Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: Should Jay Feaster be fired?
Yes he's the head of the hockey department 445 60.30%
No one of his reports are in charge of details like this 107 14.50%
No the offers sheet wasn't effective so no loss to the team 186 25.20%
Voters: 738. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2013, 11:30 PM   #1181
Phanuthier
Franchise Player
 
Phanuthier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoho View Post
Feaster offered an RFA a contract, what loophole did he use?
I'm trying to figure that out too. People keep saying Feaster is a genius for finding this supposed loophole - what loophole is this? That he can, GASP, offer a RFA an offer sheet? Genius! Executive of the year!
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Phanuthier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:33 PM   #1182
GrammarPolice
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
I

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.
When I suggested it, my tongue was in cheek. The ethical (and probably prudent) thing for Sherman to do had he known about the waiver issue would be to announce.

But, I don't know if I agree with the league coming down hard on Colorado for taking on assets to help the Flames make the best out of a situation they got themselves into.

Bottom dwellers demand valuable assets to take on bad contracts when they help out teams that get themselves into cap space trouble. The league has no issue with that to my knowledge. The league also doesn't look favourably on offer sheets as it creates upward pressure on salaries. Daly seemed to suggest as much with his earlier comments.
GrammarPolice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:35 PM   #1183
kehatch
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier View Post
I'm trying to figure that out too. People keep saying Feaster is a genius for finding this supposed loophole - what loophole is this? That he can, GASP, offer a RFA an offer sheet? Genius! Executive of the year!
The loophole is simple. The CBA requires waivers in this case. The MOU isn't clear in its wording and can be interpreted as not requiring waivers. Feaster may have decided to take advantage of the poor wording in the MOU by claiming ignorance and hoping for leniency from the NHL and PA. Failing that he would have filed a grievance.

Either way, the loophole is that (if he won) he would have got the player without having to go through the waiver process even though the CBA requires waivers.

I don't know if he was doing that intentionally or was just ignorant. But he might have been playing the loophole (which would explain why he didn't clarify the interpretation with the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet).
kehatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:37 PM   #1184
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
Old 03-01-2013, 11:41 PM   #1185
bomber317
Powerplay Quarterback
 
bomber317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrammarPolice View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
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.
Don't forget the option of trading. It was mentioned before that many GMs thought Colorado could do better than a 1st and 3rd round pick they would have received as compensation. They may have been able to orchestrate a good return as time went by. Who knows what a desperate GM would do to trade for ROR.

In terms of an offer sheet bailing out Colorado - I don't think this one really bailed them out. Colorado is taking a lot of heat for matching the contract. The offer sheet was structure so that Colorado would NOT match.
bomber317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:41 PM   #1186
kehatch
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrammarPolice View Post
When I suggested it, my tongue was in cheek. The ethical (and probably prudent) thing for Sherman to do had he known about the waiver issue would be to announce.

But, I don't know if I agree with the league coming down hard on Colorado for taking on assets to help the Flames make the best out of a situation they got themselves into.

Bottom dwellers demand valuable assets to take on bad contracts when they help out teams that get themselves into cap space trouble. The league has no issue with that to my knowledge. The league also doesn't look favourably on offer sheets as it creates upward pressure on salaries. Daly seemed to suggest as much with his earlier comments.
Taking assets to take on a bad contract is still a player transaction. Telling a team that if they don't pay up then you are going to refuse to match their offer sheet causing them to lose picks for nothing is blackmail.

It is a significant distinction and one that the league wouldn't tolerate. In this or any other NA pro league.

The league may (or may not) dislike offer sheets. But they are in the CBA they negotiated. Regardless, they aren't going to endorse blackmail in an effort to discourage future offer sheets.

Sorry man, but the implication that black mail would be tolerated by the NHL and that Colorado should have held the Flames feet over the fire for a draft pick is just wrong.
kehatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:42 PM   #1187
HELPNEEDED
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Cool Ville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.
both of them add to each other
HELPNEEDED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:45 PM   #1188
kehatch
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
Scenario 1: Feaster isn't doing enough or hasn't done enough to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Scenario 2 (of 100's really): Feaster took a risk which fell into the very very low probability sector to get a legitimate center. Conclusion: fire him.

Poor guy.
Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.
kehatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:50 PM   #1189
Leeman4Gilmour
First Line Centre
 
Leeman4Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Normally, my desk
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.
I'm sure if you took a quick look at some timelines, you'd see the flaws in scenario 3
Leeman4Gilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:53 PM   #1190
Matty81
Franchise Player
 
Matty81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.
I think you're bang on - you don't pick up all-star calibre young players building on the fly.

I just question if it's Feaster's bad decision to lead the club into another dark ages or if it's ownership. If it is his choice, by all means fire him immediately. The Flames strategic planning has made them a laughingstock around the league and really even sapped alot of us of any hope for the foreseeable future.
Matty81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:54 PM   #1191
Dorkmaster
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
Scenario 3: Feaster should recognize after the failed Phaneuf / Stajan trade, Jokinen 1-2-3, failed attempt at Richards/Carter/Richards/Turris, Cervenka experiement, attempt at vets like Conroy/Morrison, etc, etc etc that filling the types of holes he needs to fill while 'building on the fly' isn't reasonable and as such should take a different approach.

