Ken King on the Fan now

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Still if he is going to take the time to come on the radio, then at least have the balls to answer or shed some light on the OReilly debacle.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Also think they copped out on the whole O'Reilly thing, but at the same time not sure what else they really could have said that wouldn't have just caused more of an uproar.

Originally Posted by Table 5

So did the FAN even ask about the Ryan O'Reilly fiasco?

So, what exactly do you want them to say about it other than what they have previously said? Unless I missed something, they explained their take on the rule and that is where it ends. I can't imagine that any of them can add to that or give you guys the warm fuzzy feeling you are looking for.

They made a mistake and other then the "sudden Geniuses" who "of course knew the rule" most of the rest of the league had the same assumption.

A whole lot of fur flying over nothing on that one....the whole thing would have been cleared up pretty quick of lawyers got involved.

[Saint Troy]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Not a peep.

Must not have been on the list of questions Ken handed to Steinberg. Puppets.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

So, what exactly do you want them to say about it other than what they have previously said? Unless I missed something, they explained their take on the rule and that is where it ends. I can't imagine that any of them can add to that or give you guys the warm fuzzy feeling you are looking for.

They made a mistake and other then the "sudden Geniuses" who "of course knew the rule" most of the rest of the league had the same assumption.

A whole lot of fur flying over nothing on that one....the whole thing would have been cleared up pretty quick of lawyers got involved.

They also explained that they spoke with the "Player's Representative" for clarity. It would be nice to know who they actually talked to, since the agent has come out and explicitly denied that they spoke to the Flames about it. Because my interpretation of that statement is that they spoke to the agent.

Honesty and Integrity are things that this organization needs to show the fan base.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

when i heard that last night, i spilled my drink a little.

hahahaha me too.

But we are in the worst division. The other two WC division leaders have 45 and 41 points.

Our division leader has 30!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So did the FAN even ask about the Ryan O'Reilly fiasco?

What would they say?

I highly doubt the league would have let O'Reilly go on waivers. That would look bad on everyone. Pretty sure Feaster's interpretation would have been supported if the Avs hadn't matched.

Given that the hypothetical didn't happen doesn't seem like anybody wants to clarify how they would have ruled.

I don't really even see it as that much of a fiasco. If we lost our picks and O'Reilly went on waivers that would have been a fiasco. But I really highly doubt that the league would've ruled that way.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Were the words "Division Title" mentioned?

Originally Posted by bubbsy

when i heard that last night, i spilled my drink a little.

You can't fault Hartley for still chasing the division title at this point.

His job as coach is to win games. It is not up to him to determine if we should be tanking for a rebuild. For as long as it is mathematically possible Hartley should be setting the goals for this team at division title and not just the 8th seed.

It's actually kind of a refreshing change, as our coaches lately seemed to not give a care about the division and focused on the playoffs as the end all be all with no bigger goals then 8th place. Although this is really the first year in a couple that Vancouver is not running away with it.

[Saint Troy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What would they say?

I highly doubt the league would have let O'Reilly go on waivers. That would look bad on everyone. Pretty sure Feaster's interpretation would have been supported if the Avs hadn't matched.

Given that the hypothetical didn't happen doesn't seem like anybody wants to clarify how they would have ruled.

I don't really even see it as that much of a fiasco. If we lost our picks and O'Reilly went on waivers that would have been a fiasco. But I really highly doubt that the league would've ruled that way.

Well considering it speaks to the competency of the General Manager, who may be entrusted to make the most significant moves in the last two decades of the franchise, probably a question to ask the President of the team.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Saint Troy

Well considering it speaks to the competency of the General Manager, who may be entrusted to make the most significant moves in the last two decades of the franchise, probably a question to ask the President of the team.

I think if they felt Feaster was incompetent then he wouldn't still be in charge. As long as Feaster remains the GM I think you can safely assume that KK and ownership still feels that he is competent.

They really can't say much about O'Reilly because the league didn't make an official ruling and they didn't have any chance to appeal the official ruling if it went against them. Just because a bunch of fans on the internet assume Feaster screwed up does not mean that is the reality of the situation.

In what world do you think the NHL would have allowed COL to take our 1st and 3rd rounder and have FLA or CLB or whoever end up with O'Reilly? Do people seriously think they would have ruled that way? Total PR disaster all around. CGY would be mad. Every team higher on the waiver wire than the bottom team would be mad. They would have claimed something about the "spirit of the rule" or the MoU being worded slightly poorly and awarded O'Reilly to us.

I think people jumped to conclusions way too fast in the O'Reilly discussion. We never got the final word, the final ruling, etc. So its hard to claim Feaster is incompetent because of that.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What would they say?

They go absolutely silent for two weeks because of O'Reilly, possibly the biggest story of the year, and it's not a worthy topic to even bring up?

Ask them why the silence. Why have they said nothing? What role did they envision OReilly having with the team? What made them take that chance if they were aware of the legalities? How does it change things going forward? What are their thoughts on the draft this year if they were willing to give up their 1st round pick?

Even if they are softball questions, you'd think the FAN would've asked something. They must've been told no OReilly talk, or not interview.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

"It is pretty clear this roster is not going to compete at a high enough level to satisfy the fans over the next few years. Major changes are in the works".

Boom. Done.

That's the "right" thing to say in this situation.

Agree completely.

Last place in the conference.

