Five things: One goalie thing, then draft stuff

Ryan Lambert
May 09 2013 09:16AM

1. Goaltending looking clearer

As I noted last week, just based on the number of guys currently holding onto contracts, and even with Miikka Kiprusoff all but set to retire, there had to be one guy left out in the cold. It seems, as any rational person might have guessed, that Leland Irving, the former first round pick, is the one who's not long for the Flames organization.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing for either party.

Things just weren't working with his development, or his position with either Calgary or Abbotsford, and thus the now-out-of-contract netminder seems unlikely to wedge his way back into the pile. Ritch Winter, who represents Irving, is obviously going to tell everyone who'll listen — including the Herald this week — that this is a guy who like Tomas Vokoun and Dominic Hasek before him (not that I recall Hasek ever having been beaten out by a Danny Taylor type), has all the tools but needs the time to figure it out.

He'll be doing it elsewhere. Winter says there'll be plenty of interest. That's fine. It's not Calgary's lookout any more, but it is another in a long line of torched first-round picks that never really went anywhere. Speaking of which...

2. Drafting remains problematic

Calgary is picking sixth this year, which, if I'm not mistaken, is tied for the highest they've ever taken anyone in an entry draft ever, and that's without taking into account Jay Feaster's vague proclamations about the team having some amount of intent to move up in the draft.

As much as I've seen and heard that people think the quality of this year's first 40 or 50 picks could end up rivaling those taken in 2003 — high praise indeed — I've thought for a while that sixth is the absolute worst spot the Flames could possibly pick given the team's penchant for being dumb as hell when its name gets called in the first round. For every Sven Baertschi or Mikael Backlund since Todd Button started running things, there's been at least two Greg Nemiszes and Rico Fatas and Brent Krahns and ... good lord there have been a lot of garbage first-round picks.

The Mark Jankowski pick last year was certainly emblematic of the problem, and the thing that puzzles and intrigues and terrifies me about this year's No. 6 pick is that it's just outside that area of prospects that will be for-sure-good players in the NHL.

Well, let me rephrase. I think the guy they get at six will probably be good. But the likelihood that he will not is increased somewhat significantly by the fact that they're not likely to have access to, say, the Barkovs or Nichushkins of the world, and choosing who will be best of the Nurses and Lindholms and Monahans will probably leave them most likely to make the worst selection possible (just based on Occam's Razor) and select that Shinkaruk kid who nobody seems to like despite his appearance in the top 10 of every mock draft.

You just have to assume they won't take the right guy. That's what they do.

3. Before you ask

I know people will want to give the Flames credit for snagging Johnny Gaudreau or TJ Brodie in the fourth round, for instance. But I'm not really one to go around slinging a lot of credit to anyone for drafting in the late rounds.

At that point you're just throwing darts at a constantly-moving dartboard and anything you can get out of any player you pick from the second round on is, I think, more or less a crapshoot. Not that guys aren't completely scouted and not that guys aren't targeted to some extent, but it's so rare that you get an impact player that far away from the first round that you really can't go around crowing about drafting acumen if you just happen to snag Pavel Datsyuk in the sixth round; if you were so sure he'd be even a half-decent player, you'd sure have taken him before Tomek Valtonen in the second round, right?

The Flames have indeed had limited amounts of success in selecting guys in the later rounds in the last few years — Keith Aulie has 121 NHL games under his belt, if you can believe that — but when you're taking guys in the late rounds that are getting more games in the bigs than your first selections in any given draft, you're still not picking that well.

4. So here's what I'm hoping

Call me a pessimist (noooooooo!) but the way I view the Flames having three first-round picks this season is their having the ability to make three missteps. I really, really, really hope they package the sixth and one of the other two with a veteran in an effort to move up into the top-5 and take at least some of the guesswork out of their selection.

The simpler it is for them to make a decision like that, the better it will be for all involved. Again, you really have to trust this amateur scouting staff about as far as you can throw it collectively, rather than individually, and the best thing they could possibly do is move up to No. 1 and hope like hell Feaster doesn't go up there and accidentally say "Jonathan Drouin," which is something he might accidentally do given the opportunity.

If you're a Flames fan, how does this scenario not fill you with dread, existential and otherwise?

5. Not much else going on this week in Flamesland

So...

686dfac3780611cb7acad6ce5166c6c1
Yer ol' buddy Lambert is handsome and great and everyone loves him. Also you can visit his regular blog at The Two-Line Pass or follow him on Twitter. Lucky you!
Avatar
#51 Double Dion
May 09 2013, 01:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jai Kiran

If you think Gaudreau has more value than Gio or Glencross you're crazy. I think either player would take us into the top 4.

