Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by stignasty

I'm happy with saying that the Flames dodged a bullet and I can live with that moving forward.

The worst part of it right now will be waiting for the hockey media to work themselves out of "Ha! Ha! Stupid Flames!" mode.

Im not. Who put them in the media's ha ha stupid flames mode.

This to me is very simple. The flames via leadership of Feaster potentially exposed the flames to a chance of a massive problem that they clearly didn't understand. All they had to do is call the league to work out a ruling before signing the offer sheet. Feaster isn't a 75k/yr assistant or administrator. He has a massive responsibility that he clearly doesn't have the skill to manage.

[indes]

Thank God that didn't go through, what if we couldn't afford Comeau next year?

[Barca]

Wasn't there anyone better that was available when Sutter was fired? It's kinda odd when i saw the Flames hire Feaster after his time with Tampa. The guy didnt know what he was doing there and all of a sudden he's picked to clean up the mess Sutter left behind...

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by indes

Thank God that didn't go through, what if we couldn't afford Comeau next year?

whoa, whoa whoa! Knock it off...

We're building something special down here in Calgary

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Barca

Wasn't there anyone better that was available when Sutter was fired? It's kinda odd when i saw the Flames hire Feaster after his time with Tampa. The guy didnt know what he was doing there and all of a sudden he's picked to clean up the mess Sutter left behind...

He's got some good ideas about progressive metrics to measure value by, however he's not a competent manager. I can see how he sounds good in a interview, but as a GM you should know the CBA inside out. You should be almost able to say it out loud in your sleep. He's a great assistant who can come up with ideas, but not a leader who is responsible for things like managing within a CBA.

Even his quotes to the press were brutal. He made a point of saying they were aware of the clause all along. If so, why not ask about it? and that its excusable because even the agent wasn't aware. If I'm the agent, I just sign the big $$ deal, I don't tell the dumba$$ GM about the clause or give him any reason to reduce the value of the deal that is well in excess of what Colorado was offering.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Barca

Wasn't there anyone better that was available when Sutter was fired? It's kinda odd when i saw the Flames hire Feaster after his time with Tampa. The guy didnt know what he was doing there and all of a sudden he's picked to clean up the mess Sutter left behind...

He knew enough in Tampa to draft Stamkos and resign when ownership insisted he sign Lecavalier to that ridiculous contract.

His hiring here, however, was bizarre. On the face of it, having someone to talk to the media in lieu of Darryl was a good idea. And while he appears to have drastically turned around our prospect pool in two short years, his efforts at the NHL level scream 'yes man' to me. It's like he knows this is his last shot at an NHL GM job, and he's doing everything he can to hold onto it.

[868904]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Sorry, but if the GM of Vancouver can figure it out, then i would hope a lawyer acting as a GM could figure it out.

Ken Holland today said that if he was in the same situation he would have called the league office. He said he would not take the gamble that Feaster took.

Yeah I don't really buy the whole Gillis knew what was going on thing. I don't think any GM knew about this. Gillis was on some morning radio show BEFORE the storey broke and was asked to comment on whether the Canucks were going to offer sheet ROR. Gillis simply said they didn't because they thought Colorado would match. If Gillis knew about the waiver issue, he definitely would have brought it up to show how smart he is, he is that type of arrogant pompous ass.

All the GM's who are saying they knew are just lying.

The bigger idiot is Sherman, if he knew of this waiver issue, he should have made it public and known to all GM's which would have killed any chance of an offer sheet and thus saved the Avalanche a ton of money on this contract, and on subsequent contracts. If Feaster gets canned for this, so should Sherman, for all the money he's going to cost the Avalanche.

By the way, I'm not in Feaster's corner, I want him gone, but I think he did what every other GM would have done and its' unfair to hang this waiver thing on him. NO GM in the NHL knew about this.

[sven]

Wake up Feaster fans!!!
I can understand some fans overlooking this issue and willing to forgive Feaster because it's such an obscure situation/rule in the CBA which many other NHL execs were unaware of as well but, what blows my mind is the people that continue to defend Feaster's move like he did the right thing?
You guys are obviously in denial.

Like its been posted numerous times, there are only 3 Options

1) Feaster didn't know what he was doing (Didn't know about the waiver rule)

or

2) Feaster and his brain trust understood article 13.23 completely different from 90% of the population (which is odd because you would think someone from that group might peep up and say, hey, what if the rule actually means...") and were so confident in their knowledge that they didn't even bother checking with the league

3) They knew the waiver rule but decided to do it anyway because they found a secret loophole and was willing to go through mediation and court cases to make an RFA offer sheet work

I feel like the Feaster supporters would choose option 2 or 3 but at then end of the day, all 3 options = fail

You know who also gets a fail? Sherman and ROR's agent

ROR's agent gave his client wrong advice and almost sent his client to Columbus

Sherman failed because if he told the rest of the league the CBA rule, no one would dare offersheet ROR and he could have signed him for less

Moreover, Sherman just like Feaster was unaware of this rule and and did not use this situation to come out on top.
He could have traded a minor league prospect for a solid Columbus roster player by guaranteeing that he would not match ROR's offersheet thereby sending him to the waiver wire.
Sherman would then have had Flames 1st and 3rd round pick PLUS a solid player from Columbus for ROR

I feel for Feaster in that I think most GMs did not know this rule. It just sucks that Feaster was the one that got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by morgin

There wasn't really a flaw. It's way more likely that until some SN reporter who doesn't understand contract interpretation wrote an "exclusive report" about this waiver issue, no one contemplated it as actually being the intention of the clause. Then instead of taking the time to understand what was being asked, Daly shot off his mouth not fully understanding the situation which apparently he had to later recant. This created a drama ####storm, because then feaster has to put on kid gloves to release a presser that effectively says "the way we interpret the clause (the right way) means that this waiver issue would never have been an issue" without calling out everyone who wrote first and thought things through after.

