Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Pointman

As per Flames statement, NHL had officially told to the Flames (not some journalist) that O'Reilly would have to clear waivers. I'm confident that NHL did check the rules before articulating such things to the franchise.

Given that there's nothing coming from NHLPA side, I could assume that the issue is actually clarified as one side (NHL) did a clear and official explanation and another one (NHLPA) seems to say nothing against it (except that, according to Feaster, player's rep thought the same as him, but it is not NHLPA's official stance by any means).

The NHLPA certainly would have sided with Feaster. It would be more beneficial to the players if Feaster successfully defended his position.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Gillis is lying, you really think he would have answered thre same before all this came out? Answered without thinking it could play out any other way? That shows how stupid Gillis is because it could certainly play out different ways.

You dont know he is lying....that is pure and utter speculation like anything else in this thread. He my be wrong, but there is little doubt he feels the way he does because of how he understands the rules.

The NHLPA certainly would have sided with Feaster. It would be more beneficial to the players if Feaster successfully defended his position.

Agree with this. Hard to believe the PA would have signed off on any clause that could hurt a player in negotiations, but may have simply been an oversight as well. One side or the other committed such an error, that much we can assume.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The NHLPA certainly would have sided with Feaster. It would be more beneficial to the players if Feaster successfully defended his position.

IF PA is on Feaster's side, WHY did PA allow NHL to officially articulate things that are against what they had agreed on? Imagine if NHL have articulated to some franchise some thing that is against CBA and harms players' position. PA would be all over it. PA could very well side with the NHL because NHL's interpretation is (most likely) exactly what they had agreed on.

[Henry Fool]

So if Colorado hadn't matched, we'd be looking at a possibly lengthy legal battle to determine which interpretation is correct. I feel very fortunate that I don't have to read this debate under those circumstances. I also don't see how Feaster escapes embarrassment here.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hard to believe the PA would have signed off on any clause that could hurt a player in negotiations, but may have simply been an oversight as well.

This clause is better for the player than it was in the old CBA. Under old CBA O'Reilly would have to go through waivers even if he signed with Avs. That's why PA happily signed this clause.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I disagree, particularly with the bolded part. I think the "trade" clarification indicates that, for further clarity, the exemption (which attaches to any player, by virtue of their presence on a Club's RFA list) applies even if such a player is traded--that is, it further indicates that the exemption is not affected by which team signs the player to a PSC after the season begins.

I do agree that the clause is poorly written though.

I beg to differ. Again, the specific reference to a trade from team A to team B, and team B having the exemption, would be pointless, unless only the reserve list team had the exemption. Now, the NHL may well have had to let it slide because the first sentence is incomplete...

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...but the way [Gillis] 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 think we can all agree that would have been the classy thing to say whether or not he believed O'Reilly would have had to pass through waivers. His response basically equated to "I'm much smarter than Jay Feaster."

Stupid Canucks.

[Rubicant]

As someone who thinks that Feaster's interpretation of the rule was incorrect (and it has been argued thoroughly by others in this thread so I won't get into specifics), I am not saying that it is a slam dunk that Feaster had no argument - even if I don't think it was a strong one.

Clearly, if this thread is any indication, this rule has plenty of room for interpretation, and I'm sure the lawyers involved arguing that would have made out like bandits. It's even possible that the NHL would have let it slide this one time, before closing up the language in that clause.

The crux of the issue is that whether Feaster thought his interpretation is correct or not, he must have realized that it wasn't a slam dunk case - and as such was risking everything given up in an offer sheet to potentially not wind up with the player.

That is just extremely poor judgement in my opinion.

[Henry Fool]

Even if you think that Feaster is probably right, what's the acceptable level of uncertainty in his situation? I don't think any uncertainty is acceptable. He should have asked the NHL beforehand whether or not they would contest it.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

As someone who thinks that Feaster's interpretation of the rule was incorrect (and it has been argued thoroughly by others in this thread so I won't get into specifics), I am not saying that it is a slam dunk that Feaster had no argument - even if I don't think it was a strong one.

Clearly, if this thread is any indication, this rule has plenty of room for interpretation, and I'm sure the lawyers involved arguing that would have made out like bandits. It's even possible that the NHL would have let it slide this one time, before closing up the language in that clause.

