Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by valo403

I agree with that. I don't think he had much rope left so I can see this pushing it over the edge. I guess my question is more 'would you be willing to forgive this if other things were going well?'

What a facile question.

If the Flames were the blackhawks this wouldn't be as big of a deal but would still be a massive blunder that would probably cost the GM his job.

That we're talking about one of the worst teams in the league and a potential first overall pick, yeah, it makes it worse.

edit: this post comes across more aggressive than I ever meant. I just don't understand your question at all.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by JayP

What proof is there that ROR & co. weren't forthcoming with the fact that he was playing?

I don't have any, but doesn't say it doesn't exist. I guess that is why I am asking. I guess I am thinking of this like a real estate transactions, where there may be conditions that are needed to be satisfied before the transaction is executed.

Could there be a standard clause in these sheets making the offer sheet void if the player and/or agent did not declare their actions (him playing after the season started) meant he would have to clear waivers.

If not, I would certainly argue this would need to be added to the template for offer sheets.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

You must be a lawyer now or in your past life.

You are the only person on here who is arguing another interpretation of the exemption. An interpretation, might I add, that would make the exemption itself, completely pointless and therefore one that cannot be correct.

There are plenty of cases where contracts are found to contain clauses that are completely ineffectual, and therefore pointless. The intent by the NHL may have been to create a limited exception but if the language doesn't spell that out, and the parties don't agree on the intent, you could easily wind up with a court/arbitrator finding otherwise

[coop3422]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Avs can't trade him if they matched the offer sheet.

Avs can't trade a player who has signed an offer sheet.

Therefore, no trade is even possible.

Come on man, you should know this. They teach it in RMIN 743.

Sure they can. They can say they won't match, if they get x in return.

As a Flyers fan I know this first hand from the Weber offer sheet. The preds were saying "fine, we won't match it, but we want couturier, b schenn, 2 firsts, etc". So yes a trade can be made, but it is actually the Flames trading something else to keep their pick(s).

Either way, Feaster made an awful move and repercussions need to happen. You can't lost a first and a third for nothing, never ever. Colorado can't sign the paperwork fast enough IMO.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

It took some writer of a Sports network to find something a slew of laywers from the Flames, Avs, various other NHL teams, the NHL, and the NHLPA couldn't find. If this turns out to be true, everyone looks stupid except for that writer.

The Flames are the only party that put through the offer sheet though.

Maybe other teams were considering offer sheets - they easily could have done their due diligence and picked up the issue before the offer sheet was sent to O'Reilly.

The Avs are only concerned if they can match without having O'Reilly clear waivers. What happens to the offer sheet team isn't of much concern to them.

The Flames are the only party that had something to lose from not knowing the fine print and, thus, should be the most aware of the rules. Maybe the other sides should know for future reference, but they don't look nearly as ridiculous as the Flames do.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

This is NY Jets level of incompetence

Can Tebow take faceoffs?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not that I agree with his interpretation, but your response is basically: "LOL! A loophole in the CBA? Never happen."

All parties agreed to place that exemption into the CBA that makes an RFA exempt from the waiver rule. He is saying that once an RFA signs an offer sheet or any deal, they are no longer an RFA and therefore the exemption is completely useless.

That's like agreeing to sell your house and saying in the contract, that you will add a stair railing to your house before the posession date but then argue that you don't have to add it to the house because it's no longer yours. I can't see anyone upholding that interpretation.

[sven]

If I was the AVs GM, I would be pissed at the Flames for escalating salary and giving an RFA like ROR 5m when he clearly does not deserve it. (He may be worth it in the future) This is the exact reason we had a lockout.
At this point, the main goal is to improve the franchise and a 2nd goal (if aligned with the 1st goal) would be to b!tchslap Feaster for that move.

That being said, first call would be made to Columbus (who would have first dibs on ROR) and tell them, we are about to match the offersheet but are you guys interested in ROR? If so, what player would you be willing to give up for him?

If they are willing to give up any one of Dubinsky, Anisimov, Brassard, Foligno, I would essentially be offering them ROR, and a 3rd round pick for any one of those players plus a 2nd rounder coming back to the AVS.

This move would then give the AVs one of (Dubinsky, Anisimov, Brassard, Foiligno) Cgy's 1st rounder (most likely a top 5 pick), Cgys 3rd rounder, Columbus' 2nd rounder, for ROR and a 3rd rounder.

In the 2013 deep draft, Columbus would then have Cgys 1st, their 1st, their 2nd, Columbus' 2nd and Cgy's 3rd while adding a solid roster player

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by blankall

This.

People need to relax here. If Feaster was wrong, there's several dozen other lawyers, GMs, owners, agents, etc... who were also wrong.

It was not a simple case of Feaster not seeing the rule. The rule is totally ambiguous. Daly is making an arbitrary interpretation.

Makes you wonder what his next "Gaff" is, that's the problem

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What a facile question.

If the Flames were the blackhawks this wouldn't be as big of a deal but would still be a massive blunder that would probably cost the GM his job.

