Jay Feaster update (Stan Fischler interview)

[Calgary4LIfe]

When news broke, Daly did come out and state something along the lines that ROR would need to clear waivers. Withing a few days later (probably shorter) he came out again through the media and kind of changed the stance, though I never saw anything stating it one way or the other.

It made it seem unlikely that ROR would have ended up going through waivers, but it was an embarrassment to have happened to begin with and should have been cleared up prior to the offersheet being signed.

[Flash Walken]

GGG, there had already been 2 players taken on re-entry waivers due to the same rule that would have applied to O'Reilly.

There was a precedent, and that rule hadn't be changed or negotiated on during the CBA. It's been the same rule since 2005.

All of this is absurd in the face of not calling the league and doing due diligence in a move designed to help 'win now' and keep Iginla on board with the club.

I'm not sure I'd move Monahan right now for O'Reilly, and at the time, Monahan could have been Jones or even Barkov.

There is no excusing it. All defense to the contrary seem to hinge on hoping the NHL wouldn't have have enforced a rule that wasn't up for negotiation at the time and hadn't changed in the previous CBA, in a misguided effort to save the season and keep Iginla in Calgary.

The motivation was bad, the plan was bad, the execution was bad and the resolution was bad.

Ever step of that blunder was in the wrong direction, from initiating the offer sheet in the beginning, to publicly disagreeing with the NHL by asserting their 'interpretation' of a rule that could have been clarified in a 10-20 minute conversation.

It has Ken King's fingerprints all over it in my opinion, but, Feaster was still there doing the paper work.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...there had already been 2 players taken on re-entry waivers due to the same rule that would have applied to O'Reilly...

Who were those?

[PlayfulGenius]

Why does everyone insist the BOS offer was better than the PIT one?

It really comes down to Kocklachev vs Klimchuk

I think I've spelled the Russian's name wrong.

Anyway, is it really so obvious which package was better?

Personally, I'm happy with Klimchuk.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who were those?

Svatos and Nabokov I believe.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who were those?

Nabokov ... Signed with DET then scooped up by the Islanders.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Why does everyone insist the BOS offer was better than the PIT one?

It really comes down to Kocklachev vs Klimchuk

I think I've spelled the Russian's name wrong.

Anyway, is it really so obvious which package was better?

Personally, I'm happy with Klimchuk.

I am starting to think agostino will be the best piece out of all the returns.

Bartkowski is still the most nhl ready of all the players mentioned though, I thinks why most people view that return as more substantial.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

Why does everyone insist the BOS offer was better than the PIT one?

It really comes down to Kocklachev vs Klimchuk

I think I've spelled the Russian's name wrong.

Anyway, is it really so obvious which package was better?

Personally, I'm happy with Klimchuk.

Why wouldn't the Flames have drafted Klimchuk with the Bruin's pick?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Svatos and Nabokov I believe.

Thanks. But I believe the difference in this case that the Flames were pressing was the fact that O'Reilly was a RFA, and that there seemed to be an amendment to this rule on that condition:

All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing.
For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23.

I still think that (1) there was real latitude at the time of the offer in the interpretation of the rule, that (2) none of Daly's direct quotations provide any actual confirmation of the NHL's position, and (3) since Colorado very promptly matched, there was no impetus for them to clarify the rule in the face of what was a pretty unusual situation.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thanks. But I believe the difference in this case that the Flames were pressing was the fact that O'Reilly was a RFA, and that there seemed to be an amendment to this rule on that condition:



I still think that (1) there was real latitude at the time of the offer in the interpretation of the rule, that (2) none of Daly's direct quotations provide any actual confirmation of the NHL's position, and (3) since Colorado very promptly matched, there was no impetus for them to clarify the rule in the face of what was a pretty unusual situation.

I think Svatos was an RFA when it happened to him.

An RFA holdout who played in Europe who then signed with his NHL club and was claimed by a different club on re-entry waivers.

Again, ambiguity could have been resolved with a speed dial conversation.

Trying to pull the wool over the league's eyes certainly backfired.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Fire

Why wouldn't the Flames have drafted Klimchuk with the Bruin's pick?

There wasn't a 1st round pick in the Bruins offer.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

There wasn't a 1st round pick in the Bruins offer.

There absolutely was a 1st rounder involved in Boston's offer, according to Peter Chiarelli.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think Svatos was an RFA when it happened to him.

