In response to JWensink's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
In response to JWensink's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
First of all, I didn't ignore it. If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.
I will answer it for you though.
No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC. That has no relevance to anything within this thread. They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere. It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.
So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins. Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier. He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.
They are two separate issues.
I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.
All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.
I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.
Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !
And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it
If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.
But they are two separate conversations.
How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension
fair enough. i don't remember reading posts suggesting the flames "had to" trade him, but maybe i just missed them.
anyway, i'd be interested in hearing your opinions on any blame you feel should have gone PC's way.
Thanks for keeping an open mind, and actually listening to what I've been trying to say for way too long. I know this has topic has become tired and somewhat ugly, but there's a foot of snow outside, so...
Anyway. I'll give a disclaimer before I addrress Chiarelli. This an an opinion, I have nothing factually to back it up, just as those who disgree. Also, it may be long winded, but can't help that either.
I immediately thought when I heard what went down that the offer of Koko and Bartkowski for a player of Iginla's stature was a joke. I can understand how overzealous B's fans were taking the spin of "it was the better offer" - but for me it just suked slightly less then the Pitt offer. I'm saying that PC went about his business the way a GM would by trying to get the most for the least. This was never a typical deal at the deadline, and should not have been handled as such.
Feaster and Iginla had an easy out from a PR standpoint. Now put Peverly in the deal, and Feaster has to stand up and say to the world that he turned that one down. Not as easy as turning the the blockbuster package of Koko ans Bart. I believe that PC should have gone big or gone home. Also believe that PC should have been aware that Pitt was lurking and just waiting to get in under the wire with a similar offer. Maybe Peverly puts Pitt in a position where that's something that they just can't or were unwilling to match. Obviously we'll never know, but the Boston offer could have and should have been stronger. Then you could say as a GM that we did all we could do, and we lost out due to circumstances beyond our control. He went in weak which opened up possibilities that were already stacked against him...not good.
Then there's the "we had a deal" thing. Nothing ever went to the NHL office. Hours ticked by, and he sat and waited by the phone. Never called back and looked for a reason why. Maybe Feaster tells him the Iginla is leaning towards Pitt, and that Pitt is now putting offers on the table, and it looks like that's where it's heading. Ok...then maybe PC could have jacked up the stakes for all involved, and thrown down a more substantial offer. But, he was just sitting there the whole time- and to make it worse, the writing was on the wall- still just sat there waiting for the phone to ring. How'd that work out?
I'd say that Iginla and Crosby deserve most of the blame for the way this shook out. Feaster deserves a big chunk also, cause he didn't hold Iginla's feet to the fire, and tell him it's Boston or Calgary. Maybe a stronger Boston offer would have made Calgary take that position. PC deserves at least some blame IMO, because he never put his best deal on the table, which was the first domino that fell, and when it was time to react - he was staring at a phone that was never going to ring.
I'd say that's not a good job.
I don't think that's any more unbelievable than the "he could of offered anybody on the B's roster, and it wouldn't have mattered" crowd.
Many of these threads go out of the park because people misconstrue the cliche, "everyone's entitled to an opinion". That really over simplifies the intent. It should be a few paragraphs, not one line. We also have responsibilities to have an open mind, and be willing to update our opinions.
Yes, your opinion is as believable as "the B's could have offered anybody, and it wouldn't have mattered", but they are both, extreme, fringe theories. I'm not being a know-it-all by pointing that out.
Your suggestion that a stronger Boston offer would have given Feaster more incentive to get tough with Iginla(take it, or you're staying here) seems really strong on the surface, but you have to admit, also hog-ties the Flames. They really want rid of him, and while digging their heels in, wins the battle....they lose the war. Iginla's gone in a few weeks anyway, and they get nothing.
There are tons of sources out there regarding "negotiation". I think you'd be hard pressed to find one single credible source who thought it was a wise, prudent decision to offer up more, after the other party informed you, the deal was made. We pretty much know that to be fact. Not because PC or the Bruins said it publicly, but because Feaster and the Flames didn't argue it. If there was any doubt, the flames and Feaster would have strongly denied a deal was ever in fact "made". Their agreement to the overall details made them look incredibly stupid, and a different spin wouldn't have.
Also, on the surface, Bart and Koko "does" seem stingy for a player of Iginlas stature. But it's not straight up. Iginla's a month away from UFA, he's just a rental. If he had 3 years of reasonable pay left on his contract, then he certainly would have warranted more, but not this way.
In virtually every situation in life, there is more onus on the seller optimizing return, than the buyer. Most of these possibilities you bring up, fall more on Feasters lap than PC's.
I get what you're saying. It's kinda unreasonable to say there was "absolutely nothing" he could have done. You agree, it's "mostly" the Flames fault, so it's just semantics, but here's where it gets interesting.
Having made the statement that it's mostly Calgary's fault, the majority of your rationale above further incriminates Feaster, more than it points to Chiarelli.