Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by timbit

That makes me feel better.

Ha!

Sarcasm detctor just overloaded. There is nothing that would make you feel better.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

True. But look back to two years ago where the Flames were the second oldest club behind Detroit. Now they're middle of the pack.

The prospect pool is better than it has been, with a couple guys in the system to really get excited about. That hasn't been the case since.....well I can't even remember.

Baertschi, Backlund, Brodie, Bouma (if he wasn't injured) are full time players that were drafted and developed by the Flames, and all of them look to be solid contributors in the future.

I'm not saying everything is perfect, or that Feaster can't be criticized. Mostly I'm equally parts amused/frustrated by people expecting this club be turned around overnight.

That is the problem and it is a long term one that will take several years to resolve. The sooner it is addressed the better. Do you see that happening?

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by timbit

That makes me feel better.

Heroin makes you feel better for a while too. Then, reality comes crashing back in.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Ha!

Sarcasm detctor just overloaded. There is nothing that would make you feel better.

You are wrong. A proactive management and ownership group that realizes the substantial flaws with their current plan, with a willingness to change would make me very happy. You?

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Taking assets to take on a bad contract is still a player transaction. Telling a team that if they don't pay up then you are going to refuse to match their offer sheet causing them to lose picks for nothing is blackmail.

Going back a few years, San Jose helps NJD out of a bind by taking on Malakhov's contract and is given a 1st rounder out of appreciation.

Fast forward to the hypothetical present, Colorado helps the Flames out of a bind by taking on ROR's contract and is given a 1st rounder for their troubles.

So what's the difference?

The difference is we now know that Colorado would willingly take on the ROR contract without any compensation. You can't use that knowledge when you debate the hypothetical situation where the Avs have not yet matched.

In that hypothetical, the waiver risk is real and Sherman is moaning that the contract puts him over budget. Can you, or Feaster, or the NHL make a viable case for extortion when he asks the Flames for compensation to take on a contract that most everybody agrees is rich and was crafted to minimize the chances that they would match?

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by timbit

You are wrong. A proactive management and ownership group that realizes the substantial flaws with their current plan, with a willingness to change would make me very happy. You?

I am more in the line of thinking the ROR offer sheet was more of an accelerated rebuild than win now, and I would say that is pretty proactive. As for willingness to change, lets just see how things unfold until trade deadline, shall we? If picks go out for aging vets, then yes, its the same old. If aging vets go out for picks, I would suggest a willingness to change exists. You?

[timbit]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Ha!

Sarcasm detctor just overloaded. There is nothing that would make you feel better.

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I am more in the line of thinking the ROR offer sheet was more of an accelerated rebuild than win now, and I would say that is pretty proactive. As for willingness to change, lets just see how things unfold until trade deadline, shall we? If picks go out for aging vets, then yes, its the same old. If aging vets go out for picks, I would suggest a willingness to change exists. You?

In agreement with your last post.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The only peices of that post relating to Feaster are Richards & Cervenka, really.

Sutter made the Phaneuf trade
Sutter signed Stajan to a 4 year extension 2 months later.
Sutter signed Morrison, but Feaster re-signed him, so that counts as well.
Sutter traded for Jokinen, traded Jokinen away, and re-signed Jokinen
Conroy retired.

Of course you're right, but he was the assistant GM for many of those moves before he took over for Sutter in 2011.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.

It is a gamble though, and, more to the point, is O'Reilly such an outstanding player of franchise quality or the salary they would get him for so low or some combination of the both, to make this gamble worthwhile.

If there is a posibility you lose your picks and a couple of million with nothing to show for it you would expect the payoff to be for nothing less than a Stamkos or a Seguin or maybe a lesser player at a huge discount, O'Reilly may be a good player but he is neither franchise quality or particularly cheap in this deal.

[getbak]

One thing I find interesting is that for a guy whose name is usually raked over the coals for being a horrible micro-manager, no one has really pointed the finger at Murray Edwards.

Based on what Ken King has said in the past, Edwards is always consulted on any major acquisition, so, there's no reason to think he wasn't in room when this was brought up.

The other room he spent a lot of time in recently was the CBA negotiation room. When the discussion got down to the nitty-gritty dollars and cents, the owners weren't involved, but by all accounts, issues like this clause were part of the early discussions and were used to help bridge the gaps.

Perhaps Feaster didn't need to call Daly to get his interpretation of the clause since he could turn to his boss (who's also one of Daly's bosses) and ask him what the intentions of the negotiating committee were.

This could also be why the Flames' statement was so definitive and confident.



Or, they could be putting on a false bravado to cover their own ass while thanking their lucky stars that Colorado matched.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by getbak

One thing I find interesting is that for a guy whose name is usually raked over the coals for being a horrible micro-manager, no one has really pointed the finger at Murray Edwards.

Based on what Ken King has said in the past, Edwards is always consulted on any major acquisition, so, there's no reason to think he wasn't in room when this was brought up.

The other room he spent a lot of time in recently was the CBA negotiation room. When the discussion got down to the nitty-gritty dollars and cents, the owners weren't involved, but by all accounts, issues like this clause were part of the early discussions and were used to help bridge the gaps.

Perhaps Feaster didn't need to call Daly to get his interpretation of the clause since he could turn to his boss (who's also one of Daly's bosses) and ask him what the intentions of the negotiating committee were.

This could also be why the Flames' statement was so definitive and confident.



Or, they could be putting on a false bravado to cover their own ass while thanking their lucky stars that Colorado matched.

