Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

In collective bargaining the interperations of both bargining agents supersede the wording of the collective agreement. Feaster is not one of those.

So checking with one or more parties is the minimum proper due diligence.

Do you believe this was done without speaking to Murray Edwards? I am pretty sure all major transactions go through him and he was very much involved in the collective bargaining.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ok, but Murray Edwards was definitely one of the parties that wrote that agreement.

Oh come the #### on. Murray Edwards had a direct hand in the CBA/MOU draft? You can't possibly know that, and it's a pretty far stretch to even speculate it. Time to take a step back and breathe.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

because in this case they would drive the value of young players up with ROR essentially commanding 6.5M

also they would want to protect what ROR and his agent believed were his rights, Im fairly certain he didnt want to go to CLB and they would step in to defend him

Do you think when the NHL and NHLPA drafted the CBA, they didn't agree on this issue and left it ambiguous on purpose for a day like this?

or do you think they both saw it the same way?

Because although the phrasing of the clause itself might be poor, the intent of the clause is very clear.

But then again as others have mentioned, if "club" means ALL NHL teams, by that logic, the rest of the CBA states that we also own the rights to every player in the league

If AVs didnt match, the Flames would lose their 1st and 3rd and lose out on ROR to waivers

It would take some time to sort through this mess with Feaster appealing

This appeal would fail however because then, the NHL would be setting an incorrect precedent because if this went through, Feaster might as well add Crosby, Malkin, Chara to our line up because we are "a club" in the NHL so we own his rights.

By that logic, we could fight that in court and win too.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Here's the funny thing about this massive fiasco/grave error:


Nothing happened.

Yeah, we should only be able to learn lessons after they do damage.

[Johnny Rotten]

Yes, Feaster should have checked, but what does it say about the MOU if it could be interpreted to mean something different than what it was intended to. The league should take some responsibility here.

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but why didn't the league say to Feaster when right after he made the offer to "hold on here"?

It'd save not only the Flames some embarrassment, but the league as well.

Thank God nobody died here.

[jayswin]

Really not a fan of the wording of the poll questions at all. They left out a key answer that may have swayed some voters. There's no option saying it was a bad move and ultimately Feasters fault, but no I don't think he should be fired over it.

That's a key option. As right now, the wording of the questions suggests that you either a) think he should be fired, b) think it was someone elses fault or c) don't think there was any potential harm or fault in this situation and because of that you don't think he should be fired.

To me, the poll questions are seriously slanting the results based on wording.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, we should only be able to learn lessons after they do damage.

But of course, you could talk about and learn from a near miss. Thing is, because we don't know what Feaster could/would have done had the Avalanche had not matched, it's a stretch to say it was a terrible gamble.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Here's the funny thing about this massive fiasco/grave error:


Nothing happened.

Lol nothing happened?

Like the anaology some have used, why don't you get loaded tonight and drive home. If you make it home safe, its all good right?


We became the laughing stock of the NHL AND our GM's credibility was shot

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Anduril

But of course, you could talk about and learn from a near miss. Thing is, because we don't know what Feaster could/would have done had the Avalanche had not matched, it's a stretch to say it was a terrible gamble.

It's not a stretch to say it was a terrible gamble, it was a terrible gamble.

[sureLoss]

After digesting this for a while and reading the last 10 or so pages of this thread, this is my opinion.

First of all, the intricacies of the CBA or the MOU is immaterial to me. I am not qualified nor do I have experience to draw on to make judgements on what the document supports.

What does interest me is Feaster's "state of mind" or thought process through preparing the offer sheet. There seems to be possible 2 scenarios that may have happened.


Scenario 1: Feaster knew the NHL would put O'Reilly on waivers and planned to challenge it

This scenario is inexcusable for me. I don't care how solid a case Feaster would have presented. There is no way he can guarantee that a judge/mediator would agree with his position . Feaster would be gambling the 1st and 3rd rounders on the chance he could convince the league or get a ruling that O'Reilly would not have to clear waivers to play for the Flames. For a team like the Flames to lose a 1st and 3rd and receive nothing in return would be crippling.

It would be analagous on using the next few years of your mortgage payments to buy lottery tickets in the hopes of winning but ending up homeless. In this case Feaster should be let go.


