View Poll Results: Should Jay Feaster be fired?
|
Yes he's the head of the hockey department
|
  
|
445 |
60.30% |
No one of his reports are in charge of details like this
|
  
|
107 |
14.50% |
No the offers sheet wasn't effective so no loss to the team
|
  
|
186 |
25.20% |
03-01-2013, 02:44 PM
|
#781
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:44 PM
|
#782
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
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.
Last edited by blankall; 03-01-2013 at 02:51 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:45 PM
|
#783
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:45 PM
|
#784
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:46 PM
|
#785
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:46 PM
|
#786
|
Backup Goalie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Exp:  
|
Yes...bring back sutter!!! Lol.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:47 PM
|
#787
|
Franchise Player
|
Eric says Organization is at crossroads.
Next week will be the determining factor.
He says this season the sellers will get huge value
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:47 PM
|
#788
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Feb 2013
Exp: 
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:48 PM
|
#789
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary
|
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:48 PM
|
#790
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:48 PM
|
#791
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:49 PM
|
#792
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:50 PM
|
#793
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
|
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:50 PM
|
#794
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:50 PM
|
#795
|
Crash and Bang Winger
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:51 PM
|
#796
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:51 PM
|
#797
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: STH since 2002
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:51 PM
|
#798
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:52 PM
|
#799
|
Draft Pick
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GrammarPolice For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:52 PM
|
#800
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Cool Ville
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:30 PM.
|
|