Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Gillis just said that he knew that ROR had to clear waivers because the player had played in europe after the start of the season...seems rather cut and dried from his point of view.

someone should ask him if he got independent conversation from the league.

Follow up questions seem extinct these days.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

For clarity: those who think Feaster is wrong here also think that the above language means exactly the same thing as the language in the MOU. If that's true, why did they change it?

I don't know why the language , but keep in mind the MOU was rushed to ensure a quick start to the season and perhaps the distinction between "a Club"/"the Club" was overlooked.

IMO the big question is what was the spirit of the exception? Yes it may be poorly drafted exception that is ambiguous, but the league and PA negotiated that exception be put in there for a reason.

I said this earlier in the thread, but as an NHL GM, Feaster should know what the spirit of the rule is. He may not have been there when it was drafted, but he has to know why the rule exists.

If his interpretation of the exception violates the spirit of the exception but not the letter of it, then he would have to be naive to think that league wouldn't have a different interpretation than his.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Gillis just said flat out that O'Reilly would be subject to waivers.

"You knew that?" "Yes - he played in Europe"

Fascinating. I cannot wait to hear what the league has to say. Either the Flames, or a whole lot of others, will have some apologizing to do.

With respect to Gillis' comments, they are particularly interesting because the reason he gave "he played in Europe" doesn't actually address the situation.

so you're taking Gillis's opinion ???

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Gillis just said flat out that O'Reilly would be subject to waivers.

"You knew that?" "Yes - he played in Europe"

Fascinating. I cannot wait to hear what the league has to say. Either the Flames, or a whole lot of others, will have some apologizing to do.

With respect to Gillis' comments, they are particularly interesting because the reason he gave "he played in Europe" doesn't actually address the situation.

Eh?

I thought that was the WHOLE reason we are going through this.

If ROR hadnt played after the NHL started, there would have been no issue whatsoever and it would have been just like any other offer sheet that are usually signed over the summer.

Am I wrong?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

You're still arguing like it's just Johnston who made the argument. Should Bob McKenzie apologise for Feaster as well - or should McKenzie be outright fired for "irresponsible journalism" like you suggested should happen to Johnston?

Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly told TSN on friday that O'Reilly would have to go through waivers. Clearly it was entirely appropriate to bring up this issue. You've been arguing the issue all night yet you still think that it was bad journalism.

McKenzie was relying on Johnston having done his job. Daly offered an off-the-cuff comment without knowing that O'Reilly had played overseas, and it's entirely possible that he didn't check the text of the rules before answering. Keep in mind two things: the CBA is nearly 500 pages long, and under the old CBA the rules would clearly have meant O'Reilly had to pass through waivers.

So yes: Johnston needs to do his job, and should have made sure that the NHL agreed with his interpretation AFTER it became clear that it applied to O'Reilly. The fact that the NHL has since backed away slightly from his statement indicates Daly should probably be more careful too.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

so you're taking Gillis's opinion ???

Like him or not, but the fact is he will have a MUCH better handle on CBA issues and such than anyone here will.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

someone should ask him if he got independent conversation from the league.

Follow up questions seem extinct these days.

They didn't follow up because they are trying not to embarrass us anymore than we already have been.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I don't know why the language , but keep in mind the MOU was rushed to ensure a quick start to the season and perhaps the distinction between "a Club"/"the Club" was overlooked.

IMO the big question is what was the spirit of the exception? Yes it may be poorly drafted exception that is ambiguous, but the league and PA negotiated that exception be put in there for a reason.

I said this earlier in the thread, but as an NHL GM, Feaster should know what the spirit of the rule is. He may not have been there when it was drafted, but he has to know why the rule exists.

If his interpretation of the exception violates the spirit of the exception but not the letter of it, then he would have to be naive to think that league wouldn't have a different interpretation than his.

Out of thanks, but this is bang out.

Someone posted a story about their niece being sent to bed and arguing on the technicality of which bed.

This is shockingly similar.

[browna]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

IMO the big question is what was the spirit of the exception? Yes it may be poorly drafted exception that is ambiguous, but the league and PA negotiated that exception be put in there for a reason.

I said this earlier in the thread, but as an NHL GM, Feaster should know what the spirit of the rule is. He may not have been there when it was drafted, but he has to know why the rule exists.

If his interpretation of the exception violates the spirit of the exception but not the letter of it, then he would have to be naive to think that league wouldn't have a different interpretation than his.

Agreed.
I think with the comments Gillis just made about "yes, he played in Europe", as why he knew about the waiver requirement, speaks volumes.