Scenario 2: Feaster honestly didn't know that O'Reilly would have to pass through waivers

I think this is the more likely of the two scenarios. I do have to question how Feaster came up with his interpretation of 13.23. If a reasonable person with similar experience and education to that of Jay Feaster's can independently come up with the same interpretation as Feaster, then I guess his interpretation of 13.23 is valid as anyone's and he can be justified in not clarifying the rule with the league. This seems to be the case as supported by the reactions of O'Reilly's agent and other GMs. If this is indeed what happened I can't help but support Feaster even if he ended up losing the draft picks cause he did the job to the best of his abilities.

However, there is one caveat to this. I understand the MOU is vague and the GMs had no hand in writing it or the drafts for the final CBA, but as an NHL GM Feaster knows (or at least should know) the reasoning behind 13.23 (i.e. the spirit of why such a rule exists). If his interpretation violates the spirit of 13.23 but not the letter of it, he is naive not to think the league would have a different interpretation and should have called to clarify. In this case he can't objectively read and interpret the CBA and should be fired.

[VladtheImpaler]

Let's say Feaster believes he found a loop hole. If it's simply a question of signing ROR then it's great move. If you are right, you get a very good player for the cost of a contract. If you are wrong, no big deal. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with just signing a guy. There is also the question of your 1st and 3rd round picks. So, the possible outcomes are:

1) You are right. COL does not match. You get ROR for your 1st and 3rd at the cost of the contract.
2) You are right/wrong. COL matches. Nothing happens, other than you further enhance your Kevin Lowesque reputation.
3) You are wrong. COL does not match. You lose the picks, and some cash for nothing.

(3) is obviously a disaster of epic proportions. (2) is what actually happened - IMO just makes us look like more of an Islander/Oiler quality franchise - but whatever. But I question whether (1) would have been such a huge "win". You would have obtained a good player, but nowhere near a "franchise" player that Feaster is trying to hoodwink us with. He would have been rather overpaid and the compensation depends on where we finish.
Therefore, my conclusion is that the potential reward was nowhere near worth the potential downside, and that, as EE posted a few days ago, Al Davis hath indeed risen from the dead and is running this franchise...

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Anduril

1) Really need to get rid of the top 5 pick idea. The Flames are not good most of the time. Nobody can argue that. At the same time, the realistic placing of their draft pick would have been anywhere from 7-14. A pick in that spot plus a 3rd for ROR? Fair trade since ROR has already been tested in the NHL offensively and defensively.

2) Even if the team was out of it, ROR is 22. This is not another Jokinen in his declining career. Once again, not a bad trade off.

I don't think it would be a top 5 pick if O Reilly was on the team within the 7 day match. If you add a couple more weeks in mediation that could have been a different story. By the time he gets in, flames might have to be selling some of their vets for picks, making the team worse for the rest of the year.

Flames are tied for 5th worst right now. Buffalo and Washington have just a good of a chance of winning some games as Calgary does. The only teams i can see for sure being worse at the end are Columbus, Islanders and Florida. The rest could go either way.

[Loyal and True]

I haven't read the entire thread, but what I really hate is the typical lawyer BS in Feaster's statement. He feels the only way to save face is to pretend that there is a well thought out alternative interpretation based on the new exception for a team's reserve list and RFAs, and that all this was discussed with the agent. This is a flat out lie as proven by Pat Morris acknowledging he had not even considered the issue, much less discussed it with Feaster.

I honestly think Feaster knew the rule, but was not aware that ROR had played in the KHL after Jan 19. This was a failure and potentially brutal oversight. Should be fired for this [REASON #1]. He should also be fired for embarrassing the organization even further by spinning a web that makes it look like nobody understands the rules [REASON#2].

There are no mitigating factors for Reason #2. There are some mitigating factors for Reason #1:

- Chris Johnston said that even NHL office was unaware that ROR had played in the KHL after Jan 19.

- I assume that Colorado was not aware of ROR's status. Otherwise they would have made that public, to prevent anyone from bidding up the price.

- Perhaps the NHL, if they were aware, would have done the same (either publicly or privately) since this would be an opportunity to prevent inflation by simply clarifying a player's status.

Anyways, the entire BS statement is embarassing and I think Feaster is on extremely thin ice. I would fire him and spare the organization any further embarassment.

[jayswin]

I think we should reset the poll to make a more accurate representation of the actual poll question.

The question is "Should Jay Feaster be fired over this fiasco?". So therefore, to get a perfect result, the answers should then be. a) yes, or b) no.

[browna]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Don't buy it. Nothing in it for the flames except bad PR. Makes no sense.

Like yesterday, there's 1% of me that things this has some plausibility, and that's only based on the words of the Colorado GM's press conference during the game, where he has odd wording that seems to make him ignore the mechanics of how this got resolved.