Avatar
#52 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 01:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Parallex

Heard some commentary on The Sens organization and McLean and their AHL team and the seamless insertion of replacement players to help cover injuries and still make the PO. It wasn't so much about having the same coaching style but more that the practises were the same and, more importantly, that the language was the same. That made it easier on the kids that came up because they are all speaking the same language on the ice.

Avatar
#53 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

You know, if Vinny only had 3 or even 4 years left, I would certainly do it. Why not. That would allow us to draft 2 of MacKinnon, Barkov, Lindholm or Monahan and lock up the C ice position for 10-15 years. Having Vinny would cover the Flames for a year or 2 so the draftees could properly develop in lower leagues. Then he would be the mentor while sliding down to the 2nd and then 3rd lines in his lst couple of years. The $7.7 would easily be covered for that time.

It's the 7 bloody years that really hurts at $7.7.

Avatar
#54 seve927
May 09 2013, 02:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

Of course you could but why would you? To get Barkov?... That'd be like paying Barkov 10M per year on his entry level deal. In other words that would be a waste. I'd fire Feaster in a quick heartbeat if he threw away $30,000,000.00 like that.

I just thought there may be a special rule against trading for and buying out. But, to get an unattainable quantity? Is that not a reason? If management wants a winner, cash is one thing they've got. It's 2 million a year until 2027. It's absolutely nothing like paying Barkov 10 million a year.

Feaster wouldn't be doing it, ownership would. Look at how far they've gotten spending to the cap, you think they're going to notice 2 mill a year? Do you think if the cap was 2 mill higher they wouldn't still spend to it every year to make them better? And not just a little better, but way better?

Avatar
#55 T&A4Flames
May 09 2013, 02:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@seve927

For another 14yrs? Yea they might question that. I guess it depends on the organizational philosophy of spending money on players not in the org. even if it remains within the company budget.

The funny thing is that Barkov or whoever we get in that trade, could realistically be retired by the time 2027 roles around.

Avatar
#56 Baalzamon
May 09 2013, 02:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@T&A4Flames

The Sens are what the Flames would be with a competent management group and a good GM. It's like looking in a clean mirror and seeing how dirty you really are.

Avatar
#57 seve927
May 09 2013, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
T&A4Flames wrote:

For another 14yrs? Yea they might question that. I guess it depends on the organizational philosophy of spending money on players not in the org. even if it remains within the company budget.

The funny thing is that Barkov or whoever we get in that trade, could realistically be retired by the time 2027 roles around.

Well, I guess my point would be that they've spent well over that amount on a strategy that got them nowhere. If no one thinks Barkov is that good, then obviously you don't do it. But from what I've heard, he may well be worth it. Given what they've done the past few years, I'm sure they would have gladly exceeded the cap if it would have gotten them a young superstar. And by 2027 the cap will likely be well over 100 million. Barkov would be the same age Vinny is now.

Or you could suck for a few more years and miss the playoffs and the other revenue and try to get lucky in the lottery.

If they think he's a truly elite player, I think they'd do it.

Avatar
#58 suba steve
May 09 2013, 02:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@seve927

Flames took a good kick in the nuts to get rid of Kotalik and his what, $2-3mil one year contract? I can't see them eating Vinny's contract buy-out.

I am hoping that they use their cap space wisely this summer and absorb some "bad" contracts with good players attached, as long as they are able to pry some good young assets and picks from the teams we are "helping out". But Vinny, that's a BIG pill to swallow, so the return would have to be substantial.

Avatar
#59 Parallex
May 09 2013, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@seve927

It IS like paying Barkov 10M a year on his ELC. It's 30M dollars total and his ELC is the only part of his hockey employment life that isn't subject to negotiation (It's essentually what we acquire by drafting him). That and some negotiation leverage via RFA years.

Totally not worth it from a financial standpoint as I have difficulty believing that Barkov would provide value equal to or greater then 30M + X (Where X is the amount he's actually paid during his 18-25 years presuming immediate entry to the NHL). It's not that Barkov isn't good, it's that the Vinny contract is just that bad.

Avatar
#60 BurningSensation
May 09 2013, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy;

"I know people will want to give the Flames credit for snagging Johnny Gaudreau or TJ Brodie in the fourth round, for instance. But I'm not really one to go around slinging a lot of credit to anyone for drafting in the late rounds."

To go with;

"I think the guy they get at 6 will probably be good".

I'll paraphrase Lambert's position;

1. Feaster should get no credit for making succesful late round drafts.

2. Feaster will probably get a decent player at #6 given there are 6 decent guys, but I don't think he will, and doesn't deserve credit for doing so even if he gets one.

