[News] Feaster and Weisbrod relieved of duties. Burke will hire a new GM

[codynw]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Is it actually him? I follow him and some of it is gold.

I don't think so. If it is that makes it even better.

[codynw]

Also, completely unrelated, but this account has it's moments too.

https://twitter.com/notbaertschi

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Can we retire post apex, intellectual honesty and whatever crappy Feasterisms remain.

Let's also pre-emptively retire truculence.

[superfarmer]

I bet Feaster is feeling a whole lot better now that Murray Edwards arm had been removed from his ass

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

So is it "almost" or "no chance" ?

Yes.

The league "almost" certainly would have gone with Feaster's interpretation, allowing us to keep ROR without putting him through waivers. If not, they'd have voided the offer sheet because the language was too unclear to be enforceable, leaving us with our picks. Therefore, there is "no chance" that we'd have lost the picks for nothing.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

This is okay. Sven goes down a rips it up and gets away from Hartley for the rest of the season. Start fresh next year. New coach and new confidence.

But what if the new coach is Ron Wilson....

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by gargamel

There is no chance that we would have lost the pick if Colorado hadn't matched. The wording of the MoU supported Feaster's interpretation and we'd have almost certainly gotten to keep ROR. At worst, the signing would have been voided and we wouldn't have lost anything. In hindsight, I'm glad that we kept the #6 pick, but we were still within striking distance of a playoff spot at that point and Kipper was about to return from his injury, so it was reasonable to think that ROR and a decent Kipper would have been enough to push that pick back into the teens. Regardless, I think you said it best...

Look at the wording in the final CBA. It's abundantly clear how the MOU language would've been interpreted and it would've resulted in the Flames having to put O'Reilly on waivers.

And even if Feaster had a case, you don't risk your 1st round pick hoping you can beat the league on a technicality or hope that if they rule against you that they'll have mercy on you and void a legally binding contract with a player.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by codynw

Also, completely unrelated, but this account has it's moments too.

https://twitter.com/notbaertschi

That led me to this

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by gargamel

There is no chance that we would have lost the pick if Colorado hadn't matched. The wording of the MoU supported Feaster's interpretation and we'd have almost certainly gotten to keep ROR. At worst, the signing would have been voided and we wouldn't have lost anything. In hindsight, I'm glad that we kept the #6 pick, but we were still within striking distance of a playoff spot at that point and Kipper was about to return from his injury, so it was reasonable to think that ROR and a decent Kipper would have been enough to push that pick back into the teens. Regardless, I think you said it best...

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

So is it "almost" or "no chance" ?

I think it is now safe to say that I was at a STH meeting where KK admitted that there was a screwup. I wrote the following at the time to a couple of CPers privately:

We had a small STH meet and greet and the first thing he talked about was the "elephant in the room". He apologized, said the Flames made a mistake and said if anyone quoted him publicly or tweeted it etc. he'd deny he said it (which is why I'm passing this on privately). He said that as any accountant or lawyer knows, when there's doubt, you ask for an advance ruling and that they did not do so. They felt that they'd embarrassed the club, themselves and the fans and he wanted to apologize to us as STHs for that.

I would take that to mean that there was "every chance" they would have lost the pick. Alternatively, maybe KK was just trying to be the broad-shouldered guy and take the heat.

Given that Burke was apparently brought in to assess the club, I'd have to suspect that was also part of the consideration.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Look at the wording in the final CBA. It's abundantly clear how the MOU language would've been interpreted and it would've resulted in the Flames having to put O'Reilly on waivers.

And even if Feaster had a case, you don't risk your 1st round pick hoping you can beat the league on a technicality or hope that if they rule against you that they'll have mercy on you and void a legally binding contract with a player.

Yeah. If you aren't completely an idiot, if there is room for misunderstanding, you call up Bettman and double check. Laziness is unforgivable.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I was surprised Feaster wasn't let go at the end of last season, but even more surprised he was terminated now. Would have figured he was safe at least until the end of this season.

As for Weisbrod - I liked him. However, he was not responsible for turning around the drafting. Flames had increasingly better drafts in the years prior to Weisbrod joining the franchise. However, I thought he was positively adding to it.

I think we can all guess as to why Feaster was let go, but why exactly was Weisbrod? Would have assumed that the new GM would have decided to keep him or not. Why Weisbrod only then if the plan is to have the new GM select his own 'team'? Burke himself stated that during the draft while he was in Anaheim, felt that the Flames "hit it out of the park" this past draft. Why fire the guy that was probably a big part of that?

I am not saying it was a mistake to let go of Weisbrod - I am just not sure why they would.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Please read the following for a legal perspective. Also the NHLPA would have grieved the waiver ruling on behalf of the player and the Flames, and Bettman also stated that the wording of the MOU was unclear and would be fixed before the agreement was signed.