I think the press release was excellently worded. Anyone who is saying he took a gamble by doing this without checking with the league is assuming anyone associated with the NHL would read the clause that way. Daly made the mistake of saying he did before the NHL lawyers had a chance to pick apart what was being asked. Now their position is that it's an academic issue and a moot point. As in, we all overreacted, lets hope this blows over.

In the meantime the usual suspects (media and CP) have sharpened the tines on their pitchforks and lit the torches.

I don't think we'll know that actual truth until that clause is tested, if it ever is. Would not be surprised to see it reworded for the final CBA document, and if it is that's an indication the league wasn't too clear on it's interpretation either.

Pretty shoddy journalism on the part of that SN employee, too.

[$ven27]

Please stop spamming that same 3 options post over and over.

[sven]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Please stop spamming that same 3 options post over and over.

am I right though or am I missing any other options?

Please feel free to enlighten me

I post this because after 58 pages I honestly don't understand how people still defend Feaster and think he did the right thing and its somehow the league's fault.

Those people sound like whiners like those kids that do something wrong and get in trouble and you hear them whine..."but its not my fault!!!"

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

In the meantime the usual suspects (media and CP) have sharpened the tines on their pitchforks and lit the torches.

I don't think we'll know that actual truth until that clause is tested, if it ever is. Would not be surprised to see it reworded for the final CBA document, and if it is that's an indication the league wasn't too clear on it's interpretation either.

Pretty shoddy journalism on the part of that SN employee, too.

That the Deputy Commish originally agreed with

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Sorry, but if the GM of Vancouver can figure it out, then i would hope a lawyer acting as a GM could figure it out.

Ken Holland today said that if he was in the same situation he would have called the league office. He said he would not take the gamble that Feaster took.

Where did you have Ken Holland say that? Here's what was quoted in the TSN article...

Detroit Red Wings GM Ken Holland stressed that it's tricky to negotiate the new CBA without teams having all the details down on paper to study.
"Obviously, right now it's a different time because there's a CBA in place," Holland told TSN. "We haven't really got the book. We've got the memorandum of understanding, but you'd like to get the book, the CBA and read through it."
Still, though, he believed Feaster and the Flames properly braced themselves for the offer-sheet.
"When you're thinking of doing things, you always call the league and double-check and make sure that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. We all do the same thing and I'm sure Calgary did all their due diligence."

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

In the meantime the usual suspects (media and CP) have sharpened the tines on their pitchforks and lit the torches.

I don't think we'll know that actual truth until that clause is tested, if it ever is. Would not be surprised to see it reworded for the final CBA document, and if it is that's an indication the league wasn't too clear on it's interpretation either.

Pretty shoddy journalism on the part of that SN employee, too.

It was actually very very good journalism.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Yoho

[/B]
That the Deputy Commish originally agreed with

And then later recanted...

Hockeyy Insiderr ‏@HockeyyInsiderr Deputy commish Bill Daly says that actually O'Reilly would not have had to clear waivers to join #Flames.

...so I'm not sure what your point is.

[taxbuster]

It's highly amusing to read the thrashings of many who clearly have no legal background or understanding of how legal agreements work. The words are the point - not what Bill Daly "thinks" or some SN writer gets people to prattle - and Daly is certainly not the final arbiter of how the CBA or MOU is to be interpreted. (An arbitrator would be doing that.)

Thanks to those in this thread who do, indeed, clearly have legal training or are lawyers for actually reading the words of the article and understanding and defending the rather significant difference between "a club" and "the club".

The wording in the MOU is unclear and imprecise and the NHL would have had absolutely zero choice but to allow the deal to conclude in its intended manner. No waiver would be required. How that particular article might show up in the drafted CBA is another matter - but we likely won't find that out for quite some time.

Feaster did what a good lawyer does - he found a loophole and used it.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by 868904

The bigger idiot is Sherman, if he knew of this waiver issue, he should have made it public and known to all GM's which would have killed any chance of an offer sheet and thus saved the Avalanche a ton of money on this contract, and on subsequent contracts. If Feaster gets canned for this, so should Sherman, for all the money he's going to cost the Avalanche.

If Greg Sherman knew about this waiver issue the last thing he should have done is made it public until some sloppy GM actually signs ROR to an offer sheet without doing their due diligence.

Had Sherman not acted so quickly he'd be offering Greg Zanon for the Flame's 1st rounder with the gentleman's agreement that he'd match the offer. Losing your 1st rounder is better asset management than losing your 1st and 3rd and $2.5M. I'm not sure Feaster would agree but Flame's ownership surely would.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

And then later recanted...


...so I'm not sure what your point is.

That Twitter account is about the most illegitimate source going.

[Yoho]

Feaster offered an RFA a contract, what loophole did he use?

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It was actually very very good journalism.

Okay, it was a good read and I like the back story.

But the whole reason for this article to be written was this bit...

The circumstances would have been much different if Calgary’s offer sheet was accepted.
That would have created a potentially disastrous situation where the Flames had to send two decent draft picks to Colorado before losing the rights to O’Reilly immediately afterwards.

The writer made his own interpretation of the clause and wrote an article around it. I saw a reference that "he was told" his interpretation was the case but I'm not sure by whom. Does he say his interpretation was confirmed by the league, or any other source? Not that I can see.

Hell, many other GMs and even the league itself wasn't clear on that clause. How could the journalist be?