Writing is easy if all you are doing is taking a premise (Feaster sucks), and then warping every possibility to fit that narrative (he might get a decent guy, but will probably blow it).

All of Feaster's options except one are 'failure', and the one option that isn't failure is 'that was expected' (either hitting a late round pick once in a while, or getting a decent pick out of the top 6).

With fans like this writing for the Flames Nation, I hope that Ryan decides to lend his 'cheer' to the Oilers instead.

Avatar
#61 seve927
May 09 2013, 03:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

It IS like paying Barkov 10M a year on his ELC. It's 30M dollars total and his ELC is the only part of his hockey employment life that isn't subject to negotiation (It's essentually what we acquire by drafting him). That and some negotiation leverage via RFA years.

Totally not worth it from a financial standpoint as I have difficulty believing that Barkov would provide value equal to or greater then 30M + X (Where X is the amount he's actually paid during his 18-25 years presuming immediate entry to the NHL). It's not that Barkov isn't good, it's that the Vinny contract is just that bad.

I only see any reference to ELC relevant if we're talking about cap hit. It has none. Monetarily it is paid out over twice the remaining years of the contract. How does it have anything to do with an ELC? You could maybe say it's like paying him 3 million real dollars on his ELC, when his cap hit is about 4.

Do you not think fans would be willing to shell out another $100 per season for season tickets over the course of his career? Season tickets might be 2 million by 2027!

From a financial standpoint, I think it would be greatly offset in revenue as well. They sure didn't seem to want to part with their last franchise player. Spend 45 million instead of 65 for the next 2 years and he's more than paid for already.

Avatar
#62 Double Dion
May 09 2013, 03:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@BurningSensation

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

Avatar
#63 seve927
May 09 2013, 04:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Double Dion wrote:

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

Well stated. I'm always defending Feaster, but it's because he's usually getting lambasted for stuff that's really not his doing. I wouldn't disagree much with anything you've said here.

Avatar
#64 Parallex
May 09 2013, 04:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@seve927

I think it is relevant because the ELC is essentually what you're acquiring in exchange for eating the Vinny contract. Every contract after that is subject to negotiation (leveraged negotiation in the 21-25 years but negotiation none the less). Sure the cost is spread out but you're effectively spending it on acquiring the ELC.

In terms of dollar cost even if you do get a franchise player out of the deal (a big if, and probably untrue for the first few years since he isn't a Crosby level talent) you're probably getting fair market value once you factor in the acquisition cost of buying out Vinny. So long as the system is the way it is you should always be seeking surplus value out of your draft picks.

If I'm ownership I'd laugh Feaster out of my office if he walked in asking me for permission to do that.

Avatar
#65 seve927
May 09 2013, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

I think it is relevant because the ELC is essentually what you're acquiring in exchange for eating the Vinny contract. Every contract after that is subject to negotiation (leveraged negotiation in the 21-25 years but negotiation none the less). Sure the cost is spread out but you're effectively spending it on acquiring the ELC.

In terms of dollar cost even if you do get a franchise player out of the deal (a big if, and probably untrue for the first few years since he isn't a Crosby level talent) you're probably getting fair market value once you factor in the acquisition cost of buying out Vinny. So long as the system is the way it is you should always be seeking surplus value out of your draft picks.

If I'm ownership I'd laugh Feaster out of my office if he walked in asking me for permission to do that.

Fair enough. I still disagree, and I'm surprised that most people seem to feel that way.

Avatar
#66 Parallex
May 09 2013, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Double Dion

I think that's ludicras, he's been working with, around or for hockey teams since 1988 (absent two years where he was a hockey blogger). That's 25 years of varying experience in hockey. How much experience do you need before you're arbitrarily declared a "hockey guy"?

Avatar
#67 Purple Hazze
May 09 2013, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Would love it if the Flames were somehow able to get a 2nd pick in the top 10. The last team I know that did something like that was the Vancouver cancuks when they grabbed the 2nd overall to take both sedin twins.

Does anyone know what Vancouver gave up to get that extra pick and the circumstances surrounding the move? I think the trade was with Florida, why did they give up such a high pick?

Avatar
#68 Parallex
May 09 2013, 04:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Purple Hazze wrote:

Would love it if the Flames were somehow able to get a 2nd pick in the top 10. The last team I know that did something like that was the Vancouver cancuks when they grabbed the 2nd overall to take both sedin twins.

Does anyone know what Vancouver gave up to get that extra pick and the circumstances surrounding the move? I think the trade was with Florida, why did they give up such a high pick?

1: Bryan McCabe and a 2000 first-round pick to the Chicago Blackhawks for the 1999 fourth overall pick.

2: No. 4 selection and a pair of third-round picks to the Tampa Bay Lightning for the #1 pick.

3: #1 Pick to the Atlanta Thrashers for the No. 2 selection and a conditional 2000 third-rounder. Burke also made the Thrashers tell him who they would take and once he learned it was Stephan they had to promise that they would take him.

Basically he robbed everybody blind. God that was a terrible draft overall (Sedins aside).

Avatar
#69 clYDE
May 09 2013, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Double Dion wrote:

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

I agree with everything except the JBO trade. I don't think the live bodies are very good and a very low 1st round pick is not that great for a top 2 def especially with what was being paid for 4-6th def at the deadline. We didn't even take the best deal on the table on that one as Detroit was offering a much better deal imo. Other than that, I think you are pretty bang on. I am very concerned about him running the Flames and he hasn't done much to instill confidence.

Avatar
#70 SmellOfVictory
May 09 2013, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

1: Bryan McCabe and a 2000 first-round pick to the Chicago Blackhawks for the 1999 fourth overall pick.

2: No. 4 selection and a pair of third-round picks to the Tampa Bay Lightning for the #1 pick.

3: #1 Pick to the Atlanta Thrashers for the No. 2 selection and a conditional 2000 third-rounder. Burke also made the Thrashers tell him who they would take and once he learned it was Stephan they had to promise that they would take him.

Basically he robbed everybody blind. God that was a terrible draft overall (Sedins aside).

Special case, though, as the Sedins would refuse to the teams that drafted them unless they went to the same team. Whoever was willing to pick up two consecutive picks that high had a substantial upper hand (Burke, in that case)

Avatar
#71 the-wolf
May 09 2013, 06:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Starting to come around on Lindholm. Never disliked the guy, but I've always put Monahan ahead of him. But I've yet to see a single scouting report wehre Monhan is ahead of Lindholm so I feel forced to follow the consensus on this one. Though I still think Monahan has a ton of potential.

THN's report on Lindholm concerned me the most, with 1 scout statin ghe was a 2nd liner at best.

Have to wonder how many times, when these publications ask scouts for thier opinions, that these scouts are lying and purposefully spreading disinformation?

Not sure what effect it would have on other teams, but I wouldn't really put it past guys either. People will do anything for a competitive edge, perceived or real.

Avatar
#72 Baalzamon
May 09 2013, 07:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@the-wolf

Anyone concerned about Lindholm's upside should look at Nicklas Backstrom as a comparable. They play the same position, the same style, have the same skillset, and are the same size. Their careers to the same point are very similar (Lindholm is, if anything, slightly better than Backstrom was).

Cory Pronman, who usually has fairly conservative upside projections, has Lindholm as a potential allstar.

**this wasn't directed at you specifically, just kind of a reply to give others a nudge in the same direction, and to address the THN thing.

Avatar
#73 Double Dion
May 09 2013, 08:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

I think that's ludicras, he's been working with, around or for hockey teams since 1988 (absent two years where he was a hockey blogger). That's 25 years of varying experience in hockey. How much experience do you need before you're arbitrarily declared a "hockey guy"?

How well has he done with his trades and draft picks? He has a pretty brutal record in all hockey related terms and the man himself acknowledges he's not a "hockey guy." It's why he hired Weisbrod, Conroy and Goulet.

Here's an excerpt on his pre-2004 resume. You'll not he worked with the hockey team doing contract law, not in a hockey role:

As a young lawyer with Harrisburg firm McNees, Wallace & Nurick in 1988, he was assigned to deal with the Hershey Entertainment and Resorts Company. His dealings brought him in frequent contact with one of their properties, the Hershey Bears of the American Hockey League (AHL). Though he had no background in hockey, Feaster preferred working with the hockey team, and quickly joined the organization as the assistant to the team's president before taking over the team and stadium's operations as general manager in 1990.[2] He served in the post for eight years during which he was named the AHL's Executive of the Year in 1997 after the Bears won the Calder Cup.[1] Shortly after, in 1998, he received a call from Tampa Bay Lightning general Manager, Jacques Demers, who offered him a position as the team's assistant general manager. Feaster accepted, and quickly took over contractual and legal matters for the organization.[2] He continued in that position through the tenures of Demers and Rick Dudley until he was promoted as Dudley's replacement in February 2002.

The man clearly has no hockey background. He never played, was promoted based on revenue generation in stadiums and inherited a team built by Dudley. His AHL team was stocked with Dudley talent and the lightning began a quick decent from cup champs into NHL bottom feeders during his tenure.

Tell me, how on earth is that defined as a "hockey guy?"

Avatar
#74 clYDE
May 09 2013, 08:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Double Dion wrote:

How well has he done with his trades and draft picks? He has a pretty brutal record in all hockey related terms and the man himself acknowledges he's not a "hockey guy." It's why he hired Weisbrod, Conroy and Goulet.

Here's an excerpt on his pre-2004 resume. You'll not he worked with the hockey team doing contract law, not in a hockey role:

As a young lawyer with Harrisburg firm McNees, Wallace & Nurick in 1988, he was assigned to deal with the Hershey Entertainment and Resorts Company. His dealings brought him in frequent contact with one of their properties, the Hershey Bears of the American Hockey League (AHL). Though he had no background in hockey, Feaster preferred working with the hockey team, and quickly joined the organization as the assistant to the team's president before taking over the team and stadium's operations as general manager in 1990.[2] He served in the post for eight years during which he was named the AHL's Executive of the Year in 1997 after the Bears won the Calder Cup.[1] Shortly after, in 1998, he received a call from Tampa Bay Lightning general Manager, Jacques Demers, who offered him a position as the team's assistant general manager. Feaster accepted, and quickly took over contractual and legal matters for the organization.[2] He continued in that position through the tenures of Demers and Rick Dudley until he was promoted as Dudley's replacement in February 2002.

The man clearly has no hockey background. He never played, was promoted based on revenue generation in stadiums and inherited a team built by Dudley. His AHL team was stocked with Dudley talent and the lightning began a quick decent from cup champs into NHL bottom feeders during his tenure.

Tell me, how on earth is that defined as a "hockey guy?"

Bang on. And, he wasn't brought here to be the hockey guy either but here we are.

Avatar
#75 Parallex
May 09 2013, 08:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Double Dion

Evs, If 25 years of front office experience isn't enough to make you a hockey guy then it's apparent that nothing will in your eyes. By all means let's all declare that inferior to a guy who barely has a high school education (but who played hockey for a few years) and entrust that guy with what is essentially the COO position in a company valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars and an 80M dollar yearly operating budget. That seems smart.

Avatar
#76 clYDE
May 09 2013, 09:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

Evs, If 25 years of front office experience isn't enough to make you a hockey guy then it's apparent that nothing will in your eyes. By all means let's all declare that inferior to a guy who barely has a high school education (but who played hockey for a few years) and entrust that guy with what is essentially the COO position in a company valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars and an 80M dollar yearly operating budget. That seems smart.

As far as being able to understand the market and ensure the owner makes money, I think Jay is very good. He is also a strong communicator. But, his number of mis steps including the ROR fiasco and taking an inferior deal for JBO without going back to Detroit when there were days left, are very concerning as far as his ability to build a winning hockey team.

Avatar
#77 Willi P
May 09 2013, 10:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
BurningSensation wrote:

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy;

"I know people will want to give the Flames credit for snagging Johnny Gaudreau or TJ Brodie in the fourth round, for instance. But I'm not really one to go around slinging a lot of credit to anyone for drafting in the late rounds."

To go with;

"I think the guy they get at 6 will probably be good".

I'll paraphrase Lambert's position;

1. Feaster should get no credit for making succesful late round drafts.

2. Feaster will probably get a decent player at #6 given there are 6 decent guys, but I don't think he will, and doesn't deserve credit for doing so even if he gets one.

Writing is easy if all you are doing is taking a premise (Feaster sucks), and then warping every possibility to fit that narrative (he might get a decent guy, but will probably blow it).

All of Feaster's options except one are 'failure', and the one option that isn't failure is 'that was expected' (either hitting a late round pick once in a while, or getting a decent pick out of the top 6).

With fans like this writing for the Flames Nation, I hope that Ryan decides to lend his 'cheer' to the Oilers instead.

Agreed on all points. I have a somewhat simpler view when I read RL's "5 Things" (Every time);

1. Predictable boring mindless bashing and negativity.

2-5. Rinse and repeat.

Avatar
#78 Jeff Lebowski
May 09 2013, 11:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Double Dion wrote:

I agree with some of Ryan's points and disagree with others. Credit for Brodie goes to Sutter since he drafted him. I don't know why we'd give credit to Feaster for a pick he wasn't here for...

Gaudreau was a great pick, pretty cool that the Flames did something different than the norm. Feaster deserves credit for that one as it was a well scouted pick and not random chance. He loved that pick right after the draft and made it at the right time.

Some of his trades were head scratchers to me. The Regehr trade for a certainty. Especially since he was just traded for more than we got two years later. I liked the JBo trade, didn't hate the Iginla trade (although I preferred the Bruins deal) and thought he missed the boat dealing UFA's like Moss, Sarich, Jokinen and Hannan at the last deadline.

