Feaster Weisbrod Fired!

[kehatch]

Even if you take perceived positional need out of the equation, we still cant judge the merits of this pick until his development is complete. If the kid does pan out to be the next joe Nieuwendyk, then the pick becomes genius. Not saying he's going to, but that seems to be the consensus comparison. Just because it took him 4-5 years to get there doesnt make him less of a good pick than the kid that arrived sooner. There was, at that time a belief we had the luxury of development time. If he becomes a first or 2nd center oh this team, then its a total success. If he becomes the next Rico Fata, then hes a bust. Youre looking at this kid realistically getting his shot at 21-23 yrs old, pretty common for a college prospect.

 

Wouldn't that be using hindsight!!! 

 

I am not writing Jankowski off.  I agree we won't know if we made the right call for a couple of years.  But from what I have heard he has been really terrible this season.  Not just his point totals.  

 

If the Flames could trade him straight up for Ceci, Maata, Teravainen, Hertle, Gigensons, or many of the guys they passed up to draft Jankowski I am sure they would do it.  At this point in time the Jankowski looks like a serious misstep.  It is probably at least some of the reason Weisbrod was fired.  

[cross16]

Even if you take perceived positional need out of the equation, we still cant judge the merits of this pick until his development is complete. If the kid does pan out to be the next joe Nieuwendyk, then the pick becomes genius. Not saying he's going to, but that seems to be the consensus comparison. Just because it took him 4-5 years to get there doesnt make him less of a good pick than the kid that arrived sooner. There was, at that time a belief we had the luxury of development time. If he becomes a first or 2nd center oh this team, then its a total success. If he becomes the next Rico Fata, then hes a bust. Youre looking at this kid realistically getting his shot at 21-23 yrs old, pretty common for a college prospect.

Of course and I've never disagreed with this nor wrote jankowski off. I don't like the pick because I wanted Ceci and a few others more and I like the pick less and less the more I watch him develop versus the other picks. Having said that I've never written him off nor said it was a wasted picked. As I said my post was in response to the idea that we should be fine or accept jankowski because he was a centre and we needed a centre and I disagree with that.

[conundrumed]

You talk like Matta is a future allstar.he was projected as a safe, 3-4 defenseman. Mobile, makes a good first pass.not physical, needs work on his footspeed. He was commonly labelled as "safe".essentially another TJ Brodie.

The only reason hes getting top minutes right now is because pittsburgh's d is decimated by injuries, he should be in the bottom pairing if even on the big club at all.

Even now, we dont need more TJ brodies..we have enough.we need seiloffs.mean, shut down dmen who make you pay.so even now id disagree with taking Matta. He likely would be in abbotsford.

 

 

I'd disagree on essentially another TJ Brodie.

Also, Pittsburgh had the 9 game limit to send Maatta down to start the season or burn an ELC year.

For the injury argument, that is in full stride now, but wasn't as pertinent at the start of the year.

They had D injuries, but they also have an AHL squad for that.

Keeping Maatta, for them, was the better option. So that begs the question, why would he be on our farm team right now?

We have a handful of borderline dmen on our big club right now...

 

Ceci is another, and these guys weren't off anyone's radar at the draft, they were going as the 2 best OHL dmen.

My personal choice is Maatta from what I saw of the 2 is all, which certainly doesn't make me right.

 

And as others have said, it isn't a slight on Jankowski, it's not meant that way at all.

Just looking at the status of the team and the farm at the time, how on god's green acreage do you select a major 5 year project over players that are playing at the highest level for their age group and being amongst the best?

 

I believe the Teravainen's and Girgenson's are hindsight picks as you say, mainly in that it's very hard to gauge import forwards.

But for Maatta and Ceci for solid D prospects in your own backyard leagues, I'm flustered.

With the trade for a 2nd I knew Ceci would go to Ottawa. With Maatta on the board, I was certain he was ours.

If we were Pittsburgh, sure, stab off the board (unless you're Craig Button), but that was terrible mgmt of our 1st, for where we were at that time.

Look at what we need most right now moving forward, it's top 4 D.

It's Maatta's to grow into in the next 2-3 years.

Again, I watched both Sieloff and Maatta, it isn't close.

 

And again, it just compounds the issue of what many have said, "Did Feaster actually have a plan?. If it's a 5 yr plan, he just sent a 1st rounder on hiatus out of the org for 5 years...what kind of plan is that?

 

But what was an absolute boot to the nether regions, was listening to these 2 wannabe bombast-masters tell me they got the 2 players they most coveted.

Tells me one thing: holy crap, I could head up your scouting dept

 

I know I'm a long-winded bore, but one more thing comes into question.

Did they even scout dmen with any real urgency?

Because, it seems, if they had...

[redfire11]

It's a big stretch to indicate Maatta and Sieloff are similar. It was obvious at the O level for any scout. Maatta had the extra bonus of the Hunters in London, that should never be overlooked. London is atop the OHL year after year, and their big book of future NHLers is getting quite large at this time.

My beef isn't with taking Jankowski, but taking him with Maatta on the board defies logic imho. I watched enough of Maatta and those frigging Knights to see, if Domi and Horvat were in the same draft class, and you're taking bpa, you're taking Maatta, every time.

