[News] Feaster and Weisbrod relieved of duties. Burke will hire a new GM

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not really. The Canucks weren't great under him. He did put the final touches on a Ducks team that his predecessor built, and the Leafs are looking more and more like last year was a fluke.

Burke's history of building winning teams is pretty much a myth.

Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger were somewhat relevant final touches.

[foshizzle11]

Why was Burke saying there is a trade freeze until Dec 27th?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

Why was Burke saying there is a trade freeze until Dec 27th?

It is a policy he brings to all his teams. He doesn't want players worrying about being moved during the Holidays.

It started on December 9th and will end December 27th

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

Why was Burke saying there is a trade freeze until Dec 27th?

It's a Burke imposed freeze so players aren't shipped off during the Christmas season.

If a great deal came across the table, I hope he'd break his freeze. Seems kind of... dumb. I could understand December 24-26th but considering the Flames play on December 23 and December 27th, that long of a freeze is silly.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

It's a Burke imposed freeze so players aren't shipped off during the Christmas season.

If a great deal came across the table, I hope he'd break his freeze. Seems kind of... dumb.

He explicitly said to Pat and Ryan this afternoon that he wouldn't do a trade during the freeze unless it was with players who had already requested to be moved if it was possible. He said it was important to keep your word to your players.

Doesn't seem dumb at all.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

It's a Burke imposed freeze so players aren't shipped off during the Christmas season.

If a great deal came across the table, I hope he'd break his freeze. Seems kind of... dumb. I could understand December 24-26th but considering the Flames play on December 23 and December 27th, that long of a freeze is silly.

The NHL has a freeze from the 19th-27th, Burke just starts his earlier.

[Coach]

Gotta say I really liked the messages in Burke's presser. It's nice to hear those types of positives from someone legitimate and with little doubt of the sincerity of his comments.

Not saying Jay was ever insincere, but I think he said a lot of things before he was able to make anything happen. I thought Feaster did a great job of clearing the dead weight on the roster and bringing in legitimate prospects and solid secondary players. But I'm glad Burke is at the helm for the rebuild.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

He explicitly said to Pat and Ryan this afternoon that he wouldn't do a trade during the freeze unless it was with players who had already requested to be moved if it was possible. He said it was important to keep your word to your players.

Doesn't seem dumb at all.

Ummm... That bolded part sounds quite interesting, however without context it's not possible to interpret. Was there any underlying reason for that blurb or was it just a "what if" scenario?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Ummm... That bolded part sounds quite interesting, however without context it's not possible to interpret. Was there any underlying reason for that blurb or was it just a "what if" scenario?

He mentioned that there were two Canucks who had come to him asking to be moved; they weren't happy with their ice time, and while he was explaining the trade freeze to the team, he called them out and said they were excluded from the policy.

[lifetimefan]

I just hope we don't see any more "best player not in the NHL" guys on the roster.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by lifetimefan

I just hope we don't see any more "best player not in the NHL" guys on the roster.

I'm okay with the phrase 'best player not in the NHL' being applied to our 2014 1st round pick. Not to 26 year old KHL centres who don't play centre.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

But the MOU in effect at the time had different wording than the final CBA.

It still meant the same thing it was just worded slightly less clearly (though upon reading it for the first time my interpretation was the same as the league's). There was a reason the MOU explicitly said that acquiring an RFA via trade and then signing him would also exempt that player from rule 13.23 and that's because they were drawing a clear distinction between signing a player you already have the rights to and signing one that you don't. To me that clearly implies that signing another team's RFA does not preclude 13.23 from applying and that was the league's position.


But really, my point was more that what you're either/or scenario isn't really accurate:

It's quite simple: either a team is exposing a player with whom they do not have a contract or rights to waivers--which is not possible!--or they do have the rights to that player, they sign that player to a contract at which point they legally can put him on waivers, but they are not obligated to because that player is now their RFA and there is an MOU exemption to overseas RFAs and waiver exposure.

