Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Frank MetaMusil]

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...

Darryl Sutter recommended the Flames hire Feaster. It's kind of ironic in that Feaster ultimately has become a piece of the mess that Darryl created.

"I negotiated the deal just to take a little pressure off of Darryl during that time period, but Darryl identified him, recommended him -- and he was right on the money with him."

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../14651191.html

[sven]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

And then later recanted...


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

Besides hockey Insider, are there any other sources that state Daly retracts statement and that Feaster had it right?

If so, I will be the first to apologize to Feaster.

And this makes Daly a huge ###### for unnecessarily stirring up trouble with wrong information.

This also would make me a ###### for going out with a pitchfork without getting my facts straight

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

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 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?

he interpreted the clause like many in the NHL have, and he was the first to do so. Its a potential faux pas by the league in their verbage of a document that everyone has to follow to operate in accordance with the rules.

It still sounds like he was right as well depending on whom you want to believe.

Either way though, and this is not debateable, at the very least Feaster was rolling the dice that his interpretation of the clause was correct and there was a very real chance that he would have had his name attached to what would of amounted to single biggest GM'ing blunder in the NHL's history.

That's saying something.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its not their job... but they also aren't in the 'gotcha' business.

No was none. Nobody told them to give an offer sheet

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by sven

This also would make me a ###### for going out with a pitchfork without getting my facts straight

You had your facts straight, but the facts subsequently have changed.

Uncomfortable questions remain whether or not ROR would have been subject to waivers:

If there was any question about the Flame's risk exposure why was the NHL not called for opinion as Holland suggested he would have done?

Why did Feaster's statement hint that Pat Morris agreed with Feaster's assessment of Article 13 when Morris later stated he was unaware of the potential impact?

Maybe there are plausible and acceptable answers to these questions but I can't see them.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

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.

And since he didn't blackmail the Flames, I find it hard to believe that:
A) Sherman or most GMs were aware of the waiver issue before hand
B) Sherman COULD not 'blackmail' anybody into a trade like that even finding out about it after



It only makes sense for Sherman to announce to ROR and the rest of the league that making an offer sheet is legally futile and pointless unless you're the Columbus Blue Jackets. Takes away and bargaining power that ROR would have had since Colorado has proved repeatedly to stay strong to their principles.

[sven]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

You had your facts straight, but the facts subsequently have changed.

Uncomfortable questions remain whether or not ROR would have been subject to waivers:

If there was any question about the Flame's risk exposure why was the NHL not called for opinion as Holland suggested he would have done?

Why did Feaster's statement hint that Pat Morris agreed with Feaster's assessment of Article 13 when Morris later stated he was unaware of the potential impact?

Maybe there are plausible and acceptable answers to these questions but I can't see them.

I think the NHL will have to absolutely address this because what if this situation happens again?

They should feel blessed that Avs matched and there's no contention at this point but, they should still clarify for teams going forward

And Daly better explain himself

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Darryl Sutter recommended the Flames hire Feaster. It's kind of ironic in that Feaster ultimately has become a piece of the mess that Darryl created.



http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../14651191.html

I think King hired Feaster. Darryl Sutter has a history of hiring people that are cut from the same cloth and who Darryl has a history with.

Feaster is neither of these.

The Feaster hiring should have been the first indication that Darryl was out the door. I think it was a few months in the making after the crazy weekend in January 2010.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

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.

That makes no sense at all.

In your scenario, Colorado would be doing poor asset management.

They would control all of the cards in the dealings if they had announced that ROR would have to go though waivers. Then no team would make an offer sheet. Then Colorado would control how much ROR would get paid, or control what they would get in return for a trade involving ROR.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by Anduril

And since he didn't blackmail the Flames, I find it hard to believe that:
A) Sherman or most GMs were aware of the waiver issue before hand
B) Sherman COULD not 'blackmail' anybody into a trade like that even finding out about it after



It only makes sense for Sherman to announce to ROR and the rest of the league that making an offer sheet is legally futile and pointless unless you're the Columbus Blue Jackets. Takes away and bargaining power that ROR would have had since Colorado has proved repeatedly to stay strong to their principles.

