Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think KK needs to go regardless.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

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.

Problem is he is not just talking about Gm's. He is also talking about agents that have infuence on their clients.

[Bar-Down]

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

Great news. In a shortened season, with such a good 2013 draft, this absolutely has to be the year to rebuild. And with everything that's happened, I think this will be the year.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Sorry should have added next year before his big QO came is was what I was getting at with the trade angle. I think if you keep him for a season you can trade him the next season.

I would expect that Colombus would be happy to have a young talent on their roster and would claim him to keep him long term though.

I also think every team that put a claim in gets him before the waiving team.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

It seemed probable that COL would match 3.5m and 6.5m next year since it averaged to the the initial 5m per that they already new O'Reilly was after.

Yes... but they were refusing to sign him at that number so the probability is less then your making it out to be. The Aves wanted him for less then 5M per and for longer then 2 years (with the side effect of now locking him in at 6.5 for the purposes of qualifying him again in two years and allowing him to seek arbitration).

Additionally 2.5M of O'Reilly's money for this season was in the form of a signing bonus (which I believe he'd get all of) with only the 1M salary being prorated to account for the missed games and shortened season. So that 10M Contract is really more like 12M in relative value.

Two Things are clear here:
1: The Aves were bluffing the entire time and should have just paid him what he wanted to begin with;
2: O'Reilly is making out like a bandit, He now has all the money he was looking for and is guarentee'd to either get more in two years or become a UFA three years earlier then he otherwise would.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by 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.

The rose colored approach to fandom sees no wrong.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

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.

But there are some pretty basic definitions that use that phrase where treating "a Club" to include every team would be asinine. I mean, the term "Active Roster" is defined as:

all players on a Club's Reserve List, who are signed to an approved and registered SPC, subject to the provisions ofArticle 11, and who are not on the Injured Reserve List, Injured Non Roster, designated Non-Roster, or Loaned.

Does that mean a team's Active Roster includes every player on every team? Of course not. It only refers to the team's own Reserve List.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

BTW I know this probably wouldn't be a valid argument in court but if the intention was to include any RFA's or Reserve players in the exemption, like some of you are saying in terms of "A club's list" being ambigious, then why would they not just clearly state "All RFA's or Reserves will be exempt"...

It's extremely obvious what the actual intended and agreed upon meaning was. This would have all been back pedalling to try and disprove that and the fact that Feaster would be willing to risk a 1st and 3rd round pick on that without verifying from both the NHL and the NHLPA, just screams incompetence.

No, it's not.

[Muta]

Every time I hear Feaster / King speak, I think about this... because really, this is what they have become.



Apparently we're stupid and they know best, since this charade has now gone on for several years.

[moon]

Originally Posted by 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.

This only comes up because ROR played in Russia. If he hadn't then waivers wouldn't be an issue.

For 99% of RFA's this wouldn't be an issue.

[jd456]

Haven't posted in a long time, but I've been trying to be patient with Feaster and the Flames' direction lately. I was trying to give Jay the benefit of the doubt, but I honestly can't after the statement. If there were any doubt at all, you'd think Feaster would contact the league to be 100% sure. Its just common sense. At this point, I personally don't trust him with building/rebuilding this team. Throwing away a 1st and 3rd could set the team back for years. Also, I don't see ROR as a franchise player. A good player, yes. Franchise player, no.

[sven]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

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 Flames can't win the legal battle because ROR was not on Calgary's Reserve list while being an RFA. By signing him, Flames would in fact own his rights and he would no longer be an RFA makeing him waiver eligible.

The other side of the coin is people saying that by that interpretation, AVs would be in the same boat as the moment they sign him, he would no longer be an RFA and be waiver eligible.

So then the NHL/Law has 2 ways to look at it,

1) Deem that only AVs would be considered the club that has ROR on their Reserve List while being an RFA

or

2) Deem that the moment any RFA signs, their rights are owned by the signing team and they are no longer an RFA meaning no matter what, whatever team signs him (Avs, Flames, etc) ROR would still have to go through waivers

Looks like a lose lose situation to me

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Muta

Every time I hear Feaster / King speak, I think about this... because really, this is what they have become.



Apparently we're stupid and they know best, since this charade has now gone on for several years.

Honestly it kind of scares me a little when they talk ...

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

If he was UFA, that would be the case. However, he was RFA, thus Colorado had some options on RoR, that Calgary hadn't. Particularly the ability to match and also the ability to bring him on roster without going through waivers.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

So the CBA is an agreement between the NHL and the NHLPA. They are the only two signatories to the agreement. Jay Feaster and his band of advisers do not consult either the NHL or the NHLPA for their interpretation of this clause. They make their own independent interpretation of the clause without consulting either party to the agreement. That is unbelievable.

If I had a client who was looking at buying a corporation that had one major contract and there was an ambiguous clause as between the corporation and another party in that major contract, and I made my own independent judgment on what the clause meant, I would be fired on the spot. The logical thing to do would be to contact one or both parties to get their interpretation of the ambiguous clause, but sadly the Flames do not do what any competent legal counsel would do. Unbelievable.

Except that this is wrong. I mean, yes, you would talk to them to get the context, but basing your determination of the proper interpretation of the contract on what the parties tell you they think it means doesn't settle the issue. You HAVE to make an independent judgment on what the clause means. Blankall's interpretation of the wording in this instance is batcrap crazy, but he's right about one thing: what Bill Daly says he thinks the rule means is not the final word.

In this case, there are two possible interpretations. 1. the phrase "a club's RFA list" refers to the club that holds the RFA rights originally, and does not apply where another club offer sheets that player, because the club tendering the offer sheet does not have the player on their RFA list. 2. the phrase "a club's RFA list" means ANY club's RFA list, in which case the club tendering the offer sheet gets the benefit of the exemption and the Flames would've got him without going through waivers.

I tend to think Daly (and everyone else, seemingly) is correct and interpretation 1 is right. But it's not at all a slam dunk, and if the issue was a live one, likely would be contested before whatever decision-making body has jurisdiction of the issue (be it an arbitrator or a court).

With that said, here is my question: has it been confirmed yet that the Avalanche HAVE filed the required paperwork with the league to match? Or could they still hold out and bend the Flames over a table?

[sven]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

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.

I thought that Calgary presented an offer sheet which ROR SIGNED taking him off the market as an RFA (AVs being the only team having the right to match)
So wouldn't he no longer be an RFA the moment he signed Calgary's contract?

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

With that said, here is my question: has it been confirmed yet that the Avalanche HAVE filed the required paperwork with the league to match? Or could they still hold out and bend the Flames over a table?

Confirmed, Ryan O'Reilly has officially signed with the Colorado Avalanche.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by sven

I thought that Calgary presented an offer sheet which ROR SIGNED taking him off the market as an RFA (AVs being the only team having the right to match)
So wouldn't he no longer be an RFA the moment he signed Calgary's contract?

After he signs an offer sheet, Colorado still has the Right of First Refusal option on him.

The offer sheet is not a contract.

[Erick Estrada]

Since King supposedly runs the hockey operations should this not fall at his feet as well?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by sven

I thought that Calgary presented an offer sheet which ROR SIGNED taking him off the market as an RFA (AVs being the only team having the right to match)
So wouldn't he no longer be an RFA the moment he signed Calgary's contract?

RFAs retain their RFA status during an Offer Sheet but they lose the right to sign other Offer Sheets.