Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

Thank you for this post. The regular "knee jerkers" are working over time on this thread. Im sure most are avid fans of other teams wishing the Flames misery.

We dont know if the Flames talked to the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet. We dont know how the NHL interprets the CBA in this instance. We don't know if the NHL would have made the Flames clear ROR in waivers before acquiring him...We dont know, none of us do. Yet lets fire Feaster!!! Sheesh, this is 44+ pages of garbage. Ive seen a lot of garbage on this forum but this takes the cake. Well done doomsdayers. Well done!

Feaster does say that his interpretation differs from the league's interpretation... does he not?

You're right that we don't know for sure whether or not the league would have made the Flames clear ROR on waivers. But there's no way Feaster would have known one way or the other with 100% certainty, either. It was a stupid risk to take.

[Mike Vernon]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We actually do know that Feaster didn't talk to the league as he told us he didn't

How about the ten other items we dont know including the NHL upholding the player going through waivers??? Can someone please look into the future and tell us what happened?

Screw it, Im unhappy the Flames lost last night. Lets fire Feaster and trade Iginla.

[taco.vidal]

The Flames will do an internal investigation to determine what happened.
Compare this to the business world that Murray Edwards lives and breathes. If an exec in one of his O&G companies entered into a contract to acquire a property that ended up in the company not only not getting the property but losing what was offered in consideration for those assets, you can bet your azz that heads would fly. This isn't the Redford government where this would be covered up and result in a promotion for Feaster. Feaster is done if its shown he didn't do his due diligence.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by morgin

MOU exists because they didn't have time to draft a full CBA before the season got going.

MOUs are typically full of problematic drafting. This is not new. it's a result of having a short document trying to summarize complicated concepts.

This is likely an issue no one really anticipated in the drafting of the MOU - it's clear by the "for further clarity" statement they contemplated situations involving trading RFA rights, but they didn't specifically address in the drafting whether the new waiver would apply to offer sheets. The use of "a Club's reserve list" vs. "Player's Club's reserve list" or "the Club holding the rights to that Player's reserve list at the start of the season" is sloppy and evidences the issue.

Feaster is 100% right that there was a possible issue to advance with the league if they took a contrary position (which they have). If the agreement was that each club should have a list of RFA's who would be waiver exempt, and that exemption only applied for those players when they signed to that team, it should say so, vs being ambiguous about whether it was enough that the player was on someone's list.

Is it kind of bush league that this came out in public the way it did? Sure. I'm of the opinion though that had no one noticed the sloppy MOU drafting, and had Colorado not made this moot by matching, no one involved would have actually interpreted it the way the NHL is saying now. They would have interpreted it the way Feaster does, which is that the exemption was meant to allow RFAs who played overseas during the lockout to not fall within the waiver rule of the old CBA, which allows rights trading and offer sheets to operate as they would had this not been a wonky season with the lockout.

So, Feaster may be taking the heat for this, but I think that the likely outcome would have never actually involved this waiver BS had Colorado not matched. This is a non-story in a lot of ways.

Those are some fine points, but with just one phone call Feaster could of learned that the league would be of the position O'Reilly would have to go through waivers and he could of:

a. not done the offer sheet and avoid the mess all together
b. lobby for his interpretation to be the one the league follows and then do the offer sheet

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by morgin

We'll never know now that sports media (which in this case is really just a bunch of legally unqualified people who know about sports trying to cover complicated concepts like contract law) has run with this story. However, the more I think about this, the more I think there was literally almost zero gamble.

All Players on a Club's Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing. For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23.

It seems absurd to read this exemption and deduce that it was meant to not include offer sheet signings. In fact, I would think that if they wanted to do so, they would probably need to have a statement saying "for further clarity, this exemption shall not apply in the case of a Player on a Club's Restricted Free Agent List signing an offer sheet with another Club." or something of that nature.

The whole idea was to permit certain overseas players (in this case, a RFA) to get back into the NHL when the prior CBA would have required them to go through waivers. It makes zero sense that they would be eligible for the exemption if it is their current team signing them or a rights trade, but not an offer sheet. Why would the whole offer sheet regime be ignored? I would think you'd actually need to specifically exclude it if that was the intention.

I'd agree if it was just a bunch of media and message board people spitballing, but the NHL has gone on the record that there's a distinction based on how they interpret the CBA that was just agreed to a couple of months ago.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe feaster left a voicemail?

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This makes absolutely no sense. Feaster did not do his homework before pulling the trigger on this offer. He is 100% to blame. End of story.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

HAHAHA @ all of these Canucks/Oilers trolls showing up out of nowhere. Where the hell were they when the Canucks got manhandled by the Kings or when the Oilers get spanked?

Who cares we are 14th in the west,with complete morons ready to fix this.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Those are some fine points, but with just one phone call Feaster could of learned that the league would be of the position O'Reilly would have to go through waivers and he could of:

a. not done the offer sheet and avoid the mess all together
b. lobby for his interpretation to be the one the league follows and then do the offer sheet

Realize that what we are being told in press reports and soundbytes is likely 5% of the real story.

Given what has happened and how off guard everyone seems to be, it is highly unlikely the NHL actually thought this through prior to today and made a determination regarding waivers and offer sheets to RFAs who played overseas. Daly can say whatever he wants now, but again, do you really think they would have gone to war with the Flames over ####ty drafting in the MOU had Colorado not matched? Doubtful.