I agree that Sherman (and most everybody save perhaps the smarty pants in Vancouver if you believe them) did not know about the waiver risk.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at with CBJ but Sportsnet reported tonight that you can't claim your own player.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by sven

Besides hockey Insider, are there any other sources that state Daly retracts statement and that Feaster had it right?

If so, I will be the first to apologize to Feaster.

And this makes Daly a huge ###### for unnecessarily stirring up trouble with wrong information.

This also would make me a ###### for going out with a pitchfork without getting my facts straight

I haven't been able to find out what their source is, and no twitter account to ask them myself. It's been mentioned previously in this thread, but like everything else that's just farts in the wind. Could also be it was taken out of context from an email supposedly sent to Eklund and posted on his site...

An email from NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirms that O'Reilly would be the first case under the newly amended rules if and when he returns to the NHL this season.

Daly wrote, " No, he would not be subject to waivers. He would have been under last year's rules, but that was changed in collective bargaining."

So there you have it. O'Reilly can come right back to the Avalanche this season -- or another team, if he is traded -- without the team having to worry about losing him to waivers.

The most recent Daly quote that comes up is very noncommital...

"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."

But in my search I found an interesting article (hope it hasn't already been posted a billion times)...

http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca/

Articles 10 and 13 of the old CBA, the portions that govern offer sheets and waivers, are chalk full of references to the “Prior Club” (the Avalanche) and the “New Club.” (the Flames) This is significant because it shows that the NHL and the NHLPA have treated the Prior Club and the New Club differently in other provisions of the CBA.


So the MOU does not distinguish as to the club signing the player. So the language is such that the parties understood there would not be a distinction between the Prior and New Clubs in this regard.


This gives the Flames an arguable case that O’Reilly should not have been placed on waivers. Not surprisingly, the Flames have stated that their interpretation is not consistent with the League’s interpretation on this point.

[Barca]

Originally Posted by 868904

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.

Gillis doesnt believe in offer sheets unless its for a player like Weber for example, and even then he was hessitant because he knew Nashville would match anything he offered.

Vancouver has invested alot of money for their managment staff, they hired Gilman to be a capoligist and others to look at the CBA stuff.
He was a former agent so these waivers stuff isnt lost to him.

He was asked a simple question wether the Canucks offersheeted ROR, he answered the question.

Were you expecting him to explain the whole CBA stuff to the reporters?

Also, the it was confirmed that the Canucks didnt make an offer to ROR, so why are we getting dragged into this?

[The Voice of Reason]

I get the sense from all of this that very few people had ROR and waivers on their mind before the SN article.

I think I understand the argument posted earlier regarding "the" vs "an". Arguing schematics and winning is certainly possible, but I'm not sure I trust the NHL to rule in the Flames favour. Not only that, claiming some wording the MOU as the basis of your case just sounds like a great way to end up disappointed.

As someone pointed out before, the NHL is the same group that rejected kovy's contract because it didn't follow the intension (not the exact word) of the CBA. I would fully expect the NHL if pushed to rule "What we meant to say was he would have to go through waivers. The wording in the MOU was poorly put together. We have decided that ROR will be sent through waivers before he can join the Flames. Sorry for the confusion."

[kehatch]

I will say this. It is possible Feaster identified the possibility that the O'Reilly might be required to go on waivers. But he would have also known that if he confirmed this with the NHL if the answer was "yes" then he would be dead in the water. He would no longer have the case to file a grievance.

So instead he may have presented to Ken King and the ownership that with the CBA not ratified and the MOU being unclear that they had a strong case in arbitration. In effect they had a window to break the rules. Don't clarify with the NHL and then claim ignorance and file a grievance if it comes down to it.

If Ken King and ownership signed off on the risk then Feaster really isn't responsible. He would be if Colorado didn't match and he ultimately lost in arbitration. But with Colorado matching the offer sheet he was still only acting on the strategy signed off by his superiors.

That said, if that is true, the Flames organization should be ashamed. Knowingly gambling a potential top 5 pick in this draft is irresponsible. Even if they feel they had a strong case.

