Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm not arguing that. Daly is. His argument is that O'Reilly ceased to be an RFA the moment he signs an offer sheet.

Daly's argument is that Ryan O'Reilly is on Colorado's RFA list (that already exists). Therefore, under the CBA, he does not need to pass waivers to play for Colorado. He is not on anyone else's already existing list, so he would have to pass through waivers to play for them (unless his rights were traded, which they were not).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Then why even include the club portion at all? It would be "ANY RFA or Reserved..."

Poor drafting

[polak]

Originally Posted by valo403

Poor drafting

and back we go to Feaster's incompetence for not verifying the meaning beforehand.

I can't believe 22% of you don't think he should be fired. I just can't. I'm floored.

Same 22% that will be "shocked" that we didn't make the playoffs again this year.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

We give legal advice all the time on these sorts of things. The view of the parties to the contract is largely irrelevant as of course they are going to offer an interpretation favourable to their position.

This is why I will never do litigation again, at times it literally seems like a business model made to make the lawyers money. I would never ever give my independent opinion to a client looking to buy Corporation A where Corporation A has only one contract with Service Provider B before first seeking the interpretation from both Corporation A and Service Provider B as to the ambiguous clause. By taking that course of action, I can then advise my client that:

1) A and B's interpretation is the same, and that interpretation is the same as mine (our) interpretation as the buyer;
2) A and B's interpretation is different, this may be a contentious issue;
3) A and B's interpretation is the same and ours is different.

The client can then at least make an informed decision as to what course of action they should take.

Without first seeking out the current operating interpretation of the two parties to the contract, you are flying in the dark in my opinion. Client relies on your opinion, buys the Corporation and then a year later is involved in litigation that may have been avoided if proper inquries were made first. But I guess by flying in the dark you can get to AoR's and discoveries, maybe even trials.

It is sad that Feaster did not take the action to ensure the Flames were making an informed decision.

[Jake]

I think Feaster should be fired. This mistake had the potential to set the Flames back another year in the draft, which is something the club can't afford right now.

I appreciate Feaster going out and attempting to fix our massive hole at centre, and if it wasn't for that rule the offer sheet may have been a good move. I appreciate his off season acquisitions. Wideman and Hudler have been solid additions. I know Feaster gets a lot of flack for allowing this team to currently have one NHL centre, including from myself, but I do think finding a top six centre, or even a solid third line C, is extremely difficult. The last thing I want is for Feaster to overpay for a centre via trade... the Flames just can't afford to do that. O'Reilly, on the surface, looked like a good option. A young, long-term fix to Calgary's problems at centre-ice, that could potentially be had for a reasonable price (a 1st and 3rd round pick).

That being said, after a mistake like this it is hard to have much confidence in him. The moves I mentioned above were nice, but they have been accompanied by other questionable signings, and inaction. I lost a lot of confidence in Feaster when with the whole "fool be once" speech he gave last season before the trade deadline, which was followed by re-signing Jackman at the deadline, and with this lastest fiasco, nearly all of my confidence in him is gone.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by blankall

No it's not "ridonk". Daly is taking a slavish interpretation of the CBA. He should apply that interpretation consistently and fairly.

I think I am missing something here.

Originally Posted by CBA

A "restricted free agent" is defined as a player who is subject to a Right of First Refusal and/or Draft Choice Compensation in favor of his prior club (Colorado Avalanche in this case)

So when O'Reilly signs an offer sheet with the Calgary Flames, he remains a Restricted Free Agent.

Originally Posted by CBA

10.3(c) If the Prior Club (Avalanche) does not give the RFA the First Refusal Exercise notice within 7 days, the Player and New Club shall be deemed to have entered into a binding agreement, which they shall promptly formalize in an SPC, containing all of the terms contained in the offer sheet, and the RFA's Prior Club shall receive from the New Club the Draft Choice Compensation, if any.

So from that I gather that if the Avalanche did not match Calgary's offer within 7 days, O'Reilly is still an RFA because the Avalanche are still owed Draft Choice Compensation for him.

If the Draft Choice Compensation is paid before the SPC is signed, is he then no longer an RFA because his prior team is no longer owed Draft Choice Compensation? If so, is he not still subject to waivers since he is not on the Flames RFA list?

If the SPC is signed first, he's still an Avalanche RFA technically, so he'd be subject to waivers in this case as well since he is not Flames property nor is he on the Flames RFA list.

Also can you please clarify your statement that Columbus can't afford him under next year's cap? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by polak

and back we go to Feaster's incompetence for not verifying the meaning beforehand.

I don't think that issue is being debated. Regardless of whether you think the clause is ambiguous or not, Feaster should have gotten confirmation.

Originally Posted by polak

I can't believe 22% of you don't think he should be fired. I just can't. I'm floored.

Same 22% that will be "shocked" that we didn't make the playoffs again this year.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, but the suspicion is, a significant number of those votes were before people realized the waiver/loss of picks aspect of the offer sheet (although just 1 vote makes me scratch my head).

Example:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

44 pages is alot to read.

