Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Imagine if Colorado was still considering it.

Flame fans, Av fans and Columbus fans would be going insane debating the issue.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the league to clarify would be extremely intense.

And fans, bloggers, reporters, and twitterers would pretty much be exploding

Feasters would have already either resigned, or have been fired by now.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Think of it this way: if your interpretation is correct, then being an RFA is of absolutely no value to O'Reilly--because teams literally cannot sign him. In that context, Colorado can offer him league minimum and he has no choice but to either sign it or stay in the KHL--he has no leverage at all.

That was the status quo for the last 8 years and that's why RFAs virtually never played outside the NHL while holding out because they'd make themselves effectively ineligible for NHL play that year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the contract is predicated on him changing teams, he's at no point on Calgary's reserve list until after the transaction and signing, removing his eligibility for waiver exemption.

I am still waiting for someone to illustrate where this is stated.

The clause states that the player is exempt. It does not carry on in any way with any references to any situations where the exemption would be removed or nullified

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why? If the argument is that being on any team's RFA and Reserve List is enough to exempt a player from waivers when he signs a mid-season contract then why would they have to give an illustration of how it follows him? The exemption wouldn't need to follow players anywhere because just the act of being on an NHL team's Reserve List would exempt them.

Right. The example they gave articulates that this is the rule, and that "a Club" means "any Club." That's why it's "for greater clarity."

I think people are reading a bit too much into the "for greater clarity" clause. I agree that it's clumsily drafted, but when a clause gives an example "for greater clarity" it generally either elucidates the principle behind the rule, or gives an example of the sort of thing that the rule includes. In this case, trading of the rights of a player "on the Reserve List" is the sort of thing that the exemption contemplates as included. That's why that language is in there: it's not limiting language that excludes other scenarios--such as signing an offer sheet.

I'll stress this again: if the rule is read the other way, being an RFA is worthless to O'Reilly. Free agency status has to have some value to players, and that value comes from their ability to entertain offers from other teams, subject only to the restrictions attaching to their status under the CBA. A rule that had the effect that an RFA could not exercise any leverage over their team would likely not have been acceptable to Don Fehr and the NHLPA.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That was the status quo for the last 8 years and that's why RFAs virtually never played outside the NHL while holding out because they'd make themselves effectively ineligible for NHL play that year.

Right--but the CBA now contains an exemption that was not present before.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But if all players on any team's Reserve List are exempt then why would they need to illustrate how it transfers? It wouldn't need to transfer because 100% of the players on any team's Reserve List would be exempt.

I hear what you are saying and I agree.

But IMO, the example is clear - it is there to demonstrate that the exemption remains with the player.

The fact that that means that all reserved players are exempt, and thus the example is redundant, is nothing more than a consequence of poor wording, IMO. But redundant examples are not uncommon and bring 'further clarity'.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Is this known for sure? I don't recall reading anything where this has been said, but I haven't read the whole thread.

It's not known for sure: Feaster didn't comment on it at all.

Don't let that get in the way of your outrage, though!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am still waiting for someone to illustrate where this is stated.

The clause states that the player is exempt. It does not carry on in any way with any references to any situations where the exemption would be removed or nullified

If you interpret it the way many people are (i.e. that the exemption applies only to players being signed by teams who hold their rights) then it would follow that when he signs with a team that doesn't hold his rights that he would not get the benefit of the exemption to rule 13.23.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Think of it this way: if your interpretation is correct, then being an RFA is of absolutely no value to O'Reilly--because teams literally cannot sign him. In that context, Colorado can offer him league minimum and he has no choice but to either sign it or stay in the KHL--he has no leverage at all.

You are absolutely correct, him playing those 2 games in the KHL were a massive mistake that his agent should have advised him to avoid playing. He lost almost all leverage that comes with being the potential target of an offersheet. I say "almost all" because you can never discount irrational operators in the league like Kevin Lowe, Charles Wang, Paul Holmgren or, after this move, Jay Feaster. Relying on crazy managers seems like a strong move though in today's NHL. O'Reilly made out like a bandit.

Likewise, the Avalanche don't look particularly good because they could have done exactly what you said and let him rot after publicizing his massive error.

I don't think it clearly follows the player in the slightest in the case of a free agent signing.

If his rights are traded, he is still waiver exempt, but this is a SIGNING, and I'd like you to specifically address that.

The Flames signed a Free Agent player that was not on their reserve or RFA list who played in Europe after the January 19th deadline.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

Is this known for sure? I don't recall reading anything where this has been said, but I haven't read the whole thread.

Yes, it's known for sure.

He saw statistics for O'Reilly on the KHL site for games on the 21st and 23rd, knew of the old rule and called the league for clarification. They informed him that if, hypothetically, O'Reilly had played games after january 19th, he would have to pass through waivers in order to play in the NHL this season.

The reporter then phoned Paul Maurice who was O'Reilly's coach in the KHL who confirmed that O'Reilly did in fact play in games on the 21st and 23rd.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I hear what you are saying and I agree.

But IMO, the example is clear - it is there to demonstrate that the exemption remains with the player.

The fact that that means that all reserved players are exempt, and thus the example is redundant, is nothing more than a consequence of poor wording (IMO).

Indeed, the nature of "for greater clarity" clauses is that they will often be a bit redundant. That sentence doesn't contain the rule itself, it just contains an example of the application of the rule. The actual rule is that a player is exempt by virtue of being on a club's reserve or RFA list. The rest is just an example of how that rule applies.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Right--but the CBA now contains an exemption that was not present before.

