Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[dino7c]

Daly doesn't just decide on whats what, PA has a say and obviously they would side with the Flames

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

thats awesome / thanked / new sig

I don't get the joke, care to explain?

[polak]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

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"

Who apparently admitted no knowledge of the rule earlier today?

Hmm... Something doesn't add up.

[danny darko]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but here is Feaster's statement...

“Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.

Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.

While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process.”

Jay Feaster

General Manager

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

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.

Honestly man you really have no idea how many cases there are that you think would be simple that aren't. You seem to just be glossing over my previous responses to you, but the bottom line is that if the parties didn't have an actual meeting of intent a court/arbitrator can completely reconstruct or discard with the clause.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

I don't get the joke, care to explain?

13.23 is the article in the CBA

[Flash Walken]

Even the Flames company men on the Fan are having a difficult time defending the flames statement.

"So, did the Flames know they were going to lose Ryan O'Reilly to waivers and wanted to force the issue or...it's hard to comprehend at this point."

"This is Jay Feaster. This is right up his alley. He's a law man by trade."

[troutman]

we will have no further comment on the matter

Good luck with that Jay.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by polak

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.

Because it doesw not state the players current club, it states a hockey club. Lawyers argue interpretations all the time when they are not clear, if you cannot grasp that then that is your issue. Judges make decisions on the interpretation of laws and words in contracts all the time. Saying the Flames would not be able to challenge the way that is written is the only assinine thing here.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by Parallex

For real? Burke? Even if you think Feaster is a bad GM and should be fired Burke would be a lateral move at best.

He may get a lot of flack, however he is a good GM and defiantly an upgrade on Feaster.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

That is for trades, not for an offer sheet. Where does it say that if a player on a team's RFA list is signed to an offer sheet to team B that he loses that RFA list protection?

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by $ven27

He may get a lot of flack, however he is a good GM and defiantly an upgrade on Feaster.

I agree. Other than Kessel, he fleeces GMs in trades all the time.

[polak]

Originally Posted by valo403

Honestly man you really have no idea how many cases there are that you think would be simple that aren't. You seem to just be glossing over my previous responses to you, but the bottom line is that if the parties didn't have an actual meeting of intent a court/arbitrator can completely reconstruct or discard with the clause.

First it was the exemption that was being argued.

Now we are arguing a rule that has been in place for 9 years and has been used in the Radulov case.

I understand that the courts can restructure the rule but the Flames would need to convince them that their interpretation is legitimate. I'd love to see how they could put together such an argument.

"Well, we didn't know that he's no longer a restricted free agent once we signed him to a contract after the avalanche didn't match the offer sheet?"

Obviously this team has qualified and traded for the rights of plenty of restricted free agents in the past. I just can't see anyone, even a small child being convinced otherwise.

[Cortez]

Originally Posted by danny darko

Not sure if this has been posted yet but here is Feaster's statement...

“Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.

Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.

While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process.”

Jay Feaster

General Manager

This tells me that they were aware of the rule, and ready to defend their interpretation with the league.
Most likely meaning that they would have taken it to court or used any legal means possible to secure ROR

[sven]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Because it doesw not state the players current club, it states a hockey club. Lawyers argue interpretations all the time when they are not clear, if you cannot grasp that then that is your issue. Judges make decisions on the interpretation of laws and words in contracts all the time. Saying the Flames would not be able to challenge the way that is written is the only assinine thing here.

So let's get this straight. Feaster (being a well educated law man) sees the phrasing in question and reads / understands it completely differently from rest of society (I guess he's the only genius?)

OR

He sees phrasing that he believes can be circumvented and went through with this offer fully knowing that he's going to have to go through a #### storm and arbitration where he has a slim chance of winning?


OR option 3

This was an oversight and he obviously isn't going to admit to his mistake and spin it that best way he can?


Which one is most likely folks?

[PeteMoss]

Polak - no one has argued about the exemption. If there was no exemption then signing him would have been stupid. It would have also been stupid for the Avs to sign him as well. So he was basically sitting out the year once he played that KHL game.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by keenan87

I agree. Other than Kessel, he fleeces GMs in trades all the time.

At least with Kessel Burke made the trade before the season started and theoretically they weren't expected to finish near the bottom.

With Feaster signing O'Reilly we are already near the bottom 1/3 into the season, and probably would finish near the bottom with him in the lineup for the remainder of the season. So theoretically the O'Reilly RFA signing would have been worse than the Kessel deal.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Cortez

This tells me that they were aware of the rule, and ready to defend their interpretation with the league.
Most likely meaning that they would have taken it to court or used any legal means possible to secure ROR

Or it means that they just made that up to make it sound like they knew about it?

Why on earth would you not clarify your position before tendering such an offer? Why would you risk it?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by polak

First it was the exemption that was being argued.

Now we are arguing a rule that has been in place for 9 years and has been used in the Radulov case.

I understand that the courts can restructure the rule but the Flames would need to convince them that their interpretation is legitimate. I'd love to see how they could put together such an argument.

"Well, we didn't know that he's no longer a restricted free agent once we signed him to a contract after the avalanche didn't match the offer sheet?"

Obviously this team has qualified and traded for the rights of plenty of restricted free agents in the past. I just can't see anyone, even a small child being convinced otherwise.

Sigh. There is an exemption for players who are signed that are on a club's RFA list. The key word to argue here is "a". So if the Av's can match the offer sheet and therefore bring O'Reilly in without having to go throuh waivers because he was on their offer sheet why would that not be the same for the Flames? The argument the Flames have is he was on "a" clubs RFA list. It does not specify it has to be the players current club, just that he is exempt if he is on "a" RFA list.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by sven

So let's get this straight. Feaster (being a well educated law man) sees the phrasing in question and reads / understands it completely differently from rest of society (I guess he's the only genius?)

OR

He sees phrasing that he believes can be circumvented and went through with this offer fully knowing that he's going to have to go through a #### storm and arbitration where he has a slim chance of winning?


OR option 3

This was an oversight and he obviously isn't going to admit to his mistake and spin it that best way he can?


Which one is most likely folks?

Did you read the thing? It is not clear.

And I still voted for him getting fired as its not worth the risk of losing the player and the picks.