. That will only cost us valuable picks in 2014.

Iggy by the way should have been moved the year Sutter gave Phaneuf away to the leafs & we missed the playoffs. At that time, we should have declared a rebuild & asked Iggy to be part of a rebuild or to move on. He went out in public & was quoted that if the Flames didnt think he could be a part of winning a Cup in Calgary, then he would waive his NTC. Should have called him on that one. He went on to miss the playoffs 3 straight years & probably would have done him a favour & us as well. Both Daryl & afterward Brent, made King & Edwards aware of this obvious direction the Flames needed to go. Feaster just did whatever they asked to get the GM job. This type of crap needs to stop now!!

Avatar
#8 Alt
April 10 2013, 08:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

King is a salesman.Edwards is a multi-millionaire who controls many companies.In his spare time he attempts to break unions.

Feaster is controlled from above.

Avatar
#9 NateBaldwin
April 09 2013, 04:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I can't wrap my head around the notion that the Flames were respecting kipper's wishes by not trading him. Wouldn't it be that the organization is showing respect to Toronto by not trying to trade them a player that simply wouldn't honour the trade by reporting.

I suppose they could have traded him for a pick conditional on actually reporting, but even with that, why would Toronto want to give up anything at all for a player that explicitly stated he wouldn't honour any trade.

So if management is guilty of anything, they're guilty of the press release the organization made about kipper not wanting to report. But if Feaster simply kept it under wraps that Kipper was invoking a retirement-based NTC, future negotiations with Toronto, and perhaps any other team, would be strained from him doing so.

Avatar
#10 Colin
April 09 2013, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

A point in regards to the paragraphs about Iggy's "list", the list that Iggy supplied isn't a "I'll waive my no trade clause to". That list is a "I'll think about waiving my NTC for these teams list". Can't remember who wrote a story or put in on twitter after the Boston/No Boston fiasco. But whatever list Iggy supplys doesn't matter, it's when the trade is going to be made, Iggy has to put pen to paper and sign off on his NTC, so maybe he told Feaster that it was okay to negotiate with these teams, but in the end he would only waive it for Pittsburgh. It wasn't a situation where feaster said here are some offers we have, pick one, we didn't let him choose his team, he had already chosen.

Avatar
#11 Kent Wilson
April 09 2013, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Colin

It depends on the level/strength of the clause in the contract, but yeah I believe in Jarome's case he had the iron clad NMC, so in the end he had to say yay or nay to whoever the team was.

Avatar
#12 beloch
April 09 2013, 04:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Re: Kipper

"To say that they felt it necessary to respect the wishes of Kiprusoff after all that he has done for the organization was perhaps the single most idiotic thing they could have ever told the public."

My reading of this situation is that Kipper signed his contract with the understanding he'd retire in its final season. Feaster knew this. He decided to shop Kipper around in hopes of pulling a fast one over on somebody. Dave Nonis volunteered to be that somebody but Kipper, not wanting to finish his career in a Toronto pillory, warned them that he wasn't going to be playing next year. What could Feaster say or do at this point?

This is the risk you take when you ink back-diving deals like Kipper's contract. A combination of waiting too long to trade Kiprusoff and trying to be sneaky bit the Feaster in the ass. The final insult is that Feaster is probably going to have to play dumb very effectively (shouldn't be that hard) and do some fast-talking (hard for him) to keep the league from sanctioning the Flames over the Kipper contract.

Kipper has apparently retired a year earlier than agreed, as evidenced by his play this season. Literally, he's gone from hero to zero. It's a shameful way to end a distinguished career!