"This was a goal of ours from the outset, to get Ryan signed," Avalanche general manager Greg Sherman said. "That goal has never changed. Sometimes the process takes a little longer than you would expect or want, but he's staying with the Colorado Avalanche."

Neil Smith ripped it for that language..mainly about the fact about the process of how this got done.

With Lacroix being Feaster's "main mentor" and the Hartley connection to Lacroix as well, the, admittedly somewhat wild, plot thickens.

The structure of the offer sheet too played a role into this. Calgary couldn't offer much more because of lack of picks, or, should they have given him a longer term.
The end result did give Colorado the player, or more accurately "force" the player on Colorado. With the offer sheet being only a 2 year deal, it's likely less of a contract term for COL than the player was probably going to agree with in exchange for less $.

Colorado likely didn't have too many takers on the trade front given the price they wanted and was dangled out there for, so they were both at a log jam, and the third party stepping in to break that, was one of the few options they had to end quickly this without either side backing off significantly.

As I said, it's only 1% of me that thinks this is possible, but there are some interesting points and connections in the way this played out and the backgrounds of the parties involved.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by sven

Lol nothing happened?

Like the anaology some have used, why don't you get loaded tonight and drive home. If you make it home safe, its all good right?


We became the laughing stock of the NHL AND our GM's credibility was shot

Being a weak analogy (drink/driving inherently wrong and this being a very gray situation), people can laugh as much as they want. If we bottom out and try to copy the Oilers, then that would be very much well deserved. Instead I'll be fine with letting people who have bits and pieces of what they've heard from the media/repeated opinions think what they chose.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

I haven't read the entire thread, but what I really hate is the typical lawyer BS in Feaster's statement. He feels the only way to save face is to pretend that there is a well thought out alternative interpretation based on the new exception for a team's reserve list and RFAs, and that all this was discussed with the agent. This is a flat out lie as proven by Pat Morris acknowledging he had not even considered the issue, much less discussed it with Feaster.

I honestly think Feaster knew the rule, but was not aware that ROR had played in the KHL after Jan 19. This was a failure and potentially brutal oversight. Should be fired for this [REASON #1]

- Chris Johnston said that even NHL office was unaware that ROR had played in the KHL after Jan 19.

- I assume that Colorado was not aware of ROR's status. Otherwise they would have made that public, to prevent anyone from bidding up the price.

- Perhaps the NHL, if they were aware, would have done the same (either publicly or privately) since this would be an opportunity to prevent inflation by simply clarifying a player's status.

All three of your points are irrelevant. It's not up to Colorado or the NHL to save our asses. It's up to the team putting together the offer to avoid disaster through diligence, not through luck.

[Buck Murdock]

If he actually did know about this before hand, he would have done more than just release that simple little statement. He'd be doing interviews and media conferences, etc.

[Brick]

No, Jay Feaster should not be fired.

Maybe Greg Sherman will lose his job, though:

Great news! The Avalanche finally signed its top scorer, in the nick of time for the playoff push. Ryan "Factor" O'Reilly is back! So why did general manager Greg Sherman looked about as happy as if his pet goldfish just died? Maybe it was because Sherman's NHL career also got buried under the avalanche of a $10 million deal he never saw coming. How can he possibly survive as the Avs' GM after this blunder? "Sometimes," said Sherman, not smiling once during the five minutes he took to welcome O'Reilly back to the Avs, "the process takes a little longer than you would expect or would want." Let's be honest: Avalanche management wanted O'Reilly gone far away from Denver, with the team privately bad-mouthing the player and his family. Now the Avs are stuck with paying the popular 22-year-old center at least 40 percent more than a previous take-it-or-leave-it proposal, all because the Calgary Flames broke NHL etiquette and stuck Colo- rado with a hefty offer sheet. The bottom line: Dillydallying instead of closing a trade to bring a top four defenseman to Colorado in return for O'Reilly, the Avs let their payroll structure be set by a general manager in Calgary, of all people.

Denver Post

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Buck Murdock

If he actually did know about this before hand, he would have done more than just release that simple little statement. He'd be doing interviews and media conferences, etc.

Reasoning behind that?
I can't see him doing so as it would lead to long and drawn PR circus (even more so than this) just to show everybody "Hey guys, this is what I had planned to take advantage of both Colorado and the NHL!" Doubt either the Avs or the league would appreciate this. If anything, he would get a lot of backlash and elevated to almost Burke-like big mouth status.


Doing all of that publicity would only serve to (temporarily) appease the insatiable fans who have had unrealistic expectations.