Feaster used what was legally an option and probably would have won in arbitration:

The NHL's interpretation seems to be:

If team A signs RFA Y to their team, and he plays overseas, he doesn't have to pass through waivers.

If team B offer sheets RFA Y from team A, the process goes like this is team A doesn't match:

a) Team A doesn't match.
b) Team B surrenders picks to Team A
c) Team B exposes RFA Y to waivers.
d) Team B obtains rights to RFA Y (at least until he's claimed on waivers).

There are two huge problems with this:

1) This process is not explicitly spelled out in the MOU, leaving room for legal interpretation. And the author of any good legal document leaves as little room for differing interpretations as is feasible. Sometimes it's not possible, but this one is way more vague than it has to be.

2) You have to have the player under contract/have to have rights to the player to put them on waivers. You can't expose a player you do not have on contract to waivers. Thus, c) cannot happen before d). However, if d) happens before c) as such has to happen before c) can be possible, that means that they are obtaining the rights to said RFA and signing their own RFA to a contract. Thus, it logically follows that per the exemption in the MOU, they are not required to proceed with c) and expose their own signed RFA to waivers.

It's quite simple: either a team is exposing a player with whom they do not have a contract or rights to waivers--which is not possible!--or they do have the rights to that player, they sign that player to a contract at which point they legally can put him on waivers, but they are not obligated to because that player is now their RFA and there is an MOU exemption to overseas RFAs and waiver exposure.

I think Feaster was silly to bank a 1st and a 3rd on this, but if the above is his interpretation I agree with him 100%, as much as it pains me to agree with Feaster.

13.23 as it's written in the final CBA operates exactly as you say it cannot. The exemption only applies when signing a player whom you already owned the rights to. For everyone else waivers are required.

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. This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC or is party to an existing SPC with such NHL Club.

It's quite possible to sign players' on other teams' RFA list which is what Calgary would've been doing. The order of events would've been as follows:

1) Calgary signs O'Reilly who is on another teams' RFA list to an offer sheet.

2) Once Colorado declines to exercise its right of first refusal the contract with Calgary takes effect and he is then transferred to the Flames in return for the compensation spelled out in the CBA.

3) That contract kicking in makes him subject to rule 13.23 which requires waivers, just as is the case with a UFA who signs with an NHL team after playing in Europe the same year.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I think it is now safe to say that I was at a STH meeting where KK admitted that there was a screwup. I wrote the following at the time to a couple of CPers privately:

We had a small STH meet and greet and the first thing he talked about was the "elephant in the room". He apologized, said the Flames made a mistake and said if anyone quoted him publicly or tweeted it etc. he'd deny he said it (which is why I'm passing this on privately). He said that as any accountant or lawyer knows, when there's doubt, you ask for an advance ruling and that they did not do so. They felt that they'd embarrassed the club, themselves and the fans and he wanted to apologize to us as STHs for that.

I would take that to mean that there was "every chance" they would have lost the pick. Alternatively, maybe KK was just trying to be the broad-shouldered guy and take the heat.

Given that Burke was apparently brought in to assess the club, I'd have to suspect that was also part of the consideration.

I'll back you up by saying I've talked with a member of the front office last summer and got the same answer, that they made a mistake, that they should have had more people working on it to make sure the deal would 100% work. They knew that O'Reilly played games after the lockout was over and never checked if that was going to be an issue with the league.

Still shocked that there was no firing back then for the mistake, knowing it was an actual blunder of that magnitude.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

I'll back you up by saying I've talked with a member of the front office last summer and got the same answer, that they made a mistake, that they should have had more people working on it to make sure the deal would 100% work. They knew that O'Reilly played games after the lockout was over and never checked if that was going to be an issue with the league.

Still shocked that there was no firing back then for the mistake, knowing it was an actual blunder of that magnitude.

I think that is probably the moment ownership began looking at bringing in a hockey operations president to remove King from the equation.

[darthma]

Conroy made the cut though, right?... I tried to look through the threads but it's insanity.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by darthma

Conroy made the cut though, right?... I tried to look through the threads but it's insanity.

yes.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by darthma

Conroy made the cut though, right?... I tried to look through the threads but it's insanity.

Yes Burke said Conroy is going nowhere.

Also said that Conroy will be a future GM someday, but he isn't a candidate for the Flames GM now.

Also said that the new GM will decide if Conroy would be assistant GM or not.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

In the end despite his frequent use of the phrase, Feaster was not anywhere near intellectually honest enough. The one season he threatened change when we were sucking and then did not follow through either showed ownership meddling (which they've denied) or a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Feaster had many solid smaller deals. Erixon, Russell, etc. But many of his larger moves were accompanied by some sort of fiasco (O'Reilly, Iginla to Boston) or he just didn't get good enough value (Regehr, arguably Iginla