Basically, he's made some OK moves and some brutal moves. You'd want your GM to mix in some clear wins and I don't think Feaster has done that. He sold high on JBo, which was his best move to date, but to call that a clear win is premature. Drafting Janko with guys like Ceci, Teravainen and Laughton on the board was insanity at best. So I'm somewhat concerned with his ability to take what he hears from scouts and evaluate it. I'd like my GM to be more of a hockey guy then Feaster is. I think a lot of posters on this board have more hockey knowledge than Jay and that's concerning.

Sometimes he also comes across as plain stupid too. The ROR disaster has been well documented and some of his ballsy statements have come across as disingenuous when compared to his actions.

The most important part of the Janko deal you are missing is they were able to get Seiloff too.

If I recall, they would've taken Janko at 14 but saw the opportunity to pick up a second. They had Seiloff rated high (maybe even late 1st) so when he was there they felt like they got two firsts. I haven't seen any of those other guys you listed they couldve picked done anything in the NHL yet. Like Janko or Seiloff.

Yes they could be terribly wrong. They could have no clue about identifying prospects who will play in the NHL. We'll see.

However, they had a process and they believed in it. They prioritized what they value and refined a methodology. If it doesn't match the draft 'experts' list then I don't care much because all lists get things wrong after the passage of time.

If they are woefully wrong over time with their picks then they'll be gone. People want the ops guys gone now based on what? Opinion. There hasn't been enough time to honestly evaluate most of the prospects.

I'd put blame on Holditch for ROR - he's the CBA guru. The Regehr trade: one trade made in summer, one at deadline. Different dynamics at work. At deadline GMs looking for playoff bolstering value picks less compared to just prior to draft where picks are highly valued. The focus is on whats immediately in front of you, draft or playoffs. Anyway, yeah he's made mistakes when viewed in hindsight and he's responsible for them.

Avatar
#79 Double Dion
May 10 2013, 03:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

Evs, If 25 years of front office experience isn't enough to make you a hockey guy then it's apparent that nothing will in your eyes. By all means let's all declare that inferior to a guy who barely has a high school education (but who played hockey for a few years) and entrust that guy with what is essentially the COO position in a company valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars and an 80M dollar yearly operating budget. That seems smart.

If I worked for 25 years at the little caesar's stand in the Joe Louis arena it doesn't mean I'm a hockey guy. Jay himself acknowledges he's not a hockey guy. I don't know how much more clear it can be. He's a lawyer, he's media savvy, he is a strong marketer. But he is not now, nor has he ever been a hockey guy. He publicly stated his lack of hockey acumen is why he hired Weisbrod. But hey, the man doesn't think he's a hockey guy, but you do. More power to you. Being obstinate in an uninformed opinion is not impressive, just silly.

Avatar
#80 Double Dion
May 10 2013, 03:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Jeff Lebowski

I disagree, you can evaluate prospects based on what they did this year outside of the NHL. For example, Gaudreau is a better prospect than Ferland. It doesn't mean either will or won't play in the NHL, but one is clearly better than the other. Teravainen had a fantastic year and almost doubled his point totals playing in the top finnish league. Sieloff and Jankowski (which is fair since they got both, my apologies for not including Sieloff) didn't.

Sieloff's had 3 goals, 8 assists and was -9. His best attribute is his physicality, but he's not a great defender and doesn't bring any offense. He was one point away from being the lowest scoring regular on his junior club.

Jankowski put up 7 goals and 18 points in the NCAA. A far inferior league to the finnish elite league.

Clearly Teravainen looks to be a much, much better pick at this point than the two prospects we took instead. Just like no one would trade a top pairing defenseman for 2 6/7 type guys, giving up a high end prospect for two mediocre ones is poor asset management.

Avatar
#81 T&A4Flames
May 10 2013, 07:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Double Dion

Seriously you guys. Working at the pizza stand in an arena is not dealing with hockey. Jay may not have played the game but he has been involved at the management level for a very long time. It just makes him a different type of "hockey guy."

He, Weisbrod and Connie are a team with Connie obviously being the guy that played the game at the highest level. Each of those 3 guys brings a different perspective to the management team.

In the end Feaster makes the final call but from how I've heard him talk, he listens as well as he talks to his partners.

Avatar
#82 Scary Gary
May 10 2013, 08:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Parallex

The Islanders had four first rounders that year too! Ouch...

Avatar
#83 piscera.infada
May 10 2013, 08:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
clYDE wrote:

I agree with everything except the JBO trade. I don't think the live bodies are very good and a very low 1st round pick is not that great for a top 2 def especially with what was being paid for 4-6th def at the deadline. We didn't even take the best deal on the table on that one as Detroit was offering a much better deal imo. Other than that, I think you are pretty bang on. I am very concerned about him running the Flames and he hasn't done much to instill confidence.