Re: Iginla/Bouwmeester

Iginla is a couple years past his best-before date with a contract that expires this summer. He was a pure rental, so the price was never going to be as high as we would have liked. Again, the Flames waited a year or two too long to trade him. Boston's offer was initially rumored to have a conditional (on Iginla's resigning with Boston) first-round pick, which was unacceptable in spite of having the better prospect. After TSN reported this trade as a done deal, and after the Pittsburg deal came to light, it was finally reported that the pick from Boston was actually unconditional. If that is indeed the case, then your assessment may be correct, but was it really? I'll be damned if I trust anyone involved to get their facts straight. It's entirely possible Feaster went with the Pittsburg trade because their 1st was unconditional and Boston's wasn't.

The Bouwmeester trade, on the other hand, was shameful. Bouwmeester's cap-hit is steep, but he was earning it this season. He was a good asset and not a salary-dump, as he was treated by Feaster. The pick we got is good, but the prospects are crap and will likely never play a single game for the Flames. Given Bouwmeester's age and the fact that his contract has another year left on it, Feaster was under no pressure to make a bad trade, but he went and made one anyways.

Avatar
#13 NateBaldwin
April 09 2013, 04:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

And again for all we know negotiations with BOS might have just been in a effort to bolster the trade offer from PIT. For all we know Iggy gave a 1 team list.

Avatar
#14 Peter
April 09 2013, 04:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm sorry but giving a player a no trade clause automatically injects him into the GM's chair on a trade. Giving the GM a list of teams he is willing to consider does not waive that clause. The player still has the right to say no if he decides down the road he wants to go to another team. Hopefully in negotiating the original contract, you extracted sufficient value to justify giving the NTC. In either case, I don't think they did (especially Bouwmeester). Besides, there would be no need to squable over these scraps if the Flames had drafted even a little better than their mediocre record shows between 1996-2007. There would be no need or desire to trade either of them and they could retire as Flames, hopefully with at least a couple of solid shots at the Cup.

Avatar
#15 Colin
April 09 2013, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

It depends on the level/strength of the clause in the contract, but yeah I believe in Jarome's case he had the iron clad NMC, so in the end he had to say yay or nay to whoever the team was.

There is no varying strength of the NMC/NTC, there are only specific clauses in it. Like a specific clause where they have to supply a 15 team list where they will accept a trade to. If they have a full NMC or NTC clause, a team can ask for a list of teams that a player WILL waive his NTC/NMC, however once the trade call is made the NHL still needs his signature on the waiver(this CAN NOT be done in advance of any trade) to make the trade official.

If Jarome had a clause in his contract where Boston/Chicago/Pittsburgh/Detroit are the only teams he could have been traded, all others are under NTC/NMC, than it wouldn't have mattered what his prefence was.

I don't blame feaster for the Boston trade/no trade mess, that was all on Jarome, leading Feaster along saying he would accept a trade and at the last minute saying no, deal with pittsburgh and only them.

Avatar
#16 RKD
April 09 2013, 04:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

All I can say is be careful what you wish for and that the grass is not always greener on the other side. Just ask the NY Islanders and Florida Panthers.

I am for a rebuild but would prefer the Ottawa, Montreal or Philly style rebuild. This fanbase can tolerate getting worse to get some solid #1 picks, but how many losing seasons out the playoffs will we take? Hypothetically, if we miss the playoffs the next 3 seasons that will be 7 straight years out the playoffs. Sound familiar?

I think bringing kids into a losing environment is very toxic, it can have negative effects on how your players develop. I believed the Oiler kids were developed in bad environment and are still struggling to find how to win consistently. You can't rely on talent alone. Once you start losing regularly you start to accept it as reality.

I'm sure Seth Jones is a great defenceman, but this team needs centermen. We need guys who can play in the top 3. I would take MacKinnon and if he's not available then take Barkov. The new core shoulbe built around Brodie, Baertschi, Backlund, and hopefully MacKinnon/Barkov. Look at all the Stanley Cup winners since 2006 all those teams had top centermen. Carolina-Eric Staal, Anaheim-Getzlaf Detroit-Datsyuk Pittsburgh-Crosby,Malkin, Chicago-Toews Boston - Bergeron, Kreci LA-Kopitar, Carter, Richards.

