Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Even if the Flames were to end up with the "top five" pick everyone who hated the signing assumed, I would really like to know how it is "theoretically" worse to give up the #5 and #65 picks than to give up the #2, #9 and #32 picks.

Because Kessel is a superior player than O'Reilly. So for a 40 goal/Point per game player like Kessel he's worth another pick. So if you look at the trade as two firsts and a second for Kessel vs. a first (of a team likely to miss the playoffs) and a third, it's a very similar trade.

Also as I said Burke made the deal in the off-season, so there was a very good chance he didn't expect them to pick in the #2 spot that year and #9 the year after. The Leafs underperformed and were hit by a ton of injuries the year Seguin was picked as well. If the Bruins ended up with lower picks like Burke expected obviously the trade doesn't look as bad.

Then with this offer sheet Feaster was willing to trade the pick of a team currently in 25th place in the league just past the 1/3 mark of the season. Even if O'Reilly helps out, we're still probably picking in the top 10. So yes theoretically when you consider the timing of the offer sheet the deal would have been just as bad as the Kessel deal, maybe even worse. I'm just considering it from the day the deal was made, and not looking back on where Toronto actually finished both years.

Just look at the rest of the 2010 draft, IF the Leafs don't finish the season so poorly they don't give up a bottom two pick to Boston, and outside of Hall and Seguin the rest of the first round selections don't look as bad in that deal (aside from Skinner at #7 and possibly Granlund at #9). Then with Hamilton, that was just a really nice pick at #9. It was a bad trade no doubt, but wouldn't have been as bad if the Leafs had made the playoffs like Burke expected.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Everybody interpreted the rule the way Feaster did until one reporter found differently.

There was heavy talk of an offer sheet before what the Flames did. Bob McKenzie highlighted it as a possibility.

I don't think it was because they interpreted the rule the same way as Feaster. Most likely, they all just didn't grasp that he played at KHL after season started. It was mere two games and then he dissolved his KHL contract at Jan 24th, just 5 days after season started. With so many players coming back from KHL just before season started, they may have missed those 2 games.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

has Brent been hired yet as if not....

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by keenan87

The Avs should screw with us. Match the offer 5 mins prior to the deadline and just wreck Feaster for 6 more days.

If they do that then they have 6 less days (and however many games) of O'Reilly... I'd be fine with them not having ROR's services for three more games.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by polak

I can agree with that.
Frankly I'm not going to pour over the CBA to prove my point that any challenge of Daly's interpretation is far-fetched (I don't think many people disagree with me on that?) because regardless of that, there is no way Feaster should have went ahead with this without clarifying such a move beforehand. I think the lack of elobartion in his press release and ROR's agent supposedly not knowing about the rule speaks to the theory that he flat out didn't know about the rule until this morning.

As for the "a clubs RFA list", I could see that being a contestable point (but again, a far fetched one) but only if the "a clubs" part doesn't clearly refer to the team who owns the rights, elsewhere in the CBA.

Based on Blankall's posts and Feaster's release (assuming it's completely genuine and truthful), there is clearly a disagreement on interpretation. If so, it's not unreasonable to assume that the provision is ambiguous. You'd have to drill down to the intent of both the NHL and NHLPA in drafting the language of 13.23 as to whether Daly's interpretation is correct or Feaster/ROR's agent's is. But there is ambiguity and not an unreasonable interpretation by Feaster.

HOWEVER, not clarifying this issue with the NHL and NHLPA (and not just ROR's agent) is brutal though. Would have been a fairly easy endeavor.

[sven]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

All Playerson 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.


Page 19 : http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf

I read this as well but this is just a summary...
Do you have the actual CBA link?

I'm quite certain that the actual CBA is more detailed.

And I'm sure Feaster would not be going off of a summary but the real CBA

[kirant]

Originally Posted by sven

I'm not an NHL GM but if I was, I would be the first to know the CBA inside out as it would be my JOB

For those that said the CBA is confusing... I honestly don't see what is confusing or ambiguous

I only found the 2005 CBA

13.23 In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside
North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his
Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)
only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or
Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.


Now does anyone have a link to the new CBA because I don't understand how this is confusing or ambiguous

Players on the Reserved List and are RFAs are exempt.

Therefore, the confusion lie in whether or not O'Reilly was an RFA after he came through to Calgary, or whether he was taken off being an RFA, then assigned to Calgary, in which case forcing him on waivers.

Feaster believes the former is possible, while Daly (this morning) intended it to be the latter.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by sven

Do you have the actual CBA link because this is just a summary

I'm quite certain that the actual CBA is more detailed and formatted correctly.

No, there is no full CBA. Everyone is operating from a Memo of Understanding.

O'Reilly's agent has even said that he has never seen the new CBA. Neither has Feaster.

[calgary2220]

Now that it officially comes from the league O'Reilly would have to clear waivers to have played with the Flames if Colorado didn't match should Feaster be let go?

Who's waiver's would he have to clear? Calgarys or the Avs? Maybe I just don't understand how it works.