This is a desperation move in a series of desperation moves. If he won't turn the page then the conclusion should be: fire him.
As much as I'd rather rebuild, the ownership group is not going in that direction. The general manager (Feaster) is a reflection of this and firing Feaster just means another is brought in with the intent of competing. Given that this is the path that the Flames are taking, I really think Feaster has done a solid job.

All firing Feaster will do is result in another GM coming in and doing the exact same thing. I think Feaster's trading and general re-tooling of the management group has been a huge positive for the club.
Dorkmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dorkmaster For This Useful Post:
Old 03-01-2013, 11:54 PM   #1192
Frank MetaMusil
RANDOM USER TITLE CHANGE
 
Frank MetaMusil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour View Post
I'm sure if you took a quick look at some timelines, you'd see the flaws in scenario 3
The only peices of that post relating to Feaster are Richards & Cervenka, really.

Sutter made the Phaneuf trade
Sutter signed Stajan to a 4 year extension 2 months later.
Sutter signed Morrison, but Feaster re-signed him, so that counts as well.
Sutter traded for Jokinen, traded Jokinen away, and re-signed Jokinen
Conroy retired.

Last edited by Frank MetaMusil; 03-02-2013 at 12:00 AM.
Frank MetaMusil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:58 PM   #1193
Phanuthier
Franchise Player
 
Phanuthier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch View Post
The loophole is simple. The CBA requires waivers in this case. The MOU isn't clear in its wording and can be interpreted as not requiring waivers. Feaster may have decided to take advantage of the poor wording in the MOU by claiming ignorance and hoping for leniency from the NHL and PA. Failing that he would have filed a grievance.

Either way, the loophole is that (if he won) he would have got the player without having to go through the waiver process even though the CBA requires waivers.

I don't know if he was doing that intentionally or was just ignorant. But he might have been playing the loophole (which would explain why he didn't clarify the interpretation with the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet).
But he wasn't the only one making an offer sheet

Not much of a loop hole

I'm not blasting him for his ignorance, but I think its flat out stupid to be giving him credit for finding this so called "loop hole' ... this "loop hole" didn't stop any other team from trying to tender ROR a offer sheet.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Phanuthier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:59 PM   #1194
genetic_phreek
First Line Centre
 
genetic_phreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: VanCity
Exp:
icon57

Let's never mention rebuild. I still get nightmares from the days of "young guns".
genetic_phreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:01 AM   #1195
timbit
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorkmaster View Post
As much as I'd rather rebuild, the ownership group is not going in that direction. The general manager (Feaster) is a reflection of this and firing Feaster just means another is brought in with the intent of competing. Given that this is the path that the Flames are taking, I really think Feaster has done a solid job.

All firing Feaster will do is result in another GM coming in and doing the exact same thing. I think Feaster's trading and general re-tooling of the management group has been a huge positive for the club.
How is it a huge positive? The team is light years behind anyone in the conference re prospects and proper nucleus in the 23-27 age bracket.
timbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:10 AM   #1196
Phanuthier
Franchise Player
 
Phanuthier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
Exp:
Default

Also if Feaster think he is a genius for finding this "loop hole" and risking it, knowing it can be interpreted differently and there is a chance the Flames could come up with nothing AND lost $2.5M... then for sure, he should be fired and would be quite possibly the stupidest thing I can think of that any GM has done in the history of the NHL.

Mistakes are forgivable, this "finding a loop hole" crap is stupid.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Phanuthier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:18 AM   #1197
MolsonInBothHands
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.
MolsonInBothHands is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MolsonInBothHands For This Useful Post:
Old 03-02-2013, 12:19 AM   #1198
BloodFetish
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbit View Post
How is it a huge positive? The team is light years behind anyone in the conference re prospects and proper nucleus in the 23-27 age bracket.
True. But look back to two years ago where the Flames were the second oldest club behind Detroit. Now they're middle of the pack.

The prospect pool is better than it has been, with a couple prospects to really get excited about. That hasn't been the case since.....well I can't even remember.

Baertschi, Backlund, Brodie, Bouma (if he wasn't injured) are full time players that were drafted and developed by the Flames, and all of them look to be solid contributors in the future.

I'm not saying everything is perfect, or that Feaster can't be criticized. Mostly I'm equally parts amused/frustrated by people expecting this club be turned around overnight.

Last edited by BloodFetish; 03-02-2013 at 12:23 AM.
BloodFetish is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BloodFetish For This Useful Post:
Old 03-02-2013, 12:20 AM   #1199
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster View Post
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.
The fact the MOU is slightly vague is exactly why Holland said you have to call the league to get clarification before you do something like this. There is a more detailed document that hasn't been distributed yet, but the league can use it to clairfy any vague issues. If Holland knows this, Feaster should too.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 12:20 AM   #1200
timbit
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands View Post
Thinking about this a little more... IF Feaster was confident enough in his interpretation of the MOU to proceed with the offer sheet, this would not be the first time he was ahead of the curve in using the rules to his advantage. Dont forget, he was able to get to Cervenka, before other clubs thought they were permitted. IF he was aware.
That makes me feel better.
timbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy