Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by sven

look up a couple posts above and read my interpretation...
Feaster would lose because to be exempt, player needs to be on the clubs reserve list AS WELL AS being an RFA. If Feaster is arguing that Flames owned his rights and Flames technically own his rights by signing him, he would not be an RFA which would then make him waiver eligible.

That is your interpretation, which means the same as mine, jack squat.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kirant

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Therefore, the confusion lie in whether or not O'Reilly was an RFA after he came through to Calgary, or whether he was taken off being an RFA, then assigned to Calgary, in which case forcing him on waivers.

Feaster believes the former is possible, while Daly (this morning) intended it to be the latter.

This is the point of contention. And it makes zero sense to interpret the CBA as removing him as an RFA if he moves to Calgary, but allowing Colorado to treat him as an RFA if he remains in Colorado.

He has signed an offer sheet with Colorado now. The exact same way he would have with Calgary, had Colorado not matched. He should be listed in the exact same category of player regardless of whether he is with Calgary or Colorado. The path to get to either team was the exact same, via the offer sheet.

Edit: If I'm Feaster, I now try to force the NHL to apply this interpretation of the clause to Colorado. There are 5 teams below us on the waiver. All 5 of them have severe budgetary restraints, which are going to stop them from taking on O'Reilly's contract. The Flames could now get O'Reilly for nothing. I'd wait a day or two until the paper work from Colorado goes through.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by moon

I can't see how Colombus doesn't take him right off the bat if not to use them on their team but to trade him to a team that wants him.

Worst case scenario they trade him to Colorado for a 3rd round pick or something but likely get more than that back.

And Avs don't have to put him on waivers Flames do.

If you try to trade a player you claimed on waivers, you have to waive them first. IIRC, the team that you claimed the player from in the first place gets first priority. If my memory on that point is accurate, then the end result of this scenario is the Flames claiming him back and the Jackets getting nothing.

In this scenario, the Jackets simply claim and keep the player. They need NHL calibre talent even worse than we do.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Wouldn't that be the case in all situations then.

The second a player is signed they are no longer RFA, that means even if Colorado had signed him he would need to clear waivers.

Not that easy to interpret this mess of a clause...

But at the time of the signing O'Reilly wouldn't have been on the Flames Reserve List or RFA List whereas he would've been on Colorado's.

The question is whether "a Club" refers to a single team or any team. Given the usage of that phrase in the rest of the CBA I'm inclined to believe that it refers only to a team's own list.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is the point of contention. And it makes zero sense to interpret the CBA as removing him as an RFA if he moves to Calgary, but allowing Colorado to treat him as an RFA if he remains in Colorado.

He has signed an offer sheet with Colorado now. The exact same way he would have with Calgary, had Colorado not matched. He should be listed in the exact same category of player regardless of whether he is with Calgary or Colorado. The path to get to either team was the exact same, via the offer sheet.

At the time of his SPC coming into effect he was on Colorado's Reserve List and RFA List but not Calgary's. That's the distinction.

[vman]

Yes...bring back sutter!!! Lol.

[timbit]

Eric says Organization is at crossroads.

Next week will be the determining factor.

He says this season the sellers will get huge value

[sven]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is your interpretation, which means the same as mine, jack squat.

Yeah I understand what you guys are saying but by that logic, it would mean that no matter what happens he would still have to go through waivers even if AVs matched or signed him

So if Feaster read it that way, wouldn't that mean he would have understood that he is still risking a 1st and a 3rd and ROR would still need to go through waivers?

[dammage79]

Whats the point of having RFA system then if you have to give up multiple picks and then stand the chance of losing him to waivers? Seems like an incredibly redundant system. Glad the Flames did not have to endure that embarassment in real time. Instead its just optics now.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But at the time of the signing O'Reilly wouldn't have been on the Flames Reserve List or RFA List whereas he would've been on Colorado's.

The question is whether "a Club" refers to a single team or any team. Given the usage of that phrase in the rest of the CBA I'm inclined to believe that it refers only to a team's own list.

And that is where the legal battle would be fought.

If it does not clarify the definition of "a club" there would have been a mess of a battle between the Flames and the NHL on the definition.

Real issue is that was the best case scenario... a legal battle for a player.

Worst case scenario is you lose a 1st, a 3rd, and $2.5 million for a player that never dresses for you.

Pretty stupid move in my opinion.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Incorrect. The "players representative" referred to in the statement was O'Reilly's agent, not the NHLPA rep.

At least I think so.

Oh, I think you're right. I read earlier that it was a rep from the "Players'" (i.e. union); however, the statement refers to "player's" so probably just O'Reilly's agent.

Which is stupid because who cares what the agent thinks

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by sven

Yeah I understand what you guys are saying but by that logic, it would mean that no matter what happens he would still have to go through waivers even if AVs matched or signed him

So if Feaster read it that way, wouldn't that mean he would have understood that he is still risking a 1st and a 3rd and ROR would still need to go through waivers?

No, the way Feaster was interpreting it was because he was on a clubs reserve list he was protected. So if the Av's signed him he would be waiver exempt because he was on a clubs RFA list but also would be waiver exempt for Calgary because, again, he was on a teams RFA list.

[burn_this_city]

I'm pretty surprised a good chunk of people don't think he should be fired because the Avs matched. A catastrophic near miss should be treated the same as if it actually happened.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by timbit

Eric says Organization is at crossroads.

Next week will be the determining factor.

He says this season the sellers will get huge value

He also said he was not sure if the organization would go that route.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Also said that Calgary is not in good standing with the rest of the NHL because of their reluctance to rebuild.

I really don't think the Flames give a crap about their standing in the NHL because of their hockey related decisions. If they do then those individuals should be fired. The Flames should rebuild if they want to rebuild or not if they don't. They should give one iota's care to what the rest of the NHL thinks.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by timbit

Eric says Organization is at crossroads.

Next week will be the determining factor.

He says this season the sellers will get huge value

Maybe it's best if we lose every single game so the choice to sell becomes obvious?

I really hate to cheer for losses, but screw it. Bring them on.

[Stay Golden]

If Feaster gets fired KKing should be fired first.
How many organization mistakes and steps backwards were made prior to Feaster being the assistant GM and didn't KKing promote Feaster to GM.
How long should KKing remain out of the rifle site.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by sven

So basically they are saying that the players have to be on the Reserved List AND be an RFA

that means Feaster loses because being reserve list means that the club owns his rights BUT if Feaster is pressing the issue and saying that the Flames by signing him own his rights, then he would no longer be an RFA

Game set match...looks like I'm smarter than Feaster

No. O'Reilly is an RFA until he signs a contract with someone. An offer sheet doesn't change his status as an RFA. An offer sheet is not a contract.

From the CBA:

"Restricted Free Agent" means a Player whose SPC has expired, but who
is still subject to a Right of First Refusal and/or Draft Choice Compensation in favor of his Prior Club as described in Article 10 of this Agreement.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by sven

Yeah I understand what you guys are saying but by that logic, it would mean that no matter what happens he would still have to go through waivers even if AVs matched or signed him

So if Feaster read it that way, wouldn't that mean he would have understood that he is still risking a 1st and a 3rd and ROR would still need to go through waivers?

What this means is that Feaster's not only looking like a bad GM but he's now also looking like a bad lawyer.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Maybe it's best if we lose every single game so the choice to sell becomes obvious?

I really hate to cheer for losses, but screw it. Bring them on.

Still won't cheer for a loss.