Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 71 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

sven · 03-02-2013, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

And why exactly is pat Morris mr reliable here?

Because by admitting fault or lack of knowledge, he made himself look like amateur hour. It would have been MUCH more convenient and easy to take Feaster's path and say he knew it but "interpreted" the rules differently. However by admitting his mistake or lack of knowledge, his reputation took a big hit.

But this is much more honourable than Feaster who tried to BS his way through but clearly his credibility also took a huge hit.

I know if both guys sent their resumes to me, I wouldn't hire either because they were both incompetent BUT, if there was a brainless job that just required an honest worker, I know I'd hire Morris over Feaster

dino7c · 03-02-2013, 07:01 PM

everyone expected the hot stove to roast Feaster...they basically defended him

Gary would never have let it go through, league to clarify cba

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 03-02-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Exactly!

If "a club" meant "any club", they wouldn't need to have a specific exemption in place in case of a trade.

The exception is not for "trades" it's for "a player on a Club's reserve list or RFA list." The clarification clause "For greater certainty," clarifies that this rule applies EVEN IF the player is traded to another club.

Look, I'm not going to pretend that I am super-experienced at reading contracts, but I would wager I've read more of them than Chris Johnston (by a lot) and fewer than Jay Feaster (by a lot). I've now read the clause, in context, and I think it's very clear that Feaster was right.

And that's coming from someone who thought the offer sheet was a mistake. Let's not fall for this invented controversy.

FlamesAddiction · 03-02-2013, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

everyone expected the hot stove to roast Feaster...they basically defended him

Gary would never have let it go through, league to clarify cba

They only defended him if he really didn't know, but not if he knew about the possibility and still took the risk (which Feaster claims).

gargamel · 03-02-2013, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The exception is not for "trades" it's for "a player on a Club's reserve list or RFA list." The clarification clause "For greater certainty," clarifies that this rule applies EVEN IF the player is traded to another club.

Look, I'm not going to pretend that I am super-experienced at reading contracts, but I would wager I've read more of them than Chris Johnston (by a lot) and fewer than Jay Feaster (by a lot). I've now read the clause, in context, and I think it's very clear that Feaster was right.

And that's coming from someone who thought the offer sheet was a mistake. Let's not fall for this invented controversy.

As a mod, any chance you could change the poll options? We really need a "Feaster did nothing wrong" choice.

Flames Fan, Ph.D. · 03-02-2013, 07:06 PM

Best part of the hot stove was listening to Healy defend the agent.

Basically he said it's not really the agent's responsibility to know the ins and outs of the CBA. Right. So if an agent arranges his client to sign an offer sheet with Calgary, and a week later his client is calling him from Columbus screaming at the top of his lungs... no big deal, amiright?!

I'm sure ROR would have been ok with that.

valo403 · 03-02-2013, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ped

Except I don't see how those support Feaster at all.

A player is exempt from waivers if he's on a club's reserve or restricted free agent list and then signs with that club mid-season. It goes on to clarify if the player is traded, for example, and then signs he is exempt.

So unless you read "a club" to mean "any club," which I don't see how you can, the rules are pretty clear.

And I'm pretty sure it says "a club" and not "the club" because this is a CBA dealing with all clubs.

So O' Reilly was on Colorado's restricted free agent list and therefore doesn't require waivers. If his rights were traded to Calgary (or any other team) he would transfer to that teams restricted free agent list and not require waivers once he subsequently.

But he signed a deal with a team who's list he was not on, so therefore he requires waivers.

I really don't see how you can interpret that any other way.

And how many times is the reporter supposed to call the league to confirm? He did once but magically in this case he's supposed to do it again?

Feaster messed up. So did a lot of people apparently.

Funny thing about legal documents, the words matter. A versus the is not an insignificant difference. Neither are the other changes to the CBA that are at play here. Thi is not a simple issue, people acting like it is need to give their heads a shake.

valo403 · 03-02-2013, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

Because by admitting fault or lack of knowledge, he made himself look like amateur hour. It would have been MUCH more convenient and easy to take Feaster's path and say he knew it but "interpreted" the rules differently. However by admitting his mistake or lack of knowledge, his reputation took a big hit.

But this is much more honourable than Feaster who tried to BS his way through but clearly his credibility also took a huge hit.