Avatar
#17 JaromeLoob1989
April 09 2013, 05:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The upcoming draft should be interesting for the Flames as long as we draft in the top 4. I hope we get Mackinnon but any one of the big 4 is good.

In terms of free agency if I was Feaster and company I would target 3 players

1. Clarke MacArthur 2. Mason Raymond 3. Rob Scuderi

Avatar
#18 beloch
April 09 2013, 05:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JaromeLoob1989 wrote:

The upcoming draft should be interesting for the Flames as long as we draft in the top 4. I hope we get Mackinnon but any one of the big 4 is good.

In terms of free agency if I was Feaster and company I would target 3 players

1. Clarke MacArthur 2. Mason Raymond 3. Rob Scuderi

I'm not a fan of Raymond, but that's mostly just irrational prejudice born of things that don't impair his ability and may actually add intangibles to his game. e.g. Being a natural born diver, playing for a team that encourages diving, etc.. For what it's worth, I'm sure he'd raise the Flames' bar for on-ice dramatic excellence if he were signed.

Avatar
#20 JaromeLoob1989
April 09 2013, 06:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

#14 beloch I agree to an extent to what you have said about Raymond but he still has great speed and some decent hands. Playing down on the depth chart in Vancouver has limited his offensive output I think.

Being a hometown boy and some more power play time in Calgary you would think that maybe he would be a more productive player. He's also a good forechecker as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing him wearing the Flaming C (probably give the Canucks defence and fans some fits)

Avatar
#21 Luc
April 09 2013, 07:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This type of article just perpetuates the notion that we as fans, have ANY friggen idea what goes on Behind closed doors. To sit there and bash based on a theory of "what could have been" is pointless. Bottom line is we have no idea the restrictions, conversations, and handicaps these trades and plans were conceived under. Let it go champ. Let it go.

Avatar
#22 Chris Fairfield
April 09 2013, 09:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Would there be any interest in Paul Stastny in the off season?

Avatar
#23 loudogYYC
April 09 2013, 10:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Nice article, VF. I was pretty upset about the way all the trades went down, or didn't.

Makes me wonder, if it's so clear players can do as they please with the Calgary Flames Golf & CC, why wouldn't agents and other GM's do the exact same.

This management group comes across as weak to me, too much talking and not enough decision making. I'm still optimistic about the summer and draft trades that should be going down, but mostly because I know there are around 5 or 6 GM's that are in serious need of cap relief and may get desperate. I just hope Peter Griffin and Co. let their desperation sink in before pulling the trigger.

Avatar
#24 Franko J
April 09 2013, 10:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JaromeLoob1989 wrote:

The upcoming draft should be interesting for the Flames as long as we draft in the top 4. I hope we get Mackinnon but any one of the big 4 is good.

In terms of free agency if I was Feaster and company I would target 3 players

1. Clarke MacArthur 2. Mason Raymond 3. Rob Scuderi

I'm thinking under what the Flames talked about post apex players and according to the mandate set forth by ownership to make the playoffs next season I don't know if 2 out of the 3 players targeted fit into the Flames plan.

The one exception being Mason Raymond. He would be a good fit,local guy, good speed, but I think the injury he suffered in the playoffs a couple of seasons ago has changed him.

I also think that these guys are a little bit older and want term security. Like Wideman these guys would have to be enticed with a longer contract and higher amount of dollars to come to Calgary.

With the current state of the Flames, I don't know if there is an incentive to sign with this team. If I am a free agent hitting the market what would be the cache to playing with the Flames? In the past the selling point was Iginla and Kiprusoff and hope (as false as it was) to potentially making the playoffs.

The Flames have to be very cautious (not saying that they will) at targeting free agents just because they have some salary cap space. I firmly believe they should first of all take care of their own RFA's they would like to keep and pay them accordingly to market value, save some dough now and wait for a better free agent crop of players and spend the money then. Or take the money they have now and utilize it on the elite player might draft this year.