This is a very minor and obscure clause badly worded, I doubt Edwards would have much usefull imput into either its intent or creation nor is Edwards impartial, the league should have been called, anything less is incompetance if they were aware of it as a potential problem

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I am more in the line of thinking the ROR offer sheet was more of an accelerated rebuild than win now, and I would say that is pretty proactive. As for willingness to change, lets just see how things unfold until trade deadline, shall we? If picks go out for aging vets, then yes, its the same old. If aging vets go out for picks, I would suggest a willingness to change exists. You?

Totally agree with everything you said. As much as I hate catch-phrases, adding an O'Reilly into the lineup is the proverbial "rebuild-on-the-fly" or "retool".

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by getbak

One thing I find interesting is that for a guy whose name is usually raked over the coals for being a horrible micro-manager, no one has really pointed the finger at Murray Edwards.

Based on what Ken King has said in the past, Edwards is always consulted on any major acquisition, so, there's no reason to think he wasn't in room when this was brought up.

The other room he spent a lot of time in recently was the CBA negotiation room. When the discussion got down to the nitty-gritty dollars and cents, the owners weren't involved, but by all accounts, issues like this clause were part of the early discussions and were used to help bridge the gaps.

Perhaps Feaster didn't need to call Daly to get his interpretation of the clause since he could turn to his boss (who's also one of Daly's bosses) and ask him what the intentions of the negotiating committee were.

This could also be why the Flames' statement was so definitive and confident.

Or, they could be putting on a false bravado to cover their own ass while thanking their lucky stars that Colorado matched.

Why do you think Allan Markin stepped down as chairman of CNRL?

[868904]

Originally Posted by Barca

Gillis doesnt believe in offer sheets unless its for a player like Weber for example, and even then he was hessitant because he knew Nashville would match anything he offered.

Vancouver has invested alot of money for their managment staff, they hired Gilman to be a capoligist and others to look at the CBA stuff.
He was a former agent so these waivers stuff isnt lost to him.

He was asked a simple question wether the Canucks offersheeted ROR, he answered the question.

Were you expecting him to explain the whole CBA stuff to the reporters?

Also, the it was confirmed that the Canucks didnt make an offer to ROR, so why are we getting dragged into this?

Pretty sure Gillis made an offer sheet for Backes. I'm dragging Gillis and your poor Canucks into this because I think it's poor form for other GM's to bad mouth Feaster for an issue that they did not know themselves.

I'm not pro Feaster, far from it, I want him fired, along with Ken King, but I don't believe for one second that any other GM knew about the waiver issue and for guys like Gillis to come out in the media and claim that they did know about it AFTER the fact is poor form and that's why i'm calling him out on it.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by 868904

Pretty sure Gillis made an offer sheet for Backes.

The Blues fired back with one for Steve Bernier.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

Let's never mention rebuild. I still get nightmares from the days of "young guns".

Missed the playoffs three (about to be four) years in a row. No 2nd round appearances since '04. Just one 2nd round appearance since '89. Despite hearing the same chimes of optimism year in and year out "our pool of prospects is improving", etc etc... the results never seem to improve no matter how much time passes.

Honest question, does finishing 10th year in and year out brings you solace that "at least we don't finish 15th"?

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Missed the playoffs three (about to be four) years in a row. No 2nd round appearances since '04. Just one 2nd round appearance since '89. Despite hearing the same chimes of optimism year in and year out "our pool of prospects is improving", etc etc... the results never seem to improve no matter how much time passes.

Honest question, does finishing 10th year in and year out brings you solace that "at least we don't finish 15th"?

Yes. Because that means the games count for the whole season.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by morgin

There wasn't really a flaw. It's way more likely that until some SN reporter who doesn't understand contract interpretation wrote an "exclusive report" about this waiver issue, no one contemplated it as actually being the intention of the clause. Then instead of taking the time to understand what was being asked, Daly shot off his mouth not fully understanding the situation which apparently he had to later recant. This created a drama ####storm, because then feaster has to put on kid gloves to release a presser that effectively says "the way we interpret the clause (the right way) means that this waiver issue would never have been an issue" without calling out everyone who wrote first and thought things through after.

It is the best for all parties involved to play it down and act like nothing awful could happen. If NHL would insist that it was a nearly massive blunder by Flames, it would cause huge problems and possible sacking for Feaster, Sherman and agent. All the other GMs, who could easily do same mistake, wouldn't like it. It would make too many people look like idiots, including NHL themselves who appearantly failed to figure out that O'Reily played after the season started when other teams were checking about it.

So, although I'm sure that initial Daly's interpretation was correct, he said it based strictly on the rule without realizing that he made everyone look like idiots and put some reputations&jobs in jeopardy. Once he got it, he recanted.

[SebC]

I'm off the opinion that under the terms of the MOU, waivers would not have been needed. However, when you add up the risks of the CBA being worded differently to (and having precendence over) the MOU, an arbiter siding with NHL/Columbus' interpretation of the CBA/MOU, and the offer sheet in itself potentially being a bad deal, I don't like the offer sheet. Not sure if I dislike it enough for it to be fireable.

=====================

Originally Posted by blankall

Daly is acting totally inappropriately in making statements to the press about an unresolved legal issue. Flames management should consider a law suit.

For what damages? Lack of fan confidence?

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

The only fault i have with everyone that supported creating the offer sheet from the Flames upper management didn't offer 13million over the next 2 years.

That would've upped the draft pick compensation. $5M was about as high as they could go without their 2nd rounder (which they don't have) coming into play, and then beyond that you're talking multiple 1st rounders.

[taffeyb]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.

"IF" for emphasis...He screwed up. He gave a lawyer's response as his defense over this mistake. If he was aware of the potential uncertainty as he had claimed, he should have contact the NHL head office first to get clarity. The fact that he did not contact the office at all tells me that he was caught unaware.