I was just taking issue with the idea that if the rule was as many are interpreting it that it would create a burdensome situation for an RFA when it would actually still put them in a better position than the old CBA.

I don't think the fact that an RFA would be put in a tough spot if the rule was interpreted a certain way is a convincing reason to believe that that interpretation is incorrect, especially given that the RFA would be in a more favorable scenario than under the previous CBA.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Right. The example they gave articulates that this is the rule, and that "a Club" means "any Club." That's why it's "for greater clarity."

I think people are reading a bit too much into the "for greater clarity" clause. I agree that it's clumsily drafted, but when a clause gives an example "for greater clarity" it generally either elucidates the principle behind the rule, or gives an example of the sort of thing that the rule includes. In this case, trading of the rights of a player "on the Reserve List" is the sort of thing that the exemption contemplates as included. That's why that language is in there: it's not limiting language that excludes other scenarios--such as signing an offer sheet.

I'll stress this again: if the rule is read the other way, being an RFA is worthless to O'Reilly. Free agency status has to have some value to players, and that value comes from their ability to entertain offers from other teams, subject only to the restrictions attaching to their status under the CBA. A rule that had the effect that an RFA could not exercise any leverage over their team would likely not have been acceptable to Don Fehr and the NHLPA.

this i think is what you're not understanding fully.

O'Reilly spoiled it himself by playing after the season started. He had leverage and wasted it, which is why Kyle Turris did not play in Europe while holding out on the yotes.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'll stress this again: if the rule is read the other way, being an RFA is worthless to O'Reilly. Free agency status has to have some value to players, and that value comes from their ability to entertain offers from other teams, subject only to the restrictions attaching to their status under the CBA. A rule that had the effect that an RFA could not exercise any leverage over their team would likely not have been acceptable to Don Fehr and the NHLPA.

That is the whole crux of the issue, what did the league and PA intend for RFAs that played in europe after the season started? and did they capture what they intended with the proper language in the CBA and MOU.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The Flames signed a Free Agent player that was not on their reserve or RFA list who played in Europe after the January 19th deadline.

Where in the rule does it say that the exemption only applies to players on Calgary's reserve or RFA lists? This is what you don't seem to understand. Contractual drafting uses precise language: "a Club" is NOT the same as "the Club"--and the sentence isn't about the Club anyway, it's about the player.

This may help:

The rule: Any player playing overseas after the start of the season must pass through waivers before playing in the NHL this season.

The exception: The rule does NOT apply to any player who is on a Club's reserve or RFA list. (Note: the exemption is the player's, not the club's)

For greater clarity, this includes situations where the player's rights move from one team to another, (such as where a player on a reserve list is traded.)

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

You might not like the terms of the contract but the Flames head office must have liked it which trumps everyone else's opinion of the terms. Feaster is a hockey lawyer he probably knows the new CBA inside out by now which is why he made the offer he did, again, he's not an idiot.

It's not a question of like or dislike, there is a fairly established market valuation for centers, 5 million a year is not a bargin for a second to first line center, not saying its an overpayment but definatly an average cap hit, possibly even slightly high for a second line center, so we can say without doubt the offer doesn't have the upside of a tremendous bargin cap wise.

You say Feaster isn't an idiot and I would probably agree but there is no indication that he is anything but an average GM running an average managemnet team, in fact it would be fair to make the arguement it is probably a below average management team if taken strictly on the evidance of the last 2 years, my guess is that the Flames were not aware the kid played in the KHL, which appears to be what the waiver question hinges on, I do not think for a moment they thought about waivers as the offer or their actions (ie not calling the league for clarification) make no sense otherwise.

Right now there are 2 choices, either Feaster wasn't aware of the possibility of waivers, in which case he is running an incompetant management team, which is on him, or he knew but risked two picks and a couple of million for an average priced player with a short term contract, in which case hes a moron

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes, it's known for sure.

Sorry wasn't clear, I meant is it known for sure that Feaster didn't call the NHL.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

That is the whole crux of the issue, what did the league and PA intend for RFAs that played in europe after the season started? and did they capture what they intended with the proper language in the CBA and MOU.

Who knows? Frankly, we can only rely on the language of the agreement--and I think we can all agree it's badly drafted.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by iowa_flames_fan

where in the rule does it say that the exemption only applies to players on calgary's reserve or rfa lists? This is what you don't seem to understand. Contractual drafting uses precise language: "a club" is not the same as "the club"--and the sentence isn't about the club anyway, it's about the player.

This may help:

the rule: Any player playing overseas after the start of the season must pass through waivers before playing in the nhl this season.

the exception: The rule does not apply to any player who is on a club's reserve or rfa list. (note: The exemption is the player's, not the club's)

for greater clarity, this includes situations where the player's rights move from one team to another, (such as where a player on a reserve list is traded.)

this


10000x this!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If you interpret it the way many people are (i.e. that the exemption applies only to players being signed by teams who hold their rights) then it would follow that when he signs with a team that doesn't hold his rights that he would not get the benefit of the exemption to rule 13.23.

I undertand that, but I have yet to see anyone present any passages that would support that assertion.

I will present a passage again "All players on a team's reserve list are exempt"

I have yet to see any passage that suggests that it refers only to the team that holds their rights.

O'Reilly was on Colorado's reserve list and was thus exempt.

There is no passage that I am aware of that says if another team presents an offer sheet, he would no longer be exempt.