I don't think so. He last played with Colorado, and then signed with St. Louis. The only way the Blues could have signed him if he was still an RFA would have been through an offer sheet. All indications seem to point to his deal as an UFA contract.

*EDIT* Besides, the amendment I cited was written specifically into the new CBA, and Svatos's deal occurred under the old agreement.

In any event, I have always had major doubts that the League would have followed through with the public's interpretation of the rule, in light of the fact that compensation for draft picks were involved. The rule was designed as a control on signing UFAs to play in the NHL in mid-season in an effort to circumvent certain cap conditions. If a team loses a signed UFA on waivers, all they lose is the player and the contract. At the time the RFA offer for O'Reilly was made, there was CLEARLY enough confusion on ALL FRONTS to confirm the assertion of many parties that the CBA was still being finalised, and that this was a scenario that was not adequately covered in the signed draft versions. I think this likely caught the League off guard, and they were more than happy to avoid making firm statements one way or the other because they saw this as a problem in the deal. It will never happen again, thanks to this incident.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There absolutely was a 1st rounder involved in Boston's offer, according to Peter Chiarelli.

My understanding is it was a 2nd that could become a 1st...but we don't know what the condition was.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

GGG, there had already been 2 players taken on re-entry waivers due to the same rule that would have applied to O'Reilly.

There was a precedent, and that rule hadn't be changed or negotiated on during the CBA. It's been the same rule since 2005.

All of this is absurd in the face of not calling the league and doing due diligence in a move designed to help 'win now' and keep Iginla on board with the club.

I'm not sure I'd move Monahan right now for O'Reilly, and at the time, Monahan could have been Jones or even Barkov.

There is no excusing it. All defense to the contrary seem to hinge on hoping the NHL wouldn't have have enforced a rule that wasn't up for negotiation at the time and hadn't changed in the previous CBA, in a misguided effort to save the season and keep Iginla in Calgary.

The motivation was bad, the plan was bad, the execution was bad and the resolution was bad.

Ever step of that blunder was in the wrong direction, from initiating the offer sheet in the beginning, to publicly disagreeing with the NHL by asserting their 'interpretation' of a rule that could have been clarified in a 10-20 minute conversation.

It has Ken King's fingerprints all over it in my opinion, but, Feaster was still there doing the paper work.

The rule had been in place, yes.

But there was a line in the new agreement that affected that rule. The line was very ambiguously worded, however. And it was that ambiguity that led to this situation and all the subsequent debate.

Feaster and the Flames failed by not clarifying prior. That is indisputable I would think.

However, considering the ambiguity of the wording in the new agreement, there is no way that anyone can state (with accuracy) what the league would have ruled.

It is extremely hard to imagine, IMO, that the league would rule that the Flames lose both the player and the draft picks, considering that it was their own document that was unclear. Seems more likely to me that they would cancel the whole transaction.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

My understanding is it was a 2nd that could become a 1st...but we don't know what the condition was.

Chiarelli said in an interview after that it was Koko, Bart, and and unconditional 1st rounder for Iginla.

I agree with FW in that I think Agostino will be the best of 4 prospects we could have received, but Bartkowski certainly fills more of a void.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Chiarelli said in an interview after that it was Koko, Bart, and and unconditional 1st rounder for Iginla.

I agree with FW in that I think Agostino will be the best of 4 prospects we could have received, but Bartkowski certainly fills more of a void.

I hear what you're saying, but Bartkowski is a run of the mill bottom pairing defender. If Aggy becomes an NHL player and Klimchuck cracks the top 6 eventually I will be more than happy.

[Enoch Root]

I think the 1st was the primary asset in the deal. And they got the 28th from Pitt and would have gotten the 29th from Boston. So they likely still get Klimchuk.

I don't see any of the other 4 players having any kind of significant NHL careers. Agostino has just as good a shot as any of the others.

So I really don't get all the angst surrounding this trade. Both packages were equally as meh.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Bartkowski would have been a good replacement for Butler as a run of the mill, generic, dime a dozen dman who makes zero positive impact (on the ice) with zero upside and is basically nothing more than a warm body. The Russian is smaller and would've been buried by our depth at center. I'm glad Iginla chose Pittsburgh. Agostino is a good prospect and I'm happy we have him. I see a more consistent Glencross minus the 20 goal ability.

[Freeway]

Svatos was a UFA: http://www.capgeek.com/player/555

So was Nabokov: http://www.capgeek.com/player/137