That we're talking about one of the worst teams in the league and a potential first overall pick, yeah, it makes it worse.

edit: this post comes across more aggressive than I ever meant. I just don't understand your question at all.

My question is, if the Flames were having something resembling on ice success, or if the cupboards had been stocked with talent, or basically Feaster had a pretty high approval rating, would this blunder be fatal? Is the a last straw thing, or is this so bad that it's a death sentence regardless of anything else?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by JayP

The Avs are only concerned if they can match without having O'Reilly clear waivers. What happens to the offer sheet team isn't of much concern to them.

The Flames are the only party that had something to lose from not knowing the fine print and, thus, should be the most aware of the rules. Maybe the other sides should know for future reference, but they don't look nearly as ridiculous as the Flames do.

That's not really true. If Colorado had picked up on this they could've publicized it and basically removed any threat of an offer sheet which would've reduced O'Reilly's bargaining power.

[jg13]

I can't believe how much I've learned from management in the past 24 hours. Desperate and stupid. Someone needs to be fired

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by blankall

People need to relax here. If Feaster was wrong, there's several dozen other lawyers, GMs, owners, agents, etc... who were also wrong.

I don't care. The other guys aren't employed by the Flames and they didn't expose the organization to getting royally screwed. Feaster isn't the only fool here, but he's the only fool that matters.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by habernac

Nick Cotsonika ‏@cotsonika
It was Feaster's job to know. But a lot of smart, informed people inside and outside the NHL did not know about O'Reilly and waivers.

The problem is whether those smart, informed people would've discovered this if they had a stake in it. The NHL doesn't. The Avs don't. Other teams do, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until they officially sent out the offer.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by sven

If I was the AVs GM, I would be pissed at the Flames for escalating salary and giving an RFA like ROR 5m when he clearly does not deserve it. (He may be worth it in the future) This is the exact reason we had a lockout.
At this point, the main goal is to improve the franchise and a 2nd goal (if aligned with the 1st goal) would be to b!tchslap Feaster for that move.

That being said, first call would be made to Columbus (who would have first dibs on ROR) and tell them, we are about to match the offersheet but are you guys interested in ROR? If so, what player would you be willing to give up for him?

If they are willing to give up any one of Dubinsky, Anisimov, Brassard, Foligno, I would essentially be offering them ROR, and a 3rd round pick for any one of those players plus a 2nd rounder coming back to the AVS.

This move would then give the AVs one of (Dubinsky, Anisimov, Brassard, Foiligno) Cgy's 1st rounder (most likely a top 5 pick), Cgys 3rd rounder, Columbus' 2nd rounder, for ROR and a 3rd rounder.

In the 2013 deep draft, Columbus would then have Cgys 1st, their 1st, their 2nd, Columbus' 2nd and Cgy's 3rd while adding a solid roster player

if its such a bad contract why did they match it

[polak]

Originally Posted by valo403

There are plenty of cases where contracts are found to contain clauses that are completely ineffectual, and therefore pointless. The intent by the NHL may have been to create a limited exception but if the language doesn't spell that out, and the parties don't agree on the intent, you could easily wind up with a court/arbitrator finding otherwise

The language is hardly ambigious. It clearly states that RFA's are exempt. He was Colorado property until they decided whether or not to match the offer sheet and thus, he is exempt. If you take his interpretation into account then Colorado is SOL regardless. Regardless of what they did, they would have lost ROR, either to the Flames or to Waivers.

It's a completely ridiculous idea.

[keenan87]

I didn't read through 40 pages so let me get this straight.

We could have traded our 1st and 3rd to Avalanche and the Oilers could have picked him up.

1st and 3rd for nothing?

I say fire his ass if this is true

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

All parties agreed to place that exemption into the CBA that makes an RFA exempt from the waiver rule. He is saying that once an RFA signs an offer sheet or any deal, they are no longer an RFA and therefore the exemption is completely useless.

That's like agreeing to sell your house and saying in the contract, that you will add a stair railing to your house before the posession date but then argue that you don't have to add it to the house because it's no longer yours. I can't see anyone upholding that interpretation.

Honestly, you could probably draft language that could make that scenario happen. If a court found that the parties genuinely did not have the same intent or understanding as to what the term meant the court could strike it completely. Pretty hard to believe in your scenario, but not so hard in the context of the CBA.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Originally Posted by valo403

Can Tebow take faceoffs?

At a minimum I bet he wouldn't be muscled off the puck...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by polak

The language is hardly ambigious. It clearly states that RFA's are exempt. He was Colorado property until they decided whether or not to match the offer sheet and thus, he is exempt. If you take his interpretation into account then Colorado is SOL regardless. Regardless of what they did, they would have lost ROR, either to the Flames or to Waivers.

It's a completely ridiculous idea.

According to the present rules as read purely under their clear language, only RFAs and players on the Reserve list are exempt from waivers. O'Reily is no longer an RFA as Colorado has matched on offer sheet.

If Daly was going to force the Flames to put him through waivers, he should now have to force the Avs to do the exact same thing.