Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 55 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

opendoor · 03-01-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

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.

The same thing has happened to a bunch of free agents (Nabokov, Wellwood, Miettnen, etc.) where they had to clear waivers before joining the team they signed with. As long as they get their contracts honored in full (which they did), the PA likely isn't going to be too upset about it.

North East Goon · 03-01-2013, 06:43 PM

My only question now, is will this hockey administration admit they were wrong and admit the Flames organization deserves better?

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor

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:

Jesus, where does that quote come from?

Talk about being able to draw a direct comparison between organizations.

jschick88 · 03-01-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Jesus, where does that quote come from?

Talk about being able to draw a direct comparison between organizations.

Quote came from TSN Radio. They also interviewed Gillis and he said he was aware of the waiver rule.

Yoho · 03-01-2013, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jschick88

Quote came from TSN Radio. They also interviewed Gillis and he said he was aware of the waiver rule.

Even if he didn't, he wasn't about to say otherwise so he looked like Feaster to his own fans.

gargamel · 03-01-2013, 06:49 PM

Quote:

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

There was no almost no risk that the final ruling would have gone against Feaster though. I have to point out the "the" vs "an" issue to incompetent lawyers a few times per month, and that's an argument I've never lost. By brining the loophole to the league's attention in advance, it would have risked tipping off other teams that may have been avoiding ROR, and then we'd have created a bidding war. I think it was a shrewd move by Feaster.

I really respect you as a poster, but the leading thread title and the three poll choices that all make the assumption that Feaster was wrong are way off base.

Mathgod · 03-01-2013, 06:51 PM

Almost no risk? You're sure of that?

Yoho · 03-01-2013, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

There was no almost no risk that the final ruling would have gone against Feaster though. I have to point out the "the" vs "an" issue to incompetent lawyers a few times per month, and that's an argument I've never lost. By brining the loophole to the league's attention in advance, it would have risked tipping off other teams that may have been avoiding ROR, and then we'd have created a bidding war. I think it was a shrewd move by Feaster.

I really respect you as a poster, but the leading thread title and the three poll choices that all make the assumption that Feaster was wrong are way off base.

Your right and the "trivial" fact that Daly who represents the NHL saying otherwise was also an "off base" minor inconvience to the shrewd move..

VladtheImpaler · 03-01-2013, 06:54 PM

Spoiler!

afc wimbledon · 03-01-2013, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

There was no almost no risk that the final ruling would have gone against Feaster though. I have to point out the "the" vs "an" issue to incompetent lawyers a few times per month, and that's an argument I've never lost. By brining the loophole to the league's attention in advance, it would have risked tipping off other teams that may have been avoiding ROR, and then we'd have created a bidding war. I think it was a shrewd move by Feaster.

I really respect you as a poster, but the leading thread title and the three poll choices that all make the assumption that Feaster was wrong are way off base.

I cannot see how calling the league would risk starting a bidding war, first the call would take all of a couple of hours tops, all you need is a yes or no, even if it was just provisional and not binding it would give you an indication of what way the trade would go, on top of this I would assume that in order to operate the league has to traet all its teams queries in confidence, it would be chaos otherwise

sureLoss · 03-01-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

There was no almost no risk that the final ruling would have gone against Feaster though. I have to point out the "the" vs "an" issue to incompetent lawyers a few times per month, and that's an argument I've never lost. By brining the loophole to the league's attention in advance, it would have risked tipping off other teams that may have been avoiding ROR, and then we'd have created a bidding war. I think it was a shrewd move by Feaster.

I really respect you as a poster, but the leading thread title and the three poll choices that all make the assumption that Feaster was wrong are way off base.

the poll options were provided by one of our friendly neighbourhood mods not me

also very doubtful this sees a courtroom... this goes to a mediator. The mediator could rule any way. Case and point the Kovalchuk contract that was ruled invalid because it violated the spirit of the salary cap, not because anything in the CBA prevented it.

gargamel · 03-01-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoho

Your right and the "trivial" fact that Daly who represents the NHL saying otherwise was also an "off base" minor inconvience to the shrewd move..

And he walked that statement back later in the day, quite likely because he had a chance to speak to the League's lawyers who told him he was dead wrong.

Like I said, I raise this issue often, and it's never gone to court because the other side has always realized that they had a losing argument long before it got to that point.

mikeecho · 03-01-2013, 06:56 PM

I'm not got to go back through this entire thread, but I was of the impression that multiple teams were extending an offer sheet to ROR (including possibly Van), however ROR elected to sign the offer with Calgary. Should those other GM's (although I'm sure they're all acting like they had no interest) not lose their jobs as well. They dodged a bullet when ROR signed with Calgary, just like how Calgary dodged a bullet when Colorado matched the offer sheet. Or, is it more likely that a number of teams were of belief that this rule would work in their favour just like Calgary did?

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 06:59 PM

Can a mod or vlad kill that obscenely large picture?

VladtheImpaler · 03-01-2013, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Can a mod or vlad kill that obscenely large picture?

There you go.

Wisers · 03-01-2013, 07:02 PM

Let's not try and dilute the fact that Feaster did not know what he was doing and totally just about made a major mistake.He should be fired immediately!! You cannot be in charge of an nhl franchise and plead stupid to a obvious rule in the CBA agreement.

North East Goon · 03-01-2013, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

No, Feaster should not be fired over this. The end.

Yes he should, along with Ken King on down.

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

There you go.

Thanks

North East Goon · 03-01-2013, 07:12 PM

What are the positives to keep this brain trust around for trade deadline?

ernie · 03-01-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgin

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.

Why is it absurd? A trade is different than offer sheet compensation. There would be no need for further clarification because trade and compensation are completely different things. A trade requires a meeting of the minds between the GMs of two clubs. Compensation pretyt much the opposite.