Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Rudee]

What a epic oversight by Feaster.

[HELPNEEDED]

Burke to Calgary EK 9999

[blankall]

Originally Posted by polak

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.

The CBA does not say that. As I mentioned in my other posts, if the NHL is taking the position that a players ceases to be an RFA upon signign an offer sheet, then the rule has to applied to the Avs as well. The rule does not read: "a player you formerly had RFA right too until you signed to an offer".

[$ven27]

Quick question.. It's confirmed that ROR would have to pass waivers to play in Calgary this season yes? Well, what if we didn't play him this season and waited until training camp or whenever you can call players up without them having to pass waivers?

[opendoor]

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.

No, they actually created an exemption where one never existed before. Under the old CBA O'Reilly would've needed waivers to sign with the Avalanche as well.

[Table 5]

The problem with firing Feaster is that he'd just be replaced by someone who again is a puppet of King and the ownership. You can't have real change on this team until Murray Edwards et al are convinced to go down a different path with this team.

It's like trying to fire the coach when the real problem is the players. Why bother?

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by calgARI

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.

And I hope the Flames knew what the plan was going into this. If they can show that they knew that O'Reilly would end up a Flames player, I'll forgive them. But until they clarify what occurred, all we can speculate is that they overlooked a clause that almost completely screwed over the team.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Bill Daly, deputy commssioner of the NHL told TSN, today, that O'Reilly would have to clear waivers to play for Calgary. As far as the NHL is concerned he would have had to clear waivers.

I think Bill Daly is even a lawyer....might even be true....

[blankall]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Quick question.. It's confirmed that ROR would have to pass waivers to play in Calgary this season yes? Well, what if we didn't play him this season and waited until training camp or whenever you can call players up without them having to pass waivers?

It's not confirmed. Daly has no right to confirm anything. He represents one party to a contract.

[Dogbert]

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 rule is that a team may sign any player on its reserve list and RFA list without putting him through waivers. O'Reilly was on the Avs' reserve list, not ours. A player doesn't get added to a team's reserve list until they own his rights, and the Flames wouldn't have owned his rights until the Avs gave them up.

Therefore, the Avs can sign the contract with O'Reilly and not waive him, whereas the Flames would've had to do so in order for him to play this season. Simple matter.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Is there a contract or PTO (or equivalent thereof) to show ROR played for a KHL team?

EDIT: Next question, how many people here, saying Feaster should be fired, would want to fire him any way, even if yesterday didn't happen? I am not saying your opinion is invalid, I just think that it would skew the results of this poll.

[MissTeeks]

Since no one is reading the other thread anymore:

Bruce Arthur ‏@bruce_arthur
Ryan O'Reilly's agent, Pat Morris, just told @TSNRadio1050 that he didn't know his client would head to waivers if Colorado didn't match.

Bruce Arthur ‏@bruce_arthur
Morris also said a number of other teams inquired about offer sheets. Presumably, none of them knew either, or they would have told him.

[Murph]

You gotta think O'Reilly's agents, Mark Guy and Pat Morris, get fired as well. If I were them, I'd start looking for new lines of work.

[Yamer]

Think I'll wait for a statement from the Flames and their management.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Quick question.. It's confirmed that ROR would have to pass waivers to play in Calgary this season yes? Well, what if we didn't play him this season and waited until training camp or whenever you can call players up without them having to pass waivers?

Then it would still have been a monumentally stupid thing to do, but slightly less than loosing him to waivers

[Igster]

[The Yen Man]

Well, since Daly came out and said this, they should really sue the NHL to see if they can force the Avs to put O'Reilly on re-entry waivers. They can probably argue it's ambiguous whether O'Reilly's the Av's RFA after he signed the offer sheet with the Flames.

[opendoor]

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.

No, it shouldn't apply to COL because there's a clear exemption in the MOU for signing your own RFAs. The Flames didn't sign their own RFA, they signed a player on someone else's list, hence the waivers.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

So if Colorado didn't match the offer, would they have been able to put a claim in on O'Rielly? That would be robbery if they could. Would have had our picks and O'Rielly? I'm not up on my waiver rules

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Quick question.. It's confirmed that ROR would have to pass waivers to play in Calgary this season yes? Well, what if we didn't play him this season and waited until training camp or whenever you can call players up without them having to pass waivers?

Yes, I believe if they waited until next season they could play him without passing through waivers. If they would be allowed to do that is a different question, the NHLPA wouldn't be too happy with an organization refusing to play a signed player, in the NHL or the AHL, and I'm sure he would have had to go through waivers to play in either league.