Avatar
#25 Franko J
April 09 2013, 10:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I say most teams this summer with "cap relief" will mostly be players who are going to give the Flames "crap grief".

The last thing I want to see is history repeat itself with this team and start signing a bunch of "Amonte, Nolans, Sarich, Babchuck etc" just for the sake of signing a free agent.

I am just wondering when does the new salary cap take effect in the off season? Or will it take effect after training camp?

Depending when it takes effect will surely influence what direction this team can or might take when the free agency period begins on July 5, 2013.

Avatar
#26 VK63
April 09 2013, 11:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JaromeLoob1989

Raymond and GlenX are buddies in the off season so there seems a fit there. In light of the flavor of the OP and the inmates running the asylum... probably a slam dunk.

Country club Calgary that it is.

Avatar
#27 loudogYYC
April 09 2013, 11:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Franko J

If I'm not mistaken all teams need to be cap compliant a week or so before next season starts.

I kinda think that if history were to repeat itself, next season is the right time for it to happen. There's going to be more than a few overpriced vets available for trade and as long as they don't have too much term left on their contracts, it makes perfect sense for Calgary to bring them in.

It'll be an easy way of acquiring more picks at this draft, and they could be potentially be flipped as rentals at next years trade deadline.

Lecavalier doesn't fit that model, but Heatley, Briere, Boyle, Salo, Peverley all do.

Avatar
#28 Derzie
April 09 2013, 11:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hey, I don't know what it takes to be a good GM but I do know that we have a bad one. None of this mess will change until King and Feaster are gone and someone with the will to stand up to Edwards is in charge. Until then I will watch faithfully (from afar and without paying the tolls)but will expect nothing. The ONLY saving grace is I still think Tambellini is worse.

Avatar
#29 Jay
April 10 2013, 12:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

With all the cap room we have for next year, we should look at taking other teams bad contracts, in return, we upgrade our picks or prospects. It would be like the reverse Reggie deal.

Heard that the leafs may want to get rid of Grabovski. Not sure how motivated they are. Maybe Grabovski and Gardiner for Butler?

Avatar
#34 Mike Vernon's ghost
April 10 2013, 03:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

One thing I want to mention about this is all of these guys had no moment clauses. I think these are more of Darryl's bad deals coming back to bite us in the ass. I don't blame Feaster for the mess he has inherited. How can you make a good deal when you only have 3-4 teams to pick from and the player tells you he will only go to Pittsburgh. Only a few people could take on JBOs salary cap hit plus his MNC that makes it really hard to get a great deal back. I heard Detroit was only offering a 2nd rounder with their crap prospects so I dont think we did well but we could have done worse.

Avatar
#35 Danglesnipecelly
April 10 2013, 03:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Vintage Flame wrote:
Heard that the leafs may want to get rid of Grabovski. Not sure how motivated they are. Maybe Grabovski and Gardiner for Butler?

Not even the Leafs are dumb enough to make that trade.

Agreed. Never mind Grabovski.... If we're getting the Gardiner for the Butler we will have to throw in the maid and the chauffeur to.

Avatar
#36 SydScout
April 10 2013, 04:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

VF, either deal for Iggy was underwhelming. Problem is, it was all we could get. Zippo or a late 1st & a couple of College prospects Feaster/Weisbrod felt they knew more about than the Pitt organization. Whatever! I 'm sorry, I love reading your stuff but you are dwelling too much on the actual trades. Your last bit about calling out Flames Ownership & upper Management is bang on. But for the wrong reasons. They missed the boat & poorly assessed their player assets last year & the year before. Kipper should have been moved last summer when you knew for sure he wouldnt have walked away from 5.0million. We need a GM who will make decisions that will benefit the team, not decisions to protect a his job & do anything for just making the playoffs. That is where King & Edwards need to smarten up, either Feaster is the guy for this rebuild or bring in somebody who can & by God let them do their job. The JBO deal makes me scratch my head. Feaster could have had almost ready decent NHL prospects & a 2nd but opted for the Iggy style prospects & a 1st with no salary coming back. There is a reason for this & my fear is that its not for the right reasons. I hope we dont see a version of Jay "offer sheet" Feaster this summer. That will only cost us valuable picks in 2014.