Neither of these scenarios needed to occur, since at the time of the contract taking effect the player is not on the signing team's RFA list which means he's not exempt. O'Reilly would've never been on Calgary's RFA list because they wouldn't have owned his rights until his contract came into effect and thus the rule would've applied to him. And none of that changed between the MOU and the final draft of the CBA.

I agree there's a chance Feaster might've been able talk his way out of it, but that's far from certain. And given the facts and the apparent admission by the front office staff of a blunder, I think it's pretty clear what happened and it wasn't Feaster coming up with an ingenious plan to use somewhat vague language to create a loophole in the waiver rule.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It still meant the same thing it was just worded slightly less clearly (though upon reading it for the first time my interpretation was the same as the league's). There was a reason the MOU explicitly said that acquiring an RFA via trade and then signing him would also exempt that player from rule 13.23 and that's because they were drawing a clear distinction between signing a player you already have the rights to and signing one that you don't. To me that clearly implies that signing another team's RFA does not preclude 13.23 from applying and that was the league's position.


But really, my point was more that what you're either/or scenario isn't really accurate:

Neither of these scenarios needed to occur, since at the time of the contract taking effect the player is not on the signing team's RFA list which means he's not exempt. O'Reilly would've never been on Calgary's RFA list because they wouldn't have owned his rights until his contract came into effect and thus the rule would've applied to him. And none of that changed between the MOU and the final draft of the CBA.

I agree there's a chance Feaster might've been able talk his way out of it, but that's far from certain. And given the facts and the apparent admission by the front office staff of a blunder, I think it's pretty clear what happened and it wasn't Feaster coming up with an ingenious plan to use somewhat vague language to create a loophole in the waiver rule.

This is the whole point. At the time of the ROR signing the wording of the MOU made him Flames property at the time of the signing, which is what is quoted, or stated from the article. Simple words like "or/was/is" in a contract are what describes what happens. The NHL lawyers changed the wording before the final deal was signed, but if it had gone to arbitration based on the MOU wording the Flames would have been correct. When Daly spoke to TSN he was also correct based on the "intended" meaning of the MOU, but he later admitted that he needed to check. Moot point though as the Avs matched so nobody will ever know.

[JoelOtto29]

WOW. Just woke up to this news.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

is Feaster post Apex?

Is Burke?

[Red]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger were somewhat relevant final touches.

And everyone forgets about the surprising and equally gutsy Fedorov trade that brought an unknown Beaucheman (sp?) and Marchant to the Ducks. They were huge in their cup run.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by JoelOtto29

WOW. Just woke up to this news.

get an alarm clock.

[CaramonLS]

What stood out to me the most was that Burke specifically mentioned how he spoke to other GMs around the league and asked them about:

1) The perception of the Calgary Flames
2) If we got full value from the trades that we made

Said that these 2 factors really fed into his decision making process. I was actually blown away by this response. But I think it speaks volumes.

[Miniac]

Will Nault ‏@Fan960Nault 9m
Brian Burke will join @Sportsnet960 during the 2nd INT of the #Flames broadcast tonight for more on the firings of Feaster and Weisbrod.

[browna]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What stood out to me the most was that Burke specifically mentioned how he spoke to other GMs around the league and asked them about:

1) The perception of the Calgary Flames
2) If we got full value from the trades that we made

Said that these 2 factors really fed into his decision making process. I was actually blown away by this response. But I think it speaks volumes.

1) Is the reason Burke was brought in in the first place. It sunk like a stone under Feaster. Sutter was a no nonsesne guy who treated players/agents/other GM's in a direct manner. Feaster came in and started with the slick talk, both to get the job and to placate fans.

A guy like Edwards, part of the NHL upper ranks in the lockout talks, likely heard or figured out the reputation the Flames had was declining under Feaster, more than he likely thought and worth more then the "input" he (and King) had to Feaster.

Then add to the pile the ROR fiasco after the lockout, and, the Iginla handling of the trade, and that reputation around the league sank further.

Burke did his own investigating the last two months and that proof has played out today.