Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

polak · 03-01-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

That may have been their position. Unfortunately for them, the CBA, like any other contract is open to judicial interpretation.

The position the NHL is taking is ridiculous. O'Reilly has signed an offer sheet now. Whether that offer was given by the Avs or the Flames, is of no consequence. He shouldn't have to pass through waivers with the Flames anymore than he does now.

I don't see how the NHL can take the position that the moment a player ceases to be an RFA is different depending on the team that provides the offer sheet. If the NHL forces the Avs to put him through waivers, at least their is consistency; however, that's still highway robbery for a CBA document that is misleading at best.

I haven't seen the actual CBA definition of the rule but it seems like it would be pretty cut and dry. Any team other then the one he is restricted to has to bring him through waivers. Doesn't seem to complicated.

Muta · 03-01-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't see how the NHL can take the position that the moment a player ceases to be an RFA is different depending on the team that provides the offer sheet. If the NHL forces the Avs to put him through waivers, at least their is consistency; however, that's still highway robbery for a CBA document that is misleading at best.

I'm not going to pretend to know the CBA thoroughly, but I would imagine the rule is in place to discourage offer sheeting and to encourage clubs to keep and hold on to their own RFA's.

If someone wanted to do this to Bartschi in the future, they may think twice about doing so. Gives stability to the teams regarding their own players.

AR_Six · 03-01-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

To what depth's does this homerism reach here? You're trying to deflect this onto the contract structure?

I'm not sure but I'm not a Flames fan so probably not too far.

JiriHrdina · 03-01-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I think this is a much worse situation. At least Chicago had their core locked up. The Flames only have 2 real pieces for the future on the roster.

Hmmm well that's a different issue altogether though. I'm speaking about negligent mistakes.

The Yen Man · 03-01-2013, 11:52 AM

I just don't see how the NHLPA could have agreed to this stipulation in the CBA. It effectively eliminates a huge chunk of bargaining power to the players.

opendoor · 03-01-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Does it matter to anyone that apparently at least one other team (Canucks), and probably more, also missed this?

The Canucks never offered him a contract. Reports are the O'Reilly's camp contacted the Canucks to see if they were interested, but nothing came of it, at least not yet.

Not to mention, one of the Canucks' Assistant GMs (Gilman) is pretty much there exclusively to sort out cap and CBA issues and I expect they would've clarified it with the league before actually putting pen to paper.

kyuss275 · 03-01-2013, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

To what depth's does this homerism reach here? You're trying to deflect this onto the contract structure? This is absolutely inexcusable for a team to miss.

It was a good try to improve the club but clearly one that was not looked into accordingly. The Flames just about became the biggest laughing stock in the league....which they probably already have cemented themselves now anyway.

The fact that this almost happened is enough to say that the right people are not in place in this organization plain and simple.

I fully agree with your post except for the bolded part. They did in fact become the laughing stock of the league.

HELPNEEDED · 03-01-2013, 11:54 AM

The Nabakov ordeal makes this pretty cut and dry. Rule my presedence.

Reign of Fire · 03-01-2013, 11:54 AM

Yes, cause if it had gone thru...imagine losing 2 picks for nothing or having to pay a player to sit just so we don't lose him #DebacleofMonumentalProportions

blankall · 03-01-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

That is the club that held his RFA rights, in this case being the Avalance. Daly has already stated that the Flames would have had to put him through waivers.

drumming up hits indeed.

They had his RFA rights. However, when the Avs matched the offer sheet, he ceased to be an RFA in the exact same way he would have ceased to be an RFA for the Flames (should you chose that interpretation). If the NHL is going to take that position, they should now apply it to the Avs.

Daly is acting totally inappropriately in making statements to the press about an unresolved legal issue. Flames management should consider a law suit. Daly is no way the be all and end all in interpreting this document. He's one of several parties invovled. He has no more authority to interpret the document than Feaster does.

calgARI · 03-01-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I just don't see how the NHLPA could have agreed to this stipulation in the CBA. It effectively eliminates a huge chunk of bargaining power to the players.

Yes, it's an important point because had Colorado not matched this wouldn't have been as simple as ROR just going on waivers. It would have been one of the most hotly-debated issues in a long time. My guess is that it would have ended with O'Reilly sitting out the year and starting with the Flames in the fall sort of like the McAmmond thing. Regardless, I expect the rule to be amended in short order just like the stupid trade rule that happened with McAmmond. Neither side gains with it in place.

AR_Six · 03-01-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I just don't see how the NHLPA could have agreed to this stipulation in the CBA. It effectively eliminates a huge chunk of bargaining power to the players.

They might have made a similar mistake and just not considered the possible implications. It's hard to draft an agreement that huge and consider every possible hypothetical scenario and the application of the terms to those scenarios.

JiriHrdina · 03-01-2013, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

To what depth's does this homerism reach here? You're trying to deflect this onto the contract structure? This is absolutely inexcusable for a team to miss.
.

I think AR_Six is a Canuck fan.
But please continue to slam this site - a site you participate in for free.

calumniate · 03-01-2013, 11:55 AM

Eagerly await updates to the flames website

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

They had his RFA rights. However, when the Avs matched the offer sheet, he ceased to be an RFA in the exact same way he would have ceased to be an RFA for the Flames (should you chose that interpretation). If the NHL is going to take that position, they should now apply it to the Avs.

Daly is acting totally inappropriately in making statements to the press about an unresolved legal issue. Flames management should consider a law suit. Daly is no way the be all and end all in interpreting this document. He's one of several parties invovled. He has no more authority to interpret the document than Feaster does.

The Flames suing the NHL would be the cherry on top of today/this week.

calgARI · 03-01-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

He's one of several parties invovled. He has no more authority to interpret the document than Feaster does.

I don't think that's true. Daly works for the league, representing all 30 teams so I'd say he has some authority. That said, he/Bettman alone are not the only stakeholders here as you say, but he has a lot more authority on interpreting the document than Feaster has.

HELPNEEDED · 03-01-2013, 11:56 AM

lol, I guess this forum wants feaster gone.

Poe969 · 03-01-2013, 11:57 AM

Of course he should be fired. This could have cripled the Flames for a couple of years. We're going to be a lottery team and if we had nothing to show for it or to compensate us because of it, we would have been pooched!

This is a HUGE mistake, I don't care who else makes it and I don't care that nothing bad did come of it. You don't wait for a drunk driver to kill someone before you charge him. This is just the cherry on top of a pile of bad decisions he's made and I don't think the Flames are safe with him at the helm.

I honestly don't care who they get as the new GM, but I think ownership should take a step back and look at the team as a whole; the scouting has been decent but the coaching and the rest of the management staff should go. Get younger not only with their team but with their ideas too!

nik- · 03-01-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

They had his RFA rights. However, when the Avs matched the offer sheet, he ceased to be an RFA in the exact same way he would have ceased to be an RFA for the Flames (should you chose that interpretation). If the NHL is going to take that position, they should now apply it to the Avs.

Daly is acting totally inappropriately in making statements to the press about an unresolved legal issue. Flames management should consider a law suit. Daly is no way the be all and end all in interpreting this document. He's one of several parties invovled. He has no more authority to interpret the document than Feaster does.

ok, you cling to that. I'll be over here hoping we get some accountability.

LouCypher · 03-01-2013, 11:57 AM

Terrible oversight, I still think it was a good move to make otherwise if you end up with the player but really just too big of an oversight would have been a disaster. There has to be some fallout from this and Feaster would be the guy to take the fall as it is his job to cover due diligence.