Detroit had a better deal? What was the deal? I haven't read or heard anywhere that there was an actual deal in place, nor that this "deal" was any better than the Blues deal.

If there was, my bad.

Avatar
#84 Scary Gary
May 10 2013, 08:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Parallex wrote:

Evs, If 25 years of front office experience isn't enough to make you a hockey guy then it's apparent that nothing will in your eyes. By all means let's all declare that inferior to a guy who barely has a high school education (but who played hockey for a few years) and entrust that guy with what is essentially the COO position in a company valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars and an 80M dollar yearly operating budget. That seems smart.

I totally agree, you basically need a lawyer as GM these days. It doesn't hurt if he's had a hockey upbringing.

http://bruins.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=38865

Avatar
#85 Jeff Lebowski
May 10 2013, 10:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Double Dion wrote:

I disagree, you can evaluate prospects based on what they did this year outside of the NHL. For example, Gaudreau is a better prospect than Ferland. It doesn't mean either will or won't play in the NHL, but one is clearly better than the other. Teravainen had a fantastic year and almost doubled his point totals playing in the top finnish league. Sieloff and Jankowski (which is fair since they got both, my apologies for not including Sieloff) didn't.

Sieloff's had 3 goals, 8 assists and was -9. His best attribute is his physicality, but he's not a great defender and doesn't bring any offense. He was one point away from being the lowest scoring regular on his junior club.

Jankowski put up 7 goals and 18 points in the NCAA. A far inferior league to the finnish elite league.

Clearly Teravainen looks to be a much, much better pick at this point than the two prospects we took instead. Just like no one would trade a top pairing defenseman for 2 6/7 type guys, giving up a high end prospect for two mediocre ones is poor asset management.

You said it yourself, at this point. Players have different rates of development. Jankowski had very different circumstances and I'm willing to allow more time.

I haven't seen Seiloff play so I can't assess him to be not a great defender. I have to see him (he was named to his WJC team- regardless if his role there has to be some reason they included him).

In end you could be right. However I'm not writing guys off without seeing them play or this early in their development. I don't see any clear evidence.

Besides the ultimate goal of prospects is to play in the NHL. Its not a competition about which team outsiders think have tge best prospects- no points awarded for that. Lets see if all or any of these guys make it and compare them then. Then you can see how good in their roles they are and who ultimately made the right calls. I can see prospect perceptions being important if trading them before they make it but ultimately it's about playing in the league one way or the other.

Avatar
#86 the-wolf
May 10 2013, 10:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Baalzamon wrote:

Anyone concerned about Lindholm's upside should look at Nicklas Backstrom as a comparable. They play the same position, the same style, have the same skillset, and are the same size. Their careers to the same point are very similar (Lindholm is, if anything, slightly better than Backstrom was).

Cory Pronman, who usually has fairly conservative upside projections, has Lindholm as a potential allstar.

**this wasn't directed at you specifically, just kind of a reply to give others a nudge in the same direction, and to address the THN thing.

Not at all, I appreciate the comment. I've read that as well. If that's truly his upside, I'm more than happy to take him at 6.

Avatar
#87 the-wolf
May 10 2013, 11:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

"I'd put blame on Holditch for ROR - he's the CBA guru. The Regehr trade: one trade made in summer, one at deadline. Different dynamics at work. At deadline GMs looking for playoff bolstering value picks less compared to just prior to draft where picks are highly valued. The focus is on whats immediately in front of you, draft or playoffs. Anyway, yeah he's made mistakes when viewed in hindsight and he's responsible for them."

I don't know, I get what you're trying to say with the rest of your post and agree with it to a degree, but this part is pretty weak. Flames were burned bad on that deal, especially when you add in the 2nd rounder we threw in. Kotalik's s alary should've been eaten (easy for me to say, I know).

Essentially, we should've got three 2nds if you want to look at it as us giving up our own 2nd plus the Sabres acquiring two 2nds.

And again, put aisde individual prospect comparisons? Was taking a 5 year project the right move last year? I say it was not.

Lastly, speaking to another point, I'm a firm believer in splitting up the business side of things from hockey ops. Hockey guys should do hockey. Business guys should do business.

Avatar
#88 the-wolf
May 10 2013, 11:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

draft picks are like roulette. higher the pick, smaller the chance of losing your money. but every pick is different - would you rather bet $40 dollars on 3 spins with a 50.7% total chance of getting a player who will produce at .5ppg over 200 gp in the nhl or would you rather bet $20 on one spin with a 76% chance of getting that player?

the facts are these: if you can use a pick worth about 2/10 with a pick worth about 5/10 to get a pick worth 8/10, you're still ahead no matter how many less darts you throw.