The crux of the issue is that whether Feaster thought his interpretation is correct or not, he must have realized that it wasn't a slam dunk case - and as such was risking everything given up in an offer sheet to potentially not wind up with the player.

That is just extremely poor judgement in my opinion.

I agree with your post.

Feaster claims to have done due diligence.

If he realized that the league would challenge his interpretation and still proceeded with the offer sheet on the chance he would get a ruling that O'Reilly would not need waivers, then he gambled the 1st and 3rd and risked losing them for nothing (regardless of how strong a case he or anyone may think the Flames have)

If an NHL executive with similar experience and education of Feaster's should have realized there was ambiguity and multiple interpretations and the risk of waivers was there but Feaster didn't see it, then Feaster should be fired for incompetence.

However if it is reasonable (again assuming you had the same experience and education of that of a veteran NHL executive) to reach the same interpretation that O'Reilly wouldn't need waivers without it being a violation of the spirit of the exemption or realizing an alternative interpretation exists that puts the organization at risk is possible, then I don't see how you can fault Feaster.

This is something only his peers and colleagues will be able to judge him on.

[Red]

It will be interesting to see how the NHL clarifies this new rule on paper. If they had it correct all along the NHLPA may object as it is very restrictive to players.

If this rule was brought in to prevent the Nabakov fiasco then Feaster was right.

Perhaps we are not hearing from the NHL because they are in a battle with the NHLPA.

[stelar]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I think we can all agree that would have been the classy thing to say whether or not he believed O'Reilly would have had to pass through waivers. His response basically equated to "I'm much smarter than Jay Feaster."

Stupid Canucks.

You might want to watch the whole interview. When they asked him he said that Feaster was a good GM and the CBA was a complicated thing. Then stated they knew.

[oldschoolcalgary]

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.

Exactly.

I have yet to see anything in print showing that the NHL has backed away from anything.

hypothetically, if there was, AT BEST, a 50/50 shot of the Flames winning this arbitration, was Feaster acting responsibly?

all the Feaster backers think rolling the dice with the organization's future was the "smart" thing to do?! Might as well spend a year's salary on lotto tickets...

[mister__big]

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. Chris Johnston (the Sportsnet reporter in question) did a radio interview in which he specifically said he called the NHL to fact-check if O'Reilly would have needed to clear waivers if the Flames got him. The league replied "yes" which was the basis of Johnston's article.

It was never spelled out anywhere that Feaster did not call the league, but it's painfully obvious that he did not because had he done so, the league would've told him what they told Johnston and Feaster wouldn't have been able to go through with the offer sheet.

[Poe969]

I hope he'll be fired. I think he should be fired. I have a feeling he's the perfect "yes-man" to stay around in calgary. I would love to see him go so we could bring in a new GM to set this team in a different direction

[jschick88]

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread but here is an interview Chris Johnston did with the Fan590

http://pmd.fan590.com/audio_on_deman...-Interview.mp3

[CaramonLS]

Sigh.

We're bantering back and forth over the same points in this thread. I wish Feaster would come out and just clarify the whole thing.

If he is in the right, you think he would come out and clear the waters, because the longer it is left to fester, the more fan resentment and distrust there is going to be of management.

We don't have all the facts. But right now Jay could easily hold a press conference and absolve himself of 90% of the blame while also improving the image of our broken franchise.

I personally feel that his silence speaks volumes.

[JiriHrdina]

Yeah I wish we could just all agree we don't know how this would have played out and trying to find any proof that one side or the other is correct, is a waste of time. There are far too may unknowns, assumptions and other types of guess work happening.

And likely that's the way all parties involved (NHL, Flames, the agent, etc) want to keep it to try and save face.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Sigh.

We're bantering back and forth over the same points in this thread.

While some points are repetetive, there are still some new and valid arguments coming out even at 80th page of the thread. I would say, this is one of the better threads in CP history.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

trying to find any proof that one side or the other is correct, is a waste of time.

Just as much, as it is waste of time to prove that Flames should or should not trade Iginla for example. Here it is at least an entertaining excercise, judging by the number of posts and the amount of thoughts and research put into them.