Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or C, he checked with the NHL head office and they gave him the all clear without asking Daly.

[Savvy27]

I would fire Feaster for this. Honestly, I'll probably soften on this later, but the Flames right now remind me of a sad mixture of Post-2006 Oilers and pre-2008 Maple Leafs. They need to dismantle

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

The Flames statement said they shared the interpretation of the player's rep, in this case Ryan O'Reilly's representative.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Clever Iggy,do you agree with Rubicant's post?
If you do, then I think we are just arguing semantics because I'm an advocate of option 1 while I "think" you might be agreeing with option 2.

In any case, Feaster screwed up and that's the main issue

Unless you are like Blankall who is convinced Feaster did the right thing

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by The Coppernian One

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).

I'm out of thanks but you are very much correct, I think.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by nik-

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.

Their statement refers to "the player’s representative" which would imply O'Reilly's agent. But then you have TSN writing this after talking to O'Reilly's agent:

Morris added that he never got any indication from the Flames that they were aware of this provision in the CBA. "It wasn't discussed between the parties," he said.

[Locke]

Unquestionably.

I see it as trying to circumvent the memo of understanding an a wildly flimsy technicality that was just as likely to fail as to succeed.

And had it failed because of an 'attempt to circumvent' the very real possibility exists that there could have been supplemental discipline from the league in the form of a forfeited 1st round draft pick as the precedent set in the New Jersey/Kovalchuk debacle.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

The Flames statement said they shared the interpretation of the player's rep, in this case Ryan O'Reilly's representative.

Who just said, that he didn't know about the rule at all, didn't he?

[DatSOOKin]

Quick question (too many pages to read through), but does ROR now have to pass through waivers still even though he signed with the Av's?

[-TC-]

If the Flames staff (Feaster does not work in isolation) did indeed 'misinterpret' the CBA and ignore what Daly said then it's the responsibility of ownership to evaluate the current management team and make changes as required.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by DatSOOKin

Quick question (too many pages to read through), but does ROR now have to pass through waivers still even though he signed with the Av's?

Nope.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

The Flames statement said they shared the interpretation of the player's rep, in this case Ryan O'Reilly's representative.

And O'Reilly's rep has otherwise stated that they didn't discuss the issue at all.

[polak]

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 vaccum?

Do you have any evidence that any other team was under the same impression? Do you have any proof that the Flames did indeed verify their interpretation with the league? Do you have any evidence that this offer wasn't submitted without the slightest inquiry about the rule?

I on the other hand, have evidence that this was a rule (disputed or not) that could have cost this team their 1st and 3rd round pick (the only two picks they have in the first 3 rounds) and then some and that the Flames sumbitted an offer sheet without bringing any public inquiry or attention to this potentially disasterous exemption. I also know that ROR's agent has been quoted as saying he had no idea about the rule which would directly disputes Feasters statement where he claims to have spoken with the players representation. I would like to add that in this statement he never once said that he contacted the NHL about this issue before the submission of this offer sheet.

Using the evidence I provided above, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who believes this LAWYER should have a job leading an NHL team after this potential debacle that would have been widely regartted as the worst move in hockey histroy, is bats*** crazy.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Who just said, that he didn't know about the rule at all, didn't he?

Depends on how you mean rule. I'm sure he was aware of the provision, like the Flames were. It's less likely that he was aware that it was to be interpreted in this way.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by sven

Clever Iggy,do you agree with Rubicant's post?
If you do, then I think we are just arguing semantics because I'm an advocate of option 1 while I "think" you might be agreeing with option 2.

In any case, Feaster screwed up and that's the main issue

Unless you are like Blankall who is convinced Feaster did the right thing

I think we are at the semantics point. I don't think Feaster is just trying to COA with the statement. I believe it to be genuine. Whether neglecting to check with the NHL/PA to confirm is more or less egregious than not knowing about the provision at all is moot.

Also, I don't think Blankall is trying to convince anyone that Feaster's actions are right, just that his interpretation of the CBA provision is reasonable or at least that the provision is ambiguous.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Unquestionably.

I see it as trying to circumvent the memo of understanding an a wildly flimsy technicality that was just as likely to fail as to succeed.

And had it failed because of an 'attempt to circumvent' the very real possibility exists that there could have been supplemental discipline from the league in the form of a forfeited 1st round draft pick as the precedent set in the New Jersey/Kovalchuk debacle.

The Devils were dinged for cap circumvention, which had specific and set penalties under the CBA.

A difference of opinion over what the MOU means is a case for arbitration, nothing more.

[La Flames Fan]

Boy...where is this franchise headed?

Still clinging to the "win now".
Unbelievable oversight/negligence.
Murky waters when it comes to who's running hockey operations.
Terrible drafting history.

I don't know what to think anymore. I'll always be a fan, but my wallet is closed until they sort this mess out.

Dark days.

[sven]

Originally Posted by polak

Do you have any evidence that any other team was under the same impression? Do you have any proof that the Flames did indeed verify their interpretation with the league? Do you have any evidence that this offer wasn't submitted without the slightest inquiry about the rule?

I on the other hand, have evidence that this was a rule (disputed or not) that could have cost this team their 1st and 3rd round pick (the only two picks they have in the first 3 rounds) and then some and that the Flames sumbitted an offer sheet without bringing any public inquiry or attention to this potentially disasterous exemption. I also know that ROR's agent has been quoted as saying he had no idea about the rule which would directly dispute Feasters statement where he claims to have spoken with the players representation. I would like to add that in this statement he never once said that he contacted the NHL about this issue before the submission of this offer sheet.

Using the evidence I provided above, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who believes this LAWYER should have a job leading an NHL team after this potential debacle that would have been widely regartted as the worst move in hockey histroy, is bats*** crazy.

I heard the Canucks sent an offersheet as well.
I'm actually curious as to which GMs actually sent offer sheets

That is different from thinking about an offer as an offer sheet would require doing your due diligence (which Feaster failed to do)

I would like to know what other GM didn't do their due diligence as well.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

The Flames statement said they shared the interpretation of the player's rep, in this case Ryan O'Reilly's representative.

I took it as an NHLPA rep, as in someone from that fold, not necessarily O'Reilly's agent. If they were implying it was O'Reilly's agent and then the agent comes out say they didn't even know this could be an issue, this looks bad.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

And O'Reilly's rep has otherwise stated that they didn't discuss the issue at all.

So Feaster did not even ask the person they said they asked....hahaha, I wish I was not going to the Canucks game with the girlfriend, she thinks the brown paper bag thing is inappropriate.