Why would we consider firing him, he made an offersheet, someone matched so that was that no?

[Dagger]

Further proves Feaster should be fired. He thinks because his interpretation is different from the NHLs that the clause wouldn't apply? Not sure if that's arrogance or stupidity but at the very least he HAS to contact the NHL and clarify.

Such incompetence.

[mykalberta]

44 pages is alot to read.

Why would we consider firing him, he made an offersheet, someone matched so that was that no?

[polak]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

44 pages is alot to read.

Why would we consider firing him, he made an offersheet, someone matched so that was that no?

Oh my... You're in for a treat.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Red-Mile-DJ

I take it that the statement from the Flames, regarding all this, has already been posted?

http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=658072

So basicly what they are saying is that "we kind of thought that maybe, but then though "nah", but did not check with the NHL".

Which sounds like either a) BS explanation b) stupid decision.

This was not a last-minute thing, and too big of a risk to not make sure.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Feaster said he wasn't going to comment on the matter anymore, so you must have some inside knowledge or know Feaster. Please indulge the rest of us! Try to gauge his willingness to trade key players for younger players this year and if there's a certain schedule he's working on going forward. By trade deadline, before, this off season, a little of both?

So excited to have someone on the inside.

Why do you think Feaster doesn't want to comment anymore?
Obviously if I did something disgraceful, I would be a little shy to comment as well

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

44 pages is alot to read.

Why would we consider firing him, he made an offersheet, someone matched so that was that no?

No, you might want to read this:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417108

[Stay Golden]

Sutter out of how many drafts i'm guessing 8 with 7 rounds of picks had around 10 players that lasted more than a full year in the NHL in any capacity. A very unimpressive amount. It was in the Sun recently.

Anyone wants to do the research to clarify the exact numbers... as i am not certain.

As for Feaster's with his scouts the drafting appears to have improved, but its way to early to draw that conclusion.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by polak

and back we go to Feaster's incompetence for not verifying the meaning beforehand.

I can't believe 22% of you don't think he should be fired. I just can't. I'm floored.

Same 22% that will be "shocked" that we didn't make the playoffs again this year.

33% including those that think he shouldn't be responsible over staff when making a massive move like this. Shocking numbers really.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by polak

and back we go to Feaster's incompetence for not verifying the meaning beforehand.

I can't believe 22% of you don't think he should be fired. I just can't. I'm floored.

Same 22% that will be "shocked" that we didn't make the playoffs again this year.

I can't believe that anyone thinks he should be fired given the state of the document and the number of teams that were under the same impression. It appears the only person who knew of this rule was Bill Daly.

It's entirely possible the Flames verified with the NHL front office before they submitted the offer sheet and that they were under the same impression as the Flames. Do you have any evidence they drafted and submitted this in a vacuum?

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by sven

Why do you think Feaster doesn't want to comment anymore?
Obviously if I did something disgraceful, I would be a little shy to comment as well

As our inside guy, ask him for us!

Well for one, since ROR is now under contract with the Avs, I don't think he can. Please confirm.

[flames_fan_down_under]

I am extremely unimpressed with Feasters negligence, coming extremely close to crippling this team for an extended period. I feel that he dodged a major bullet. His lack of success so far with the Flames has earned him little to no lenience from an extremely frustrated fan base. His press release leaves little in terms of acknowledging he made an egregious error.

Having said that the following people have also either misinterpreted the rule of signing players playing in Europe; or completely disregarded it: Ken Holland, Doug Armstrong along with John Davidson at the time,

“It’s hard to understand how you can take a player who is finished somewhere else, becomes available, and you do all the work,” said Davidson. “You do a formula to finding a contract. You make late-night phone calls. You get lawyers involved. Then you try to get him here, when nobody else had thought of it and the other team says ‘Oh, I’m going to take that player.’”

John Davidson and Ken Holland are extremely respected hockey minds in the NHL community and both were caught off guard by the fine print in the CBA, so Feaster is not alone in his "incompetence" or whatever you call it. Holland has however earned himself a few mistakes here and there, and he didn't end up losing picks when Nabokov was picked ip by another team. So therefore: Fire Feaster.

[Rubicant]

As fun as the virtual CP courtroom is in terms of who's interpretation is correct, why does it even matter?

Feaster either:

- didn't know about the clause, which is negligent
- or was so confident in his interpretation he didn't bother to check before filing an offer sheet. The potential loss there being a 1st and 3rd round pick, a 2.5 M signing bonus and not even having the player on the team. That is worse than negligent IMO.

Feaster is a desperate man, and he is likely to cause long term damage to this team if left in charge.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I can't believe that anyone thinks he should be fired given the state of the document and the number of teams that were under the same impression. It appears the only person who knew of this rule was Bill Daly.

It's entirely possible the Flames verified with the NHL front office before they submitted the offer sheet and that they were under the same impression as the Flames. Do you have any evidence they drafted and submitted this in a vacuum?

The Flames own statement said they only talked to an NHLPA rep, and not even what type of rep, it could have been an agent.

You don't get to skate because "you didn't know". This is the big leagues, not the CHL.