That all said, if Feaster didn't identify the risk to his superiors (either because he missed it, or just chose not to) then he should be fired. It is his job to know and he needs to be held accountable.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally Posted by bomber317

That makes no sense at all.

In your scenario, Colorado would be doing poor asset management.

They would control all of the cards in the dealings if they had announced that ROR would have to go though waivers. Then no team would make an offer sheet. Then Colorado would control how much ROR would get paid, or control what they would get in return for a trade involving ROR.

It's a hypothetical situation of course, but I guess it's a matter or opinion which is better asset management: keeping said asset on the sidelines while you hope he and his agent will eventually capitulate vs. an overpaid ROR that's actually contributing plus the Flames 1st rounder.

[Matty81]

However the NHL was going to rule on it the bottom line is that it is totally inexcusable to proceed to make such a huge gamble without absolute certainty from the league.

Saying that all the other teams thought he wouldn't have to clear waivers too is about as significant as telling me you banged Kate Upton last night in your dreams. Might make you feel better about yourself temporarily but has no impact on reality.

I feel for Feaster a little, because I think Murray Edwards has his nuts in a little jar somewhere and I don't think anyone would do a good job with an oil guy instructing them on how to run a hockey team but this was a massive oversight and a gamble the club really couldn't afford.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by bomber317

That makes no sense at all.

In your scenario, Colorado would be doing poor asset management.

They would control all of the cards in the dealings if they had announced that ROR would have to go though waivers. Then no team would make an offer sheet. Then Colorado would control how much ROR would get paid, or control what they would get in return for a trade involving ROR.

It depends. I don't agree with how Colorado managed the situation. But from their perspective they felt they couldn't justify paying O'Reilly more money then Duchene. They didn't want to set that precedence.

However, a team putting forward an offer sheet might have bailed them out. It gave them an excuse to give O'Reilly the contract that they had to to sign him. And they even have an excuse not to trade him for the next 12-months.

Not in response to you, but the previous poster (and other) keep saying that Colorado could have (in essence) blackmailed the Flames by requiring assets in exchange for matching. That is just lubricious. There is no way the NHL would let that slide. It would be the type of scandal that would have them coming down HARD on Colorado if they went that way.

[afc wimbledon]

I wouldn't mind a GM, say Feaster, taking a bit of a chance on something in a moderate cost, high risk, high reward sort of way, I am reminded of Pavel Bure getting picked in the 6th round as he might have been ineligable that year.
You can almost see Quinn muttering 'what the hell its a 6th rounder'.

What disturbs me about Feasters actions are that even without this further possible debacle of Keystone Kops proportions (look them up you callow youth) this wasn't a great deal, sure the kid could turn out to be a good center but you are paying full list price for him as well as the draft picks and you have a pretty good indication he may not resign after his contract was up, even without the waiver problem this was a debatable deal with plenty of downside, if it is true that Feaster was aware of the risk (and I dont think he was, I think todays news was the first inciling he had and his subsequent statements are just an attempt to look less incompetant even though they have actually made it look worse) then pulling the trigger on a questionable deal that might end up costing two picks and a couple of mill with nothing to show for it was unconscionable.

[Boniman]

We'll trade you Tambellini for a bag of pucks straight up lol

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

I haven't been able to find out what their source is, and no twitter account to ask them myself. It's been mentioned previously in this thread, but like everything else that's just farts in the wind. Could also be it was taken out of context from an email supposedly sent to Eklund and posted on his site...

The most recent Daly quote that comes up is very noncommital...

But in my search I found an interesting article (hope it hasn't already been posted a billion times)...

http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca/

Holland is being nice. He stated (paraphrased) that you always check your interpretation with the league and he is sure Calgary did in this case. Well, considering that the league commented this morning that waivers were required it sure doesn't sound like Feaster did his due diligence in consulting with them.

Like I said above, either he is incompetent and failed to do his due diligence. Or he intentionally didn't ask the league hoping to take advantage of the poor wording in the MOU by filing a grievance.

Either way shame on him (or shame on whomever gave him the thumbs up).