Although not 100% addressing the wording of the issue that Feaster is (potentially and assumeably) arguing as his defense, demonstrates that Gillis is applying the spirit of his understanding of why the clause was altered from the old rule.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Gillis just said that he knew that ROR had to clear waivers because the player had played in europe after the start of the season...seems rather cut and dried from his point of view.

That's the thing. It's not even a new rule. Just because the final draft of the CBA isn't printed, Feaster's default position should have been what the old rule was, and then inquire about something that might be a change.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

McKenzie was relying on Johnston having done his job. Daly offered an off-the-cuff comment without knowing that O'Reilly had played overseas, and it's entirely possible that he didn't check the text of the rules before answering. Keep in mind two things: the CBA is nearly 500 pages long, and under the old CBA the rules would clearly have meant O'Reilly had to pass through waivers.

So yes: Johnston needs to do his job, and should have made sure that the NHL agreed with his interpretation AFTER it became clear that it applied to O'Reilly. The fact that the NHL has since backed away slightly from his statement indicates Daly should probably be more careful too.

I don't believe this to be true at all. He was on air yesterday as things started to unfold and I am sure he said he made calls himself and formed his opinion after that....Johnson might have started the whole thing but both Mckenzie and Duhatschek got the same answers when they inquired.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Am I wrong?

No, but Gillis' reason is equally applicable to this CBA AND the previous one, I think what Enoch Root was getting at was there's a another factor beyond just playing in Europe that factors into things with the new CBA.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

I never said that people don't have questions or shouldn't have questions (I in fact implied the opposite talking about insufficient information). I don't think anyone else said that either. So the sarcasm and hyperbole seem to be misdirected as well as going past the level of reasonable discussion.

I'm bitter because I love my team and hate everyone running it. I can't help but spew vitriol sometimes.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

McKenzie was relying on Johnston having done his job. Daly offered an off-the-cuff comment without knowing that O'Reilly had played overseas, and it's entirely possible that he didn't check the text of the rules before answering. Keep in mind two things: the CBA is nearly 500 pages long, and under the old CBA the rules would clearly have meant O'Reilly had to pass through waivers.

So yes: Johnston needs to do his job, and should have made sure that the NHL agreed with his interpretation AFTER it became clear that it applied to O'Reilly. The fact that the NHL has since backed away slightly from his statement indicates Daly should probably be more careful too.

The NHL has not backed away from this and i don't know why you keep saying it.

The NHL's OFFICIAL POSITION is that Ryan O'Reilly would have had to go through waivers if the Colorado Avalanche did not match Calgary's offer sheet.

That was their opinion weeks ago, it's was their opinion thursday morning, thursday afternoon and thursday night, was re-iterated to the Flames the following morning and as of writing this message, has not been redacted or contradicted in any way.

[sun]

Originally Posted by photon

It's not his job on the line if his boss knows it wasn't his mistake.

If you want to use assumptions and speculations to support things, the fact that Feaster hasn't been fired for risking $2.5M and a 1st and 3rd round pick on a presumed roll of the dice (roll 2d6, oohhh critical miss) "suggests" that he wasn't actually taking any risk.

Probably doesn't mean much, but the cap/CBA experts haven't been fired either.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Eh?

I thought that was the WHOLE reason we are going through this.

If ROR hadnt played after the NHL started, there would have been no issue whatsoever and it would have been just like any other offer sheet that are usually signed over the summer.

Am I wrong?

Here we go again...

Rule 13.23 refers to playing in Europe

The exemption to Rule 13.23 is the relevant issue

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by photon

No, but Gillis' reason is equally applicable to this CBA AND the previous one, I think what Enoch Root was getting at was there's a another factor beyond just playing in Europe that factors into things with the new CBA.

Sure...but the way he answered without even thinking there could be another way for things to play out was very very telling. He simply could have said "i would have to read things again and get clarification from the league"...he didnt.

I dont know....if i just take all the parts and pieces of the last couple days and add them all up...its hard not to come to a conclusion that really is not good for feaster and company...as much as it pains me to say.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The NHL has not backed away from this and i don't know why you keep saying it.

The NHL's OFFICIAL POSITION is that Ryan O'Reilly would have had to go through waivers if the Colorado Avalanche did not match Calgary's offer sheet.

That was their opinion weeks ago, it's was their opinion thursday morning, thursday afternoon and thursday night, was re-iterated to the Flames the following morning and as of writing this message, has not been redacted or contradicted in any way.

Weeks ago? I missed that.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Here we go again...

Rule 13.23 refers to playing in Europe

The exemption to Rule 13.23 is the relevant issue

Yes i am aware of that...and if he hadnt played in Europe the exemption wouldnt be part of this whole discussion...right?

He would be like any other player who receives an offer sheet...period.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

so you're taking Gillis's opinion ???

what? No

I think Gillis' answer missed the mark