View Poll Results: Should Jay Feaster be fired?
|
Yes he's the head of the hockey department
|
  
|
445 |
60.30% |
No one of his reports are in charge of details like this
|
  
|
107 |
14.50% |
No the offers sheet wasn't effective so no loss to the team
|
  
|
186 |
25.20% |
03-01-2013, 01:58 PM
|
#661
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Regardless of who's right, it's a massive oversight to not check with the league on the new language to see how they interpret it. Look at the Radulov situation last year. Nashville made a point of clearing it with the league before making any moves because one could argue that he should've been subject to waivers. They didn't just bring him in and hope for the best.
|
And that's one of the small things that will get glossed over in all of this, but it points to the overall ineptitude and lack of plan for this franchise.
In a way, it's even more damning than trying to make a hockey trade and failing.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:58 PM
|
#662
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Regardless of who's right, it's a massive oversight to not check with the league on the new language to see how they interpret it. Look at the Radulov situation last year. Nashville made a point of clearing it with the league before making any moves because one could argue that he should've been subject to waivers. They didn't just bring him in and hope for the best.
|
I certainly agree with that, I can't think of a single reason to not clear it ahead of time.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:58 PM
|
#663
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Still the way it is worded is certainly not clear so it would definitely go to court if the Av's did not match. It would be the NHL vs the NHLPA and the Flames.
|
One thing everyone is missing is that this was a rule regardless of the exemption factor. All the Flames could have argued was that the Avalanche have to put him through waivers as well (which I think is ridiculous but whatever).
Regardless of the interpretation of the exemption, the Flames would have lost ROR to waivers and given Colorado their 1st and 3rd round picks.
No interpretation can change that.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:59 PM
|
#664
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
Cam Cole @rcamcole
Next Flames game, fan wearing rainbow-coloured Afro wig in seats behind bench holds up sign that reads "Jay 13:23." #hockeyscripture
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:59 PM
|
#665
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: back in the 403
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Umm, yes, the Avs had to do it regardless. Their options today are exactly what they were yesterday:
1. Match the deal
2. Lose the player in exchange for Calgary's first and third rounder.
There is no third option for them.
|
Ya, I was more refering to whether they'd be so quick to match to avoid losing a barely 22-year old stud centre to what they assumed would be a division rival, when it turns out it would've most likely been to Columbus.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 01:59 PM
|
#666
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
they could trade to have him on their RFA list
|
No they couldn't, once a player signs an offer sheet the only things that can happen in those 7 days is the team that has the RFA's rights can either match the offer or decline to match. That's it. You can't trade a player after he has signed an offer sheet.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:00 PM
|
#667
|
I believe in the Jays.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluloc
I'd take Burke over Feaster any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
|
For real? Burke? Even if you think Feaster is a bad GM and should be fired Burke would be a lateral move at best.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:00 PM
|
#668
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Abbotsford, BC
|
Chris Botta @ChrisBottaNHL
I bet Jay Feaster gets at least a half-dozen calls from GM colleagues saying, "Hang in there. I could have made the same mistake."
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Pierre "Monster" McGuire For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:00 PM
|
#669
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by habernac
Cam Cole @rcamcole
Next Flames game, fan wearing rainbow-coloured Afro wig in seats behind bench holds up sign that reads "Jay 13:23." #hockeyscripture
|
out of thanks but that's hilarious.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:00 PM
|
#670
|
#1 Goaltender
|
I'm still floored that some agree that "no harm no foul" or "he didn't know and neither did half the league" excuse is acceptable. This would have crippled this team for many years to come and Feaster and co are payed to know these things. "I don't agree with that" isn't an excuse for screwing up on a pretty epic level.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:00 PM
|
#671
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philtopia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sainters7
Ya, I was more refering to whether they'd be so quick to match to avoid losing a barely 22-year old stud centre to what they assumed would be a division rival, when it turns out it would've most likely been to Columbus.
|
You lose him or you don't. Makes no difference.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:01 PM
|
#672