If it's the Avs that had to put him on waiver's could the Flames just claim him anyways? Besides who ever claims him, would have to pay that new contart. I don't think too many would

[bubbsy]

it's amazing, i haven't been so sad and just frustrated by this organization since that day a few years ago jokinen/prust were traded to the rangers for kotalik, yet played knowing they were to be traded.

I really love the calgary flames, like they're annoyingly a big part of my life, but the state of the franchise has left me in a pure state of thinking that the entire franchise needs to be burned to the ground and started a fresh.

i am convinced that the management are unwilling to end this era of the roster, as it would cause a definite downturn in the city's excitement to the city, which would in turn, result in a negative position of negotiation for the new arena.

F the new arena. Let's fix the team, and talk about an arena 5 years from now.

i think that means a new GM, and more importantly a new philosophy from management, or new management.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by sven

I'm not an NHL GM but if I was, I would be the first to know the CBA inside out as it would be my JOB

For those that said the CBA is confusing... I honestly don't see what is confusing or ambiguous

I only found the 2005 CBA

13.23 In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside
North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his
Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)
only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or
Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.


Now does anyone have a link to the new CBA because I don't understand how this is confusing or ambiguous

You act like there has never been ambiguous wording in a contract before. There are specific doctrines in court that deal with things like this in the public.

I don't know how the case of interpretation of ambiguous wording in the NHL would have gone if the Avs did not match, but I think the Flames could make a fair case in their favour.

[GrammarPolice]

Steve Tambellini ‏@FakeOilersGM
I wonder if my $5M cap hit Ales Hemsky extension is still the "funniest thing" @NHLFlames "has heard in a long, long time".

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin

You lose him or you don't. Makes no difference.

Granted, its semantics, and I'm sure losing him no matter where he went wasn't what they wanted. I'm just saying I think it'd be much worse to them if he ended up playing for a division rival, as opposed to say, Columbus or the Islanders.

That's like saying if Iginla got traded this year, we wouldn't care if it was to the Canucks/Oilers, as opposed to the Blues/Pens/Rangers, etc. I'd have to think that we would care.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Based on Blankall's posts and Feaster's release (assuming it's completely genuine and truthful), there is clearly a disagreement on interpretation. If so, it's not unreasonable to assume that the provision is ambiguous. You'd have to drill down to the intent of both the NHL and NHLPA in drafting the language of 13.23 as to whether Daly's interpretation is correct or Feaster/ROR's agent's is. But there is ambiguity and not an unreasonable interpretation by Feaster.

HOWEVER, not clarifying this issue with the NHL and NHLPA (and not just ROR's agent) is brutal though. Would have been a fairly easy endeavor.

So easy and obvious in fact, when you are putting your first round pick and 2.5 million on the line, that it is inconceivable that any person, let alone an experianced GM wouldn't make a quick call to the league, if only to assess what level of risk, therefore one can only draw the conclusion that the explanation is bull, that they didn't have a clue.

[Voodooman]

Some humour from the twitterverse...

Adam Proteau @ Proteautype RUMOR: Flames GM Jay Feaster interested in signing Chicago Blackhawks to an offer sheet

Oilers Junkie @OilersJunkie Jay Feaster is the guy that spends 10 mins looking at ladies' jeans and when the store clerk tells him he pretends he knew all along


God, what a depressing day when an Oiler fan mocking your team can make you laugh.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by GrammarPolice

Steve Tambellini ‏@FakeOilersGM
I wonder if my $5M cap hit Ales Hemsky extension is still the "funniest thing" @NHLFlames "has heard in a long, long time".

Ouch, that hurts coming from Oiler fans...

[moon]

Originally Posted by calgary2220

If it's the Avs that had to put him on waiver's could the Flames just claim him anyways? Besides who ever claims him, would have to pay that new contart. I don't think too many would

I can't see how Colombus doesn't take him right off the bat if not to use them on their team but to trade him to a team that wants him.

Worst case scenario they trade him to Colorado for a 3rd round pick or something but likely get more than that back.

And Avs don't have to put him on waivers Flames do.

[polak]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

All Playerson 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.


Page 19 : http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf

BTW I know this probably wouldn't be a valid argument in court but if the intention was to include any RFA's or Reserve players in the exemption, like some of you are saying in terms of "A club's list" being ambigious, then why would they not just clearly state "All RFA's or Reserves will be exempt"...

It's extremely obvious what the actual intended and agreed upon meaning was. This would have all been back pedalling to try and disprove that and the fact that Feaster would be willing to risk a 1st and 3rd round pick on that without verifying from both the NHL and the NHLPA, just screams incompetence.

[Ashasx]

Oilers picked first overall 3 times in a row so I think it'll take a little more to balance out.

[SuperMatt18]

The actual wording of the exemption would make him in-eligible for waivers.

He was on "a club's" Reserved List and RFA list.

It does not state that it is only if he is signed by that club and does not clarify what happens in the case that he is given an offer sheet.

It specifically stated that in the case of a trade the player was wavier exempt, so an oversight by the NHL to not provide the same clarity for an offer sheet.

This will get fixed and in the end it will be that Feaster's understanding will be correct.