Iggy by the way should have been moved the year Sutter gave Phaneuf away to the leafs & we missed the playoffs. At that time, we should have declared a rebuild & asked Iggy to be part of a rebuild or to move on. He went out in public & was quoted that if the Flames didnt think he could be a part of winning a Cup in Calgary, then he would waive his NTC. Should have called him on that one. He went on to miss the playoffs 3 straight years & probably would have done him a favour & us as well. Both Daryl & afterward Brent, made King & Edwards aware of this obvious direction the Flames needed to go. Feaster just did whatever they asked to get the GM job. This type of crap needs to stop now!!

Kevin, wondering what your opionion is on the mandate by ownership to make the playoffs is each year up until now. If you believe that then this part 'They missed the boat & poorly assessed their player assets last year & the year before. Kipper should have been moved last summer when you knew for sure he wouldnt have walked away from 5.0million' may be moot.

Feaster would have kept Kipper on the hope that he has a stellar season to get us to the playoffs. Just like he kept Iggy longer that we would hope (but under that mandate, should keep)

Avatar
#37 SydScout
April 10 2013, 05:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

Here lies the issue that needs future attention:

"You have now jumped into whatever your future holds for you, feet first. Be smart, diligent and in need be, ruthless. You are a professional organization in the National Hockey League, not a club med. It’s time you start behaving that way.

Govern yourselves accordingly."

The governance of this organisation (note: the term 'organisation' is used loosely...) needs further exploration. I am not convinced that the Flames have the correct structure, if they continue to make poor decisions. A well run org should have proper governance in place to ensure all decisions are made strategically, with a long term outcome in mind.

BTW great thought provoking piece VF and well constructed posts from all involved and sundry. Hurrah!

Avatar
#38 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 06:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Colin wrote:

A point in regards to the paragraphs about Iggy's "list", the list that Iggy supplied isn't a "I'll waive my no trade clause to". That list is a "I'll think about waiving my NTC for these teams list". Can't remember who wrote a story or put in on twitter after the Boston/No Boston fiasco. But whatever list Iggy supplys doesn't matter, it's when the trade is going to be made, Iggy has to put pen to paper and sign off on his NTC, so maybe he told Feaster that it was okay to negotiate with these teams, but in the end he would only waive it for Pittsburgh. It wasn't a situation where feaster said here are some offers we have, pick one, we didn't let him choose his team, he had already chosen.

No, that's entirely wrong and the point VF was trying to make.

1) Approach player and ask him to waive NTC.

2) Player conditionally agrees.

3) Ask for a list of teams.

4) Player provides that list.

5) Have player sign that list.

6) Player signs that list.

7) Go make best trade, player is left out of it.

8) Best trade made, go inform player where he is going.

Flames did not do this and KK admitted it. They had 4 teams, but didn't have Jarome sign. When the moment of truth came Jarome vetoed it and the team had to crawl back to the Pens. Why they even botherd to inform Jarome before the deal was done is beyond me. Iggy first and all that, I guess.

The only alternative is the conspiracy version that states that Iginla only ever agreed to go to the Pens. Flames then dealt in bad faith with 3 other clubs, playing poker with them in order to try and drive up the price on the Pens.

I find the 1st explanation more likely. It fits with how the Flames do business and how they've over-regarded Iginla in any decision making. It also fits with what KK said, though I don't put lieing to the media beyond him. In addition, why did the Bruins think they had a deal? It's one thing to play poker between teams and run back to the Pens and say "we got this;" it's another thing to actuall tell the Bruins "we have a deal."