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
If Feaster proved it to be ambiguous though, wouldn't any court rule against the side that wrote it (in this case, Daly) in accordance to Contra Proferentem? His interpretation may be more correct, but unless it's unambiguous in the CBA, it's pretty meaningless.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but that's my interpretation of law. I could be wrong here.
|
As far as I recall, and it's been a few years, that's a concept typically applied to contracts of adhesion, like insurance policies and the like, meant to protect consumers and the layman. It wouldn't apply here as the NHL didn't draft the CBA then put in front of the NHLPA to sign without the ability to negotiate the terms, they drafted the CBA together.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:01 PM
|
#673
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
One thing everyone is missing is that this was a rule regardless of the exemption factor. All the Flames could have argued was that the Avalanche have to put him through waivers as well (which I think is ridiculous but whatever).
Regardless of the interpretation of the exemption, the Flames would have lost ROR to waivers and given Colorado their 1st and 3rd round picks.
No interpretation can change that.
|
Yes it can. The rule is written that the player is exempt if he is on a clubs RFA list. It does not say the current club or his club's list. So it can be interpreted differently. This would have been a lawyer battle for sure and it would have come down to how a judge interpreted it, not the NHL, the NHLPA, or the Flames.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:01 PM
|
#674
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
This team's already crippled by a management team that believes it can win now.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to habernac For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:01 PM
|
#675
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
In part, but so did the NHLPA, and they apparently side with Feaster.
|
Sorry, it wasn't the NHLPA representative that agreed with Feaster. It was O'Reilly's agent.
I have edited my earlier post. The language in the statement said "Players Representative"
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to malcolmk14 For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:02 PM
|
#676
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: City by the Bay
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
If Feaster proved it to be ambiguous though, wouldn't any court rule against the side that wrote it (in this case, Daly) in accordance to Contra Proferentem? His interpretation may be more correct, but unless it's unambiguous in the CBA, it's pretty meaningless.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but that's my interpretation of law. I could be wrong here.
|
I think the CBA was a collaborative effort between the NHL and NHLPA. I don't know if you can sparse out sections and say "well, Daly actually wrote that section".
Contra Proferentem leans more towards contracts that are written completely by one side and given to the other to sign. It's a way of protecting the non-drafter and, I suppose, punishing the drafter who had the best opportunity to spell out exactly what he/she/it meant/wanted. Not applicable in CBA negotiations, IMO.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clever_Iggy For This Useful Post:
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:02 PM
|
#677
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
out of thanks but that's hilarious.
|
Cam Cole's pretty good for a guy who used to work for the Edmonton Journal.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
|
#678
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Yes it can. The rule is written that the player is exempt if he is on a clubs RFA list. It does not say the current club or his club's list. So it can be interpreted differently. This would have been a lawyer battle for sure and it would have come down to how a judge interpreted it, not the NHL, the NHLPA, or the Flames.
|
This is getting ridiculous.
I didn't know it was a judges job to believe in the most far fetched, completely asinine interpretation of a rule.
I'd love to hear an explanation of how the Flames would argue their case.
Go.
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
|
#679
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by habernac
Cam Cole @rcamcole
Next Flames game, fan wearing rainbow-coloured Afro wig in seats behind bench holds up sign that reads "Jay 13:23." #hockeyscripture
|
thats awesome / thanked / new sig
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
|
|
|
03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
|
#680
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Yes it can. The rule is written that the player is exempt if he is on a clubs RFA list. It does not say the current club or his club's list. So it can be interpreted differently. This would have been a lawyer battle for sure and it would have come down to how a judge interpreted it, not the NHL, the NHLPA, or the Flames.
|
But then they follow that up with clarification using an illustration whereby Club A trades player to Club B and Club B can then sign the RFA without needing waivers. If the exemption applied to signing any RFA, whether they're on your list or not, then the clarification would've been unnecessary and wouldn't be in the document.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 PM.
|
|