It wouldn't exactly be ground breaking to admit the team isn't good enough.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think if they felt Feaster was incompetent then he wouldn't still be in charge. As long as Feaster remains the GM I think you can safely assume that KK and ownership still feels that he is competent.

They really can't say much about O'Reilly because the league didn't make an official ruling and they didn't have any chance to appeal the official ruling if it went against them. Just because a bunch of fans on the internet assume Feaster screwed up does not mean that is the reality of the situation.

In what world do you think NHL would have allowed COL to take our 1st and 3rd rounder and have FLA or CLB end up with O'Reilly? Do people seriously think they would have ruled that way? Total PR disaster all around. CGY would be mad. Every team higher on the waiver wire than the bottom team would be mad. They would have claimed something about the "spirit of the rule" or the MoU being worded slightly poorly and awarded O'Reilly to us.

I think people jumped to conclusions way too fast in the O'Reilly discussion. We never got the final word, the final ruling, etc. So its hard to claim Feaster is incompetent because of that.

Isn't that up to the lawyers, and not the NHL? Couldn't FLA/CLB take this to court?

I don't think its just a bunch of "fans on the internet" ... lots of people think it could have been a potential disaster.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Isn't that up to the lawyers, and not the NHL? Couldn't FLA/CLB take this to court?

I don't think its just a bunch of "fans on the internet" ... lots of people think it could have been a potential disaster.

Bill Daly is the biggest internet fan, don't ya know?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

"It is pretty clear this roster is not going to compete at a high enough level to satisfy the fans over the next few years. Major changes are in the works".

Boom. Done.

That's the "right" thing to say in this situation.

No, to say nothing would be better.

Don't lay all the cards on the table. Once you make the major changes then say what you said above but in a past tense.

Coming out and saying you are going to make major chances to satisfy the fans is idiotic.

[Saint Troy]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think if they felt Feaster was incompetent then he wouldn't still be in charge. As long as Feaster remains the GM I think you can safely assume that KK and ownership still feels that he is competent.

They really can't say much about O'Reilly because the league didn't make an official ruling and they didn't have any chance to appeal the official ruling if it went against them. Just because a bunch of fans on the internet assume Feaster screwed up does not mean that is the reality of the situation.

In what world do you think the NHL would have allowed COL to take our 1st and 3rd rounder and have FLA or CLB or whoever end up with O'Reilly? Do people seriously think they would have ruled that way? Total PR disaster all around. CGY would be mad. Every team higher on the waiver wire than the bottom team would be mad. They would have claimed something about the "spirit of the rule" or the MoU being worded slightly poorly and awarded O'Reilly to us.

I think people jumped to conclusions way too fast in the O'Reilly discussion. We never got the final word, the final ruling, etc. So its hard to claim Feaster is incompetent because of that.

You seem comfortable leaving alot to assumption, as a season ticket holder I am not. Question should have been asked, and then addressed by King, rather than pretending it never happened.

[Flames_Gimp]

I don't get the obsession with talking about the O'Reily thing. talk about beating a dead horse!

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

No, to say nothing would be better.

Don't lay all the cards on the table. Once you make the major changes then say what you said above but in a past tense.

Coming out and saying you are going to make major chances to satisfy the fans is idiotic.

What cards are you laying on the table? You know that when you are a "seller" at the trade deadline, you need to let other teams know, so they can make offers on your players to get the best deals for yourself. Saying you're moving players or making changes isn't going to hurt you, unless you plan on doing something stupid (like player for player roster swaps).

For this organization which has tirelessly pressed onwards against the tide of media, fans and other NHL observers, saying they need to head in a different direction, it would be good to assure your season ticket base that you actually are doing something productive, not just claiming that you are productive.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

I don't get the obsession with talking about the O'Reily thing. talk about beating a dead horse!

They haven't answered one single question about the situation. What dead horse? The pony is still in the womb, waiting to be born.

I'm not expecting them to give us much, but are we really expected to bury our heads in the sand? I don't even care about OReilly, I would just like to hear their thoughts on trading their 1st round pick this year.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

I don't get the obsession with talking about the O'Reily thing. talk about beating a dead horse!

Because their explanation was a load of garbage.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

In what world do you think the NHL would have allowed COL to take our 1st and 3rd rounder and have FLA or CLB or whoever end up with O'Reilly? Do people seriously think they would have ruled that way? Total PR disaster all around. CGY would be mad. Every team higher on the waiver wire than the bottom team would be mad. They would have claimed something about the "spirit of the rule" or the MoU being worded slightly poorly and awarded O'Reilly to us.

The NHL doesn't exactly mind referring to exact wording - see how they handled the McAmmond situation even though it was pretty clear it was not violating the "spirit of the rule."

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Isn't that up to the lawyers, and not the NHL? Couldn't FLA/CLB take this to court?

I don't think its just a bunch of "fans on the internet" ... lots of people think it could have been a potential disaster.

Well from how I read the wording Feaster had a slamdunk case ("a team's list"). Didn't really understand the position of those who thought we'd have to waive him. Daly's off the cuff response seemed strange to me.

Then when you step back from the wording and look at the intent of the rule that also supports Feaster's position. That is where the part about trading the player and not having to waive them came into play.

I didn't see anything that supported the idea that we've have to waive him except Daly's off the cuff quote which he did not seem to support later on.