It's embarassing for the Flames that this has become the story it is. That said, again if you actually think through the language in the MOU, it's very unlikely the real intention was the one the league has come out today and indicated they are supporting. They can say that now to dissuade players from holding out, which is an interesting anti-NHLPA move in itself.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

The Flames will do an internal investigation to determine what happened.
Compare this to the business world that Murray Edwards lives and breathes. If an exec in one of his O&G companies entered into a contract to acquire a property that ended up in the company not only not getting the property but losing what was offered in consideration for those assets, you can bet your azz that heads would fly. This isn't the Redford government where this would be covered up and result in a promotion for Feaster. Feaster is done if its shown he didn't do his due diligence.

I bet Edwards was right there saying We Will show everyone that we are not playing around.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'd agree if it was just a bunch of media and message board people spitballing, but the NHL has gone on the record that there's a distinction based on how they interpret the CBA that was just agreed to a couple of months ago.

Is there more than this statement?

The NHL declined to clarify whether O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if the Avalanche refused to match Calgary's offer sheet.
"We agree with the Flames in the sense that the entire issue has become an academic point," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email to The Canadian Press. "Ryan O'Reilly has signed a contract with the Colorado Avalanche and the contract has been registered. We have nothing further to say on the subject."

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

I bet Edwards was right there saying We Will show everyone that we are not playing around.

Possibly but Edwards pays Feaster to know the CBA and its ramifications, had Feaster told Edwards 'by the way Murrey there's a chance the league will force us to put the kid on waivers and we will lose him the picks and 2.5 mill' I have no doubt Murrey would have told Feaster to drop the deal.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by morgin

Is there more than this statement?

He told TSN that O'Reilly would've needed to clear waivers to join the Flames. I don't know if there was a direct quote, but they attributed that position to him and no one with the league has retracted or rebutted it in the 7-8 hours since.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Daly himself backed off on that position in an email to the Canadian Press, which is where the quote came from.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/90...it-waiver-wire

[d_phaneuf]

the Flames have to have a CBA specialist guy (I assume most teams do), if they do he should have all ready been fired

[morgin]

Originally Posted by opendoor

He told TSN that O'Reilly would've needed to clear waivers to join the Flames. I don't know if there was a direct quote, but they attributed that position to him and no one with the league has retracted or rebutted it in the 7-8 hours since.

Curious if there are any players left who could be impacted by this.

Interesting that the NHL's official position is they have no position, but it's being attributed that they are taking the waiver would be required position. Again, I think that's kind of the default anti-NHLPA response, as it reduces the bargaining power of players who are holding out. I'm sure the league would love that to be the case. As I explained earlier though, the way the MOU is drafted, it would be pretty difficult to successfully make that argument. Maybe they like it being a grey area for now. Will be clarified in the new CBA language at any rate, so Feaster will either be vindicated or scapegoated then.

[jschick88]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

the Flames have to have a CBA specialist guy (I assume most teams do), if they do he should have all ready been fired

Michael Holditch

In this role Michael works closely with General Manager Jay Feaster and Director of Hockey Administration Mike Burke on the direction of all hockey operations including CBA interpretation, team development, administration and tracking of the player budget, player negotiations, arbitration, scheduling and contract review and documentation.

http://flames.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=40740

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Adrian Dater @adater
O'Reilly agent Pat Morris admits on @JeffMarek and @wyshynski podcast he didn't know waiver rule. Said he wouldn't have let Flames sign if so.

Looks like nobody knew about it.

So he says. I am not saying he is lying, but if he did mislead the Flames, would he fess up? Of course not.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by morgin

Curious if there are any players left who could be impacted by this.

Interesting that the NHL's official position is they have no position, but it's being attributed that they are taking the waiver would be required position. Again, I think that's kind of the default anti-NHLPA response, as it reduces the bargaining power of players who are holding out. I'm sure the league would love that to be the case. As I explained earlier though, the way the MOU is drafted, it would be pretty difficult to successfully make that argument. Maybe they like it being a grey area for now. Will be clarified in the new CBA language at any rate, so Feaster will either be vindicated or scapegoated then.

It's hard to say with the publicly available information. From what I understand the CBA is pretty much finished but not released. Maybe Feaster would eventually be proven correct, but it's a pretty big risk to take.

Here's a quote from Ken Holland on the matter and he highlights how cautious you need to be right now:

Right now it's a little bit of a different time because there's a CBA in place and we don't really have the book. We've got the Memorandum of Understanding, but you'd like to get the CBA and read through it and when you're thinking of doing things you always call the league and double check to make sure your interpretation is the correct interpretation.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Dion

All Feaster had to do was call Daly to get a clarification on the rule. He didn't and now the Flames have egges on their face. I find it hard to fathom that no one on the Flames would not be up to date on the CBA and it's rulings.

Sherman of the Avs has egg on his face too. Had he and his staff been up to date on the rule he could have alerted Feaster to this and in the end avoided paying O'Reilly the money he will recieve

The person that wins here is O'Reilly. Then there's Matt Duchene and his agent who will next year be pointing to O'Reilly and his contract saying if he is worth 6.4 mill then so is my player.

This is beyond Daly. Its a CBA issue and would have been decided by an arbitrator or someone else. The PA wouldn't like it (although this is a situation isn't likely to repeat itself often). O'Reilly signed with Calgary... they wouldn't want the NHL to throw him on waivers to whoever... defeats the purpose of free agency.