Avatar
#39 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 07:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
beloch wrote:

Re: Kipper

"To say that they felt it necessary to respect the wishes of Kiprusoff after all that he has done for the organization was perhaps the single most idiotic thing they could have ever told the public."

My reading of this situation is that Kipper signed his contract with the understanding he'd retire in its final season. Feaster knew this. He decided to shop Kipper around in hopes of pulling a fast one over on somebody. Dave Nonis volunteered to be that somebody but Kipper, not wanting to finish his career in a Toronto pillory, warned them that he wasn't going to be playing next year. What could Feaster say or do at this point?

This is the risk you take when you ink back-diving deals like Kipper's contract. A combination of waiting too long to trade Kiprusoff and trying to be sneaky bit the Feaster in the ass. The final insult is that Feaster is probably going to have to play dumb very effectively (shouldn't be that hard) and do some fast-talking (hard for him) to keep the league from sanctioning the Flames over the Kipper contract.

Kipper has apparently retired a year earlier than agreed, as evidenced by his play this season. Literally, he's gone from hero to zero. It's a shameful way to end a distinguished career!

Re: Iginla/Bouwmeester

Iginla is a couple years past his best-before date with a contract that expires this summer. He was a pure rental, so the price was never going to be as high as we would have liked. Again, the Flames waited a year or two too long to trade him. Boston's offer was initially rumored to have a conditional (on Iginla's resigning with Boston) first-round pick, which was unacceptable in spite of having the better prospect. After TSN reported this trade as a done deal, and after the Pittsburg deal came to light, it was finally reported that the pick from Boston was actually unconditional. If that is indeed the case, then your assessment may be correct, but was it really? I'll be damned if I trust anyone involved to get their facts straight. It's entirely possible Feaster went with the Pittsburg trade because their 1st was unconditional and Boston's wasn't.

The Bouwmeester trade, on the other hand, was shameful. Bouwmeester's cap-hit is steep, but he was earning it this season. He was a good asset and not a salary-dump, as he was treated by Feaster. The pick we got is good, but the prospects are crap and will likely never play a single game for the Flames. Given Bouwmeester's age and the fact that his contract has another year left on it, Feaster was under no pressure to make a bad trade, but he went and made one anyways.

Agree with this mostly, but that would be circumventing the cap and Kipper has still not issued any statement regarding retirement.

Therefore, with 1 year left on his deal, he should've been moved. He could still choose to retire at the end of the season, but I doubt he'd just up and quit the same day.

Again, what I think VF was trying to get at. Instead os trading himbecause they could, Feaster first went to Kipper and had a big heart-to-heart. Feaster essentially GAVE Kipper the option of sinking them. There was no reason to go to him, he didn't have a NTC at that point.

Another example of the player being put before the team.

Avatar
#40 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 07:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Colin wrote:

There is no varying strength of the NMC/NTC, there are only specific clauses in it. Like a specific clause where they have to supply a 15 team list where they will accept a trade to. If they have a full NMC or NTC clause, a team can ask for a list of teams that a player WILL waive his NTC/NMC, however once the trade call is made the NHL still needs his signature on the waiver(this CAN NOT be done in advance of any trade) to make the trade official.

If Jarome had a clause in his contract where Boston/Chicago/Pittsburgh/Detroit are the only teams he could have been traded, all others are under NTC/NMC, than it wouldn't have mattered what his prefence was.

I don't blame feaster for the Boston trade/no trade mess, that was all on Jarome, leading Feaster along saying he would accept a trade and at the last minute saying no, deal with pittsburgh and only them.

If the player signs off on that list, does that not change his NTC or effectively provide his signature in advance?

Maybe I'm wrong, butthis seems to contradict everything I've ever heard about what the industry standard is, which is to have the player sign that list, so that a situation like Iginla's doesn't happen.

