Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[calgARI]

wrong thread

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by sven

So let's get this straight. Feaster (being a well educated law man) sees the phrasing in question and reads / understands it completely differently from rest of society (I guess he's the only genius?)

OR

He sees phrasing that he believes can be circumvented and went through with this offer fully knowing that he's going to have to go through a #### storm and arbitration where he has a slim chance of winning?


OR option 3

This was an oversight and he obviously isn't going to admit to his mistake and spin it that best way he can?


Which one is most likely folks?

Well rumours are other GM's were contemplating it too. Maybe they interpreted it the same as Feaster did? That is possible you know.

[Huntingwhale]

It's actually kind of cool. I'll be able to tell my grandkids one day that I lived through this event!

[liamenator]

That they're hiding behind this 'different interpretation' garbage is just as inexcusable as not having sufficiently understood the situation they were getting into in the first place. Embarrassing.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cortez

This tells me that they were aware of the rule, and ready to defend their interpretation with the league.
Most likely meaning that they would have taken it to court or used any legal means possible to secure ROR

They could have but there's a very good chance they would have lost.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

First it was the exemption that was being argued.

Now we are arguing a rule that has been in place for 9 years and has been used in the Radulov case.

I understand that the courts can restructure the rule but the Flames would need to convince them that their interpretation is legitimate. I'd love to see how they could put together such an argument.

"Well, we didn't know that he's no longer a restricted free agent once we signed him to a contract after the avalanche didn't match the offer sheet?"

Obviously this team has qualified and traded for the rights of plenty of restricted free agents in the past. I just can't see anyone, even a small child being convinced otherwise.

The rule was changed. Interpretations of language in the past CBA are only applicable to the extent that language remains. Where things have changed, and in this case it has, it's no longer applicable.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Cortez

This tells me that they were aware of the rule, and ready to defend their interpretation with the league.
Most likely meaning that they would have taken it to court or used any legal means possible to secure ROR

Perhaps you avoid taking it to court and get the go ahead from the league first? Not to mention looking like an idiot to the fanbase, all of your colleagues, and putting your job on the line...

[Cortez]

Originally Posted by polak

Or it means that they just made that up to make it sound like they knew about it?

Why on earth would you not clarify your position before tendering such an offer? Why would you risk it?

Yes it's possible that I interpreted his statement different then others, but I will have no further comment on the matter.

[The Big Chill]

It is complete insanity to try and make this deal without 100% clarity of what will happen to the player. A difference in interpretation is worse then an oversight of the entire situation IMO.

Knowing that Feaster will put the Flames at risk like that scares the bejesus out of me when thinking about what future deals he might come up with.

I've been ready for an organization overhaul for a few years now, so hopefully this situation can finally push us in that direction.

[DionTheDman]

That statement definitely reads as a CYA.

If they knew, and were concerned about any interpretation of ambiguous clauses, that is something they should have cleared with the league, and received a response IN WRITING, prior to signing ROR.

This isn't something you do after the fact.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by sven

So let's get this straight. Feaster (being a well educated law man) sees the phrasing in question and reads / understands it completely differently from rest of society (I guess he's the only genius?)

OR

He sees phrasing that he believes can be circumvented and went through with this offer fully knowing that he's going to have to go through a #### storm and arbitration where he has a slim chance of winning?


OR option 3

This was an oversight and he obviously isn't going to admit to his mistake and spin it that best way he can?


Which one is most likely folks?

Everybody interpreted the rule the way Feaster did until one reporter found differently.

There was heavy talk of an offer sheet before what the Flames did. Bob McKenzie highlighted it as a possibility.

I'm not taking away the significance of this situation. I think something has to happen.

But it is funny. Everybody was talking about a potential offer sheet for ROR. Now that the Flames are the ones who made it, everyone acts as if the rule was obvious.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

At least with Kessel Burke made the trade before the season started and theoretically they weren't expected to finish near the bottom.

With Feaster signing O'Reilly we are already near the bottom 1/3 into the season, and probably would finish near the bottom with him in the lineup for the remainder of the season. So theoretically the O'Reilly RFA signing would have been worse than the Kessel deal.

Even if the Flames were to end up with the "top five" pick everyone who hated the signing assumed, I would really like to know how it is "theoretically" worse to give up the #5 and #65 picks than to give up the #2, #9 and #32 picks.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They could have but there's a very good chance they would have lost.

It's one thing to be incompotent in checking all the facts, it would be 10x as worse if he knowingly did that, and started shining up his lawyer shoes for a court date with the NHL, selfishly and recklessly gambling with $10m and two draft picks laying in the balance.

[atb]

Thing that bugs me the most about the Flames statement is that it implies they were willing to risk a 1st and 3rd fully aware of this rule. They must have at some point said 'What if the NHL doesn't see it this way?". So they must have know there was a chance (even if they believed it a slim chance) there could be a huge legal storm, with the chance of losing 2 picks for nothing.

That's almost as foolish as not knowing about the rule in the first place, and is really quite scary.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is for trades, not for an offer sheet. Where does it say that if a player on a team's RFA list is signed to an offer sheet to team B that he loses that RFA list protection?

Why would they give specific examples of where the exemption would apply if it was all encompassing and applied to signing any RFA?

Regardless, the new CBA hasn't been publicly released so we're kind of guessing on the final language. Though right now I'm inclined to take the league's interpretation over Feaster's, especially when it seems he was completely unaware of it in the first place.

[tvp2003]

So basically Feaster is claiming:

- They knew about the waiver issue
- They consulted with the NHLPA rep, but apparently not the NHL
- They proceeded with the offer sheet on the basis that their "interpretation" was correct, with the risk of losing two picks and $2.5M if they were wrong
- NHL (via Daly) saying this morning they were wrong
- They consider the issue dead because the Avs said last night they would match
- No evidence that Avs have officially matched

Is that it?

If so, Feaster isn't stupid or necessarily negligent but borderline reckless in handling the assets of this team. Flames owners can't be happy about the negative PR that this is generating; at worst they will be very unhappy if they end up losing the picks and $2.5M after all.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by danny darko

Not sure if this has been posted yet but here is Feaster's statement...

“Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.

Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.

While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process.”

Jay Feaster

General Manager

Mr. Feaster, there is just one more thing...


If O'Reilly's agent said earlier today that he had no knowledge of the issue, how is it that you and he somehow interpretted this issue differently beforehand? You can see the confusion I have here.... Anyway, good day to you.

[Ashasx]

Guys, nobody is happy about this. You wonder why it took so long to get a statement. You know exactly who Feaster was talking to.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by atb

Thing that bugs me the most about the Flames statement is that it implies they were willing to risk a 1st and 3rd fully aware of this rule. They must have at some point said 'What if the NHL doesn't see it this way?". So they must have know there was a chance (even if they believed it a slim chance) there could be a huge legal storm, with the chance of losing 2 picks for nothing.

That's almost as foolish as not knowing about the rule in the first place, and is really quite scary.

Which is why I think they simply had no idea. It would be monumentally stupid to risk losing those assets for nothing to save having to make a phone call to the league office.

[Flash Walken]

i would feel so much better either way if he we had some kind of confirmation that Colorado have ACTUALLY filed the paperwork to match.