I could swallow going off the board over Ceci, but over Maatta, woah, hold everything.

Hedberg was 2nd to Stamkos, Maatta will be better than Hedberg imho.

I think the scouting staff fell into Jankowski tunnel vision.

Pittsburgh's scouting staff must have been beside themselves with delight.

What was worse, was listening to Weisbrod and Feaster orating they achieved their targets.

That's scary. So Maatta was nowhere on their target list?

That's downright frightening.

I'm all for fixing D in other avenues and focusing on O help in the draft, but this one came down to, "holy crap, we've got Maatta"?

Nope.

The next team to draft took him...and there's no "other avenues" to fix that.

Jankowski for Maatta trade? Not even maybe...

Queue the, "but we don't know what Jankowski is yet". Well, we're already seeing what Maatta is, and I'm sure it's a surprise to no one.

It appears we took a 4-5 year wait for lineage over a bonafide #1 big, hard, smart dman playing in the highest success rate league in the draft...

Screw wait and see, Maatta wil have at least 3 seasons behind him by the time we see Jankowski get a shot.

It was frivolous, to say the least.

At a time we can't afford frivolous.

If Burke came right out and said, "I fired them for that, we can't afford them possibly going that way again", I'd be ecstatic.

Incredibly stupid pick, lest Jankowski is an imminent Gretzky.

Agree this was in my opinion why Weisbrod was fired.

[dijnn]

Our scouting agents aint that great :/.... just by looking over the past 10 years flames haven't had a noteworthy player on their team.... Gio is the only one I think lol.

[flames-fan-911]

Our scouting agents aint that great :/.... just by looking over the past 10 years flames haven't had a noteworthy player on their team.... Gio is the only one I think lol.

 

People seem to forget we drafted Dion Phaneuf.

 

Now, I am NOT a fan of Phaneuf anymore, but his first three seasons here (before his ego inflated and he got his massive contract) were excellent. 

 

Losing what, at the time, could have been a young, future star/stud defenseman was a huge blow to the future of this team.

 

Phaneuf has never lived up to those first three years here in Calgary, but most of us can admit if he were a different kind of person -- one who wasn't egotistical and rumoured to cause problems in the lockeroom (which I happen to believe is true), he could have had Shea Weber potential.

 

That is, he could have been a legitimate No. 1 shutdown defenseman who quarterbacks the power play and adds plenty of offence. His game is extremely flawed still and he's about to get a 7 year $49m extension. Not sure why. He's overrated.

 

But imagine if he became a player like Weber -- committed, talented, true leader, calming presence etc. A rebuilding team like us could badly use that on the blue-line. It would make the focus of the team going forward exclusively on forwards because the defence would be leaps and bounds better. But alas, Phaneuf did not become that player, and he did not remain here.

 

His antics set us back. And Sutter's trigger-finger trading him for spare parts that amounted to nothing.

 

Regardless, teams that contend for the playoffs (like the Flames did for many years) do still have young meaningful players come up through the system (i.e., how we had Phaneuf). Ottawa has Zibenjad, Ceci, Turris (trade but still). Calgary got screwed over by one of their key turnover players in Phaneuf.

 

Like I've said, it was a huge blow to this team's ability to rebuild faster -- both Phaneuf not becoming the player he should have been and losing him for pretty much nothing. But that said, I give the Flames kudos for making bold decisions lately and, especially last year, drafting well. Do it again this year.

[dijnn]

People seem to forget we drafted Dion Phaneuf.

 

Now, I am NOT a fan of Phaneuf anymore, but his first three seasons here (before his ego inflated and he got his massive contract) were excellent. 

 

Losing what, at the time, could have been a young, future star/stud defenseman was a huge blow to the future of this team.

 

Phaneuf has never lived up to those first three years here in Calgary, but most of us can admit if he were a different kind of person -- one who wasn't egotistical and rumoured to cause problems in the lockeroom (which I happen to believe is true), he could have had Shea Weber potential.

 

That is, he could have been a legitimate No. 1 shutdown defenseman who quarterbacks the power play and adds plenty of offence. His game is extremely flawed still and he's about to get a 7 year $49m extension. Not sure why. He's overrated.

 

But imagine if he became a player like Weber -- committed, talented, true leader, calming presence etc. A rebuilding team like us could badly use that on the blue-line. It would make the focus of the team going forward exclusively on forwards because the defence would be leaps and bounds better. But alas, Phaneuf did not become that player, and he did not remain here.

 

His antics set us back. And Sutter's trigger-finger trading him for spare parts that amounted to nothing.

 

Regardless, teams that contend for the playoffs (like the Flames did for many years) do still have young meaningful players come up through the system (i.e., how we had Phaneuf). Ottawa has Zibenjad, Ceci, Turris (trade but still). Calgary got screwed over by one of their key turnover players in Phaneuf.

 

Like I've said, it was a huge blow to this team's ability to rebuild faster -- both Phaneuf not becoming the player he should have been and losing him for pretty much nothing. But that said, I give the Flames kudos for making bold decisions lately and, especially last year, drafting well. Do it again this year.

 

From what I recall Phaneuf had some issues with the team... I have met the guy in person and from my personal experience he came off very arrogant and egotistic; however he is a franchise player and we handed him way for much less than what we could have got....