Any CBA experts here?

Avatar
#41 chillout
April 10 2013, 08:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

No, that's entirely wrong and the point VF was trying to make.

1) Approach player and ask him to waive NTC.

2) Player conditionally agrees.

3) Ask for a list of teams.

4) Player provides that list.

5) Have player sign that list.

6) Player signs that list.

7) Go make best trade, player is left out of it.

8) Best trade made, go inform player where he is going.

Flames did not do this and KK admitted it. They had 4 teams, but didn't have Jarome sign. When the moment of truth came Jarome vetoed it and the team had to crawl back to the Pens. Why they even botherd to inform Jarome before the deal was done is beyond me. Iggy first and all that, I guess.

The only alternative is the conspiracy version that states that Iginla only ever agreed to go to the Pens. Flames then dealt in bad faith with 3 other clubs, playing poker with them in order to try and drive up the price on the Pens.

I find the 1st explanation more likely. It fits with how the Flames do business and how they've over-regarded Iginla in any decision making. It also fits with what KK said, though I don't put lieing to the media beyond him. In addition, why did the Bruins think they had a deal? It's one thing to play poker between teams and run back to the Pens and say "we got this;" it's another thing to actuall tell the Bruins "we have a deal."

The problem with this is a team cannot make a player with a NTC sign off on multiple teams. The nhlpa would be all over that so fast it's not even funny. The power is always in the players hands in these cases as they can always say no. All they can do is ask that player to submit a list. The list is to give them bargaining power since they have virtually none in that situation.

If Boston "had a deal" with Calgary doesn't really matter because long before they made the call to the league Boston's people began leaking that info to the media which gave Pittsburgh the chance to get in there and offer 2 prospects instead of just one with a throw away.

In the end who really cares who Iggy chose, Boston screwed themselves don't put that on Iggy. He did everything he could to put the team in the best position possible and was well within his rights the entire way.

Avatar
#42 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 08:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Mike Vernon's ghost wrote:

One thing I want to mention about this is all of these guys had no moment clauses. I think these are more of Darryl's bad deals coming back to bite us in the ass. I don't blame Feaster for the mess he has inherited. How can you make a good deal when you only have 3-4 teams to pick from and the player tells you he will only go to Pittsburgh. Only a few people could take on JBOs salary cap hit plus his MNC that makes it really hard to get a great deal back. I heard Detroit was only offering a 2nd rounder with their crap prospects so I dont think we did well but we could have done worse.

Crap prospects? Better than anything we have.

I've heard from several different sources that Detroit really wanted JBo. I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't have given up Jarnkrok if it came to that. He's ready to step in, if not now, after 1 year in the AHL.

Flames could've also eaten salary. Feaster wants the cap space for some grand plan involving scooping up other team's players that they can't retain when the cap goes down. We'll just have to wait and see how that plays out.

Avatar
#43 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 08:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
chillout wrote:

The problem with this is a team cannot make a player with a NTC sign off on multiple teams. The nhlpa would be all over that so fast it's not even funny. The power is always in the players hands in these cases as they can always say no. All they can do is ask that player to submit a list. The list is to give them bargaining power since they have virtually none in that situation.

If Boston "had a deal" with Calgary doesn't really matter because long before they made the call to the league Boston's people began leaking that info to the media which gave Pittsburgh the chance to get in there and offer 2 prospects instead of just one with a throw away.

In the end who really cares who Iggy chose, Boston screwed themselves don't put that on Iggy. He did everything he could to put the team in the best position possible and was well within his rights the entire way.

It's not about "making them," it's asking them and then having that so you can do a proper deal with no further interference. Poorly worded maybe, on my part.

What I'm interested in is if that changes the TNC at that point or if Colin is correct and nothing is waived until the trade call. Trying to find that out now.

