Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco - Page 34 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 01:58 PM

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.

valo403 · 03-01-2013, 01:58 PM

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.

polak · 03-01-2013, 01:58 PM

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.

habernac · 03-01-2013, 01:59 PM

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

Sainters7 · 03-01-2013, 01:59 PM

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.

J epworth · 03-01-2013, 01:59 PM

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.

Parallex · 03-01-2013, 02:00 PM

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.

Pierre "Monster" McGuire · 03-01-2013, 02:00 PM

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."

Flash Walken · 03-01-2013, 02:00 PM

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.

Kaine · 03-01-2013, 02:00 PM

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.

flamesaresmokin · 03-01-2013, 02:00 PM

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.

valo403 · 03-01-2013, 02:01 PM

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.

dissentowner · 03-01-2013, 02:01 PM

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.

habernac · 03-01-2013, 02:01 PM

This team's already crippled by a management team that believes it can win now.

malcolmk14 · 03-01-2013, 02:01 PM

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"

Clever_Iggy · 03-01-2013, 02:02 PM

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.

habernac · 03-01-2013, 02:02 PM

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.

polak · 03-01-2013, 02:04 PM

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.

Phanuthier · 03-01-2013, 02:04 PM

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

opendoor · 03-01-2013, 02:04 PM

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.