Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Wisers

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.

It's not a fact that he did not know what he was doing, he did not just about make a major mistake, and he did not plead stupid.

The only part of your post that is correct is that the rule in the CBA agreement is obvious, but it's not in the way you think it is.

[edn88]

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

Feaster was the one who signed him though. You don't sign paperwork without knowing everything that it entails.

Especially at the NHL level.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

wow, what an embarrassing show of incompetence...looks good on him

This is the guy steering the ship???

Happy Easter!

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Feaster was the one who signed him though. You don't sign paperwork without knowing everything that it entails.

Especially at the NHL level.

Ya, but that's just fine print...who reads that stuff?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

Happens all the time in the real world... sucks for Feaster, but when you are the GM... ya you area the fall guy.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

If I've read everything correctly, Feaster has said he had a different interpretation (am I wrong?). He knew it existed but, if true, failed to get the necessary clarification and as a poster aptly put it, gambled a 1st and 3rd round draft pick that his interpretation was correct. Until we hear from every GM etc I don't think we can say no one knew about the rule. In fact I think there are sort of two issues or potential oversights that result in the same possible problem...one is that there may be an interpretation issue. The second is that I suspect many GMs may have missed that ROR played in games following the resolution to the lockout putting the rule in play. So when I see/hear that Gillis/Gilman knew the rule and it was their interpretation they may not have known about the fact ROR played a game or two and was subject to the rule. In the end it is the job of the GM to know the rules and if a mistake is made it really isn't relevant that no one else knew the rule or not.

Hey in my real life I've made mistakes that had a consequence. Even though everyone else may have made the same mistake the fact was I made it and I had to own it.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

It was a member of the media that found the death blow for the Flames.

[PuckFather]

Originally Posted by blankall

They won't acknowldge it, because it's not true. From the CBA information document:

http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf



This is just sports writers trying to drum up hits. Feaster is clearly a better lawyer than Bob McKenzie.

Jay, is that you?

[Leeman4Gilmour]

A lot of torches and pitchforks, wow.

FWIW, I agree with both gargamel and blankall and perhaps others as I didn't read the entire thread. As clear as it may appear to most, I think you could successfully argue a different interpretation. This would make Feaster's risk pretty negligible.

Another way to look at it, if the interpretation of that rule was so obvious (or existence of that rule so apparent) Pat Morris should be under heavy scrutiny as well. He really hampered his clients negotiating ability by allowing him to play after the deadline.

I'm a fan who is still happy with the attempt to improve the team (not an option in the poll).

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

A lot of torches and pitchforks, wow.

FWIW, I agree with both gargamel and blankall and perhaps others as I didn't read the entire thread. As clear as it may appear to most, I think you could successfully argue a different interpretation. This would make Feaster's risk pretty negligible.

Another way to look at it, if the interpretation of that rule was so obvious (or existence of that rule so apparent) Pat Morris should be under heavy scrutiny as well. He really hampered his clients negotiating ability by allowing him to play after the deadline.

I'm a fan who is still happy with the attempt to improve the team (not an option in the poll).

How can it be negligible, if the one guy who does matter (Bill Daly) interprets it a different way?

IMO ignorance is forgivable; negligence is fireable.

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

A lot of torches and pitchforks, wow.

FWIW, I agree with both gargamel and blankall and perhaps others as I didn't read the entire thread. As clear as it may appear to most, I think you could successfully argue a different interpretation. This would make Feaster's risk pretty negligible.

Another way to look at it, if the interpretation of that rule was so obvious (or existence of that rule so apparent) Pat Morris should be under heavy scrutiny as well. He really hampered his clients negotiating ability by allowing him to play after the deadline.

I'm a fan who is still happy with the attempt to improve the team (not an option in the poll).

He got his client bigger money by using an incompetent loser as a pawn.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by gargamel

It's not a fact that he did not know what he was doing, he did not just about make a major mistake, and he did not plead stupid.

The only part of your post that is correct is that the rule in the CBA agreement is obvious, but it's not in the way you think it is.

We get it you are a lawyer,


Just because you say it's cut and dry honestly doesn't mean anything to me unless your specialty is NHL CBA. Sorry no offence


If you have experience fighting cases on semantics and hinging on interpretation wording that is fine, I personally think it was a needless reckless move, by someone who had no clue and is "back pedalling" now that the bullet was dodged


What's his next big Shrewd move because this one sure did a great job of embarrassing the franchise

[BigJim]

I just find it hard to believe that the NHL would allow one of it's clubs to get into this position, especially since it affects the player so severely.

https://twitter.com/andystrickland

"NHL didn't indicate waivers would be needed when several interested teams checked with league regarding O'Reilly contract"

[nik-]

If you guys are still buying that Feaster even knew about this rule well then I've got a bridge to sell you. There's no way someone who's aware of this gambles the picks on an assumption instead of making a 3 minute phone call to make sure.

He got exposed and he's in damage control mode. Unfortunately for him, his excuse makes him appear reckless instead of just incompetent.

[Weiser Wonder]

Yes. I really don't think he knows what he's doing at this point with this and the Cervenka doesn't actually play center thing.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by edn88

So, everyone in the hockey universe was not aware that O'Reilly could not effectively be signed to an offer sheet and somehow Feaster should take the fall?

I find it ridiculous that the esteemed media who have been speculating about an offer sheet for this guy, were never aware of the rule, and now can somehow overlook their own ignorance and rip the Flames.

Definitely interesting that this was brought only now considering ROR has been combed over like every attractive asset. And with that Andy Strickland tweet, I'm still thinking that Feaster was on to something and nothing came out of it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by BigJim

I just find it hard to believe that the NHL would allow one of it's clubs to get into this position, especially since it affects the player so severely.

https://twitter.com/andystrickland

"NHL didn't indicate waivers would be needed when several interested teams checked with league regarding O'Reilly contract"

Besides the fact that its not always the NHL's job to protect teams from themselves, I don't think they particularly like big, overpaid contracts driving up player salaries after we JUST had a lockout to try and get salaries out of control. So, if a team (i.e. Flames) try and blow their brains out, its not the NHL's job to make sure they do carry it out.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

Yes he should, along with Ken King on down.

Nah, man. Nah.

[nik-]

They're just going to rationalize keeping him until he gets to make his "Phaneuf trade" then they'll get rid of him.