In the immortal words of Han Solo: "Never tell me the odds."

Avatar
#89 Jeff Lebowski
May 10 2013, 01:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

"I'd put blame on Holditch for ROR - he's the CBA guru. The Regehr trade: one trade made in summer, one at deadline. Different dynamics at work. At deadline GMs looking for playoff bolstering value picks less compared to just prior to draft where picks are highly valued. The focus is on whats immediately in front of you, draft or playoffs. Anyway, yeah he's made mistakes when viewed in hindsight and he's responsible for them."

I don't know, I get what you're trying to say with the rest of your post and agree with it to a degree, but this part is pretty weak. Flames were burned bad on that deal, especially when you add in the 2nd rounder we threw in. Kotalik's s alary should've been eaten (easy for me to say, I know).

Essentially, we should've got three 2nds if you want to look at it as us giving up our own 2nd plus the Sabres acquiring two 2nds.

And again, put aisde individual prospect comparisons? Was taking a 5 year project the right move last year? I say it was not.

Lastly, speaking to another point, I'm a firm believer in splitting up the business side of things from hockey ops. Hockey guys should do hockey. Business guys should do business.

Wrt to Regehr: It is my opinion that at the trade deadline a GM who is trying to add a player to his roster will value throwing in draft picks less because he wants that player for a cup run and he can try to recoup the picks later. Compared to dealing a guy in the offseason near the draft. The focus is on drafting players so a GM will be more reluctant to part with his picks.

The different dynamics is where the focus is at during those two different times: One is about an overwhelming need for a NHL player. The other is a focus on drafting future potential players. The price will change because the demand is entirely different.

Avatar
#90 Jeff Lebowski
May 10 2013, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@the-wolf

Putting aside Feaster's hyperbole about Janko and the inclusion of Seiloff (which is important), let me ask you this:

If you are considering the pro CAREER of potential picks, would you rather have a guy who gets there quicker or a guy who takes longer but is better after say 10 years?

I'm guessing that's how they would counter your point. Their consideration is who will have the best career not who will get there quicker.

I'm not saying or advocating the best player in the draft comments. It's what they believe about Janko and made a bet on. They believe that he's going to play and be really really good over the course of a career.

It could blow up in their faces on Janko and/or Seiloff. However it could work to different levels of success too

Avatar
#91 the-wolf
May 10 2013, 03:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

Of course and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But is he going to be THAT much better is the issue? If he is going to be THAT much better than what was passed over (with the shorter development time), wouldn't he have been ranked higher to begin with?

Avatar
#92 the-wolf
May 10 2013, 03:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

Wrt to Regehr: It is my opinion that at the trade deadline a GM who is trying to add a player to his roster will value throwing in draft picks less because he wants that player for a cup run and he can try to recoup the picks later. Compared to dealing a guy in the offseason near the draft. The focus is on drafting players so a GM will be more reluctant to part with his picks.

The different dynamics is where the focus is at during those two different times: One is about an overwhelming need for a NHL player. The other is a focus on drafting future potential players. The price will change because the demand is entirely different.

I'm not saying that's wrong what you're saying, but end of the day we still got hosed on that deal.

Avatar
#93 please cancel acct
May 10 2013, 05:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't believe Feaster has his hands on drafting player's,instead he delegate's that responsibility to Weisbrod ,Button,Conroy.IMO that,s a good thing as I trust there ability,and believe our first round picks are in good hands.Personally i'd take 3 forwards in the first round,and go after defenceman on the market as well as the later rounds.

Avatar
#94 clYDE
May 10 2013, 11:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
piscera.infada wrote:

Detroit had a better deal? What was the deal? I haven't read or heard anywhere that there was an actual deal in place, nor that this "deal" was any better than the Blues deal.

If there was, my bad.

The original offer was Jurco, Oulette and a 2nd. The Flames never countered according to my source who is invlved other than to say they wanted a 1st. Detroit thought there would be further negotiation but Feaster trade JBO before that. Detroit the upped the offer to Calle Jarncrok, Oulette and a 1st for Kulikov. Can you imagine those 3 assete?

Avatar
#95 EugeneV
May 11 2013, 07:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Trade the 2 late firsts and whatever roster players over 25 they want, for either the Panthers or Lightning picks (2nd or 3rd).

Draft Mackinnon (if we get the 2nd pick) or if Mack is gone take Barkov as a consolation at 3, then we still have the #6 pick as well, in case Drouin falls which has happened to top ranked QMHL'ers lately.

Comments are closed for this article.