I know if both guys sent their resumes to me, I wouldn't hire either because they were both incompetent BUT, if there was a brainless job that just required an honest worker, I know I'd hire Morris over Feaster

You wouldn't hire either? Okay. Both have resumes that likely far outpace any candidate you'd ever see. But sure, this was a simple issue. Lets keep pretending that's the case.

sven · 03-02-2013, 07:09 PM

Can someone post the summary of the satellite hot stove please?
Dont have tv access right now

Henry Fool · 03-02-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The exception is not for "trades" it's for "a player on a Club's reserve list or RFA list." The clarification clause "For greater certainty," clarifies that this rule applies EVEN IF the player is traded to another club.

[...]

Aren't you missing the point here still? There was no trade involved. The question is whether or not the clause applies to Calgary because the player was not on Calgary's RFA list.

kyuss275 · 03-02-2013, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

As a mod, any chance you could change the poll options? We really need a "Feaster did nothing wrong" choice.

Don't mind if that is done as long as there is a, " Feaster should have at least made the phone call" choice.

Flames Fan, Ph.D. · 03-02-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

Can someone post the summary of the satellite hot stove please?
Dont have tv access right now

Friedman waffled and said the league will clarify this in the future.

Healy said the Flames suck and are to blame, but that the agent would not have any blame.

PJ stuttered that the Flames suck but had no reason why.

Maclean stayed away from laying blame and said it will be clarified in the future.

sven · 03-02-2013, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

You wouldn't hire either? Okay. Both have resumes that likely far outpace any candidate you'd ever see. But sure, this was a simple issue. Lets keep pretending that's the case.

Haha always a silly comment like this on a forum.

Perhaps I was wrong to say "I".

Instead of me doing the hiring, what if I changed it to a President of a hockey club looking for a GM?

FlamesAddiction · 03-02-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

Can someone post the summary of the satellite hot stove please?
Dont have tv access right now

Basically, it started by McLean saying he didn't believe the NHL would ever have let O'Reilly go on waivers.

They then said that a lot of teams are just glad it wasn't them because they probably wouldn't have known either (although they didn't acknowledge that Feaster claims he did know, but was prepared to fight).

Stock was somewhat critical of the Flames for making the offersheet.

They really just breezed over the issue.

Henry Fool · 03-02-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

Funny thing about legal documents, the words matter. A versus the is not an insignificant difference. Neither are the other changes to the CBA that are at play here. Thi is not a simple issue, people acting like it is need to give their heads a shake.

What's funny is that the entire discussion is based on it being a murky issue and small words being crucial, yet you feel that you need to remind everyone of those facts.

kyuss275 · 03-02-2013, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Friedman waffled and said the league will clarify this in the future.

Healy said the Flames suck and are to blame, but that the agent would not have any blame.

PJ stuttered that the Flames suck but had no reason why.

Maclean stayed away from laying blame and said it will be clarified in the future.

PJ said that Feaster should have at least made the call.

Weekes said Colorado screwed up badly.

Flash Walken · 03-02-2013, 07:16 PM

I wonder how much Feaster being a chatty cathy buys him cover in the media?

Not saying this is the case here, but it's the first time I've thought of it.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 03-02-2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

Aren't you missing the point here still? There was no trade involved. The question is whether or not the clause applies to Calgary because the player was not on Calgary's RFA list.

You very evidently still have not read the language that is in dispute. I am not "missing the point." The language of the exception applies to RFA players, not their clubs. That is why the "for greater clarity" clause is in there. The exception has nothing to do with trades at all.

Look, we can waste our time on faux outrage over a fabricated controversy, or we can just move on with our lives, recognizing that a) Feaster was very likely right, and b) it's moot anyway. Life is short, and outrage is a precious commodity. Let's save it for Burrows dives and broadcasters who love the Oilers.

FlamesAddiction · 03-02-2013, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyuss275

PJ said that Feaster should have at least made the call.

Weekes said Colorado screwed up badly.

I think that much we can all agree on. If they knew about the issue, they would have had Morris and O'Reilly over a barrel.

Sutter_in_law · 03-02-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Maclean stayed away from laying blame and said it will be clarified in the future.

not really, this is what he had to say:

"my take on it is, Gary Bettman would have never let it happen to the Calgary Flames... ...my take is, Gary Bettman and the NHL will make a clarification on this but it's not Jay Feasters fault, its the CBA's fault and Gary will fix it"