Avatar
#44 chillout
April 10 2013, 08:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@the-wolf

You can ask them all you want but the nhlpa would step in very quickly to stop that. It would set a precedence that would essentially take the power away from the players when they should have it with a NTC. kind of how the nhlpa stepped in to stop players like Redden from scrapping their contracts. Even though it hurt the player.

Pretty sure that's what I heard Bob mckenzie say anyway about the NTC. Player can give a list but absolutely no trade can be made without the player signing off on that specific trade regardless off the list.

Avatar
#45 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 08:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
chillout wrote:

You can ask them all you want but the nhlpa would step in very quickly to stop that. It would set a precedence that would essentially take the power away from the players when they should have it with a NTC. kind of how the nhlpa stepped in to stop players like Redden from scrapping their contracts. Even though it hurt the player.

Pretty sure that's what I heard Bob mckenzie say anyway about the NTC. Player can give a list but absolutely no trade can be made without the player signing off on that specific trade regardless off the list.

But then why would KK state that "next time" he would have the player sign off on the list?

See, and I've heard different from most MSM.

What Colin states is the first I've heard that. That's why I want to know.

Plus, you're not taking away their power, they can still say "no" or just name 1 team. Obviously, since the player can be traded at all (as long as they agree to it), than it is not the same as scrapping a deal in terms of years or dollars ala Luongo's situation. Lou can't change his contract terms, but clearly a player (inclding Lou) can agree to be traded despite a NTC or NMC.

Which makes me think they can sign off on a list., but again, that's why I'm trying to find out for sure.

Avatar
#46 Kevin R
April 10 2013, 10:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
SydScout wrote:

Kevin, wondering what your opionion is on the mandate by ownership to make the playoffs is each year up until now. If you believe that then this part 'They missed the boat & poorly assessed their player assets last year & the year before. Kipper should have been moved last summer when you knew for sure he wouldnt have walked away from 5.0million' may be moot.

Feaster would have kept Kipper on the hope that he has a stellar season to get us to the playoffs. Just like he kept Iggy longer that we would hope (but under that mandate, should keep)

I think the mandate is unrealistic and begs one to think of 2 things:

-Edwards is smart enough to know that teams losing 3 huge franchise players do not make the playoffs 9.9 times out of ten. So he is either just being a pompous jerk to Feaster because he has lost confidence in his GM & this is setting him up to fail...or

-he never said that but doesnt care Feaster throws that out there. Probably part of a KK quirk that teams rebuilding dont compete for playoffs immediately & make it extremely difficult to sell tickets, merchandise & corporate sponsors/advertisers.

If King was smart, he would do this rebuild real good so that by the time a nice new shiny larger building is constructed, this team is ready to go for another exciting run with everyone trying to get a piece of it.

Feaster truly did feel he was bringing in pieces like Wideman, Hudler, Cerevenka & knew Sven would be starting the season & maybe could have given us a Calder season. Kipper & how durable Kipper was made him throw the dice on riding Kipper one more time. Not sure if Feaster got the memo about the Lockout or worse yet he didnt read it. Maybe the same reason he was so sure ROR didnt have to clear waivers either.

Avatar
#49 chillout
April 10 2013, 12:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

read through parts of the old CBA. It doesn't say much about this but either way you can be damn sure that Iggy's agent knew what teams were in play again leaving it well within his rights as to who he was going to pick. The list is basically saying I will go to one of these teams if they make an offer but if more than one makes an offer it goes back to the player with the NTC and where HE wants to go. That's just the name of the game with a NTC. A list saying I WOULD go to one of these teams means nothing in legal people speak. Even with his signature on the bottom of said list. The NTC can only be waived with the league.

On top of that it's really not a bad thing. Free agents are more likely to come somewhere they will be treated with respect rather then somewhere they are told to shut up and get the heck out when it may come time to possibly trade said person.

Avatar
#50 the-wolf
April 10 2013, 12:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I should have an answer by tomorrow. Both arguments make sense.

Comments are closed for this article.