In response to Bookboy007's comment:
In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
Right he's fired because he blew the Jagr deal! Is this that difficult? He misled Jagr's best fit AND took the crappier deal from Pitt.
End of story. I could have predicted that. You don't take a crappier package to appease a guy you have to trade. It's not like the B's weren't a Cup favorite or not on Iginla's list.
Jagr hasn't been relevant in the postseason in over a decade. How moronic is it to claim that Jagr still fits in this league as a two way player? lol
1) You mean Iginla; I know you mean Iginla; but it looks like you're unable to keep the basic facts straight.
2) You don't violate a contract provision, or mislead a player in order to violate that provision, which the club negotiated in good faith. The right to refuse a deal to Boston is part of Iginla's contract - it's compensation. Trying to weasel him out of it would be like choosing not to pay him his full salary. And the potential damage to the Flames? Totally disproportionate to what they'd gain no matter how much you might like Bartkowski.
Feaster wasn't fired because he didn't try to weasel around Iginla's contract rights; he was fired because (among many, many other things) he tried to make a deal without first getting Iginla to waive his NMC for a deal to a few key teams. If he gets that order of operations right, and if Iginla submits the same list he reportedly did when asked for a list (not a waiver, a list), then he's a Bruin last year. That is all on Feaster. You still claim that Chiarelli screwged this up, but you still have no credible rationale for suggesting Chiarelli could have done something differently to acquire Iginla.
3) Who, in the history of hockey, the internet, and general stupidity, ever claimed that Jagr was a two-way player in the NHL? You wrote: no team with Jagr will ever be successful in the playoffs. I reminded you that he won two Cups at the start of his career. How moronic is it to think that that's the same as saying Jagr is a two way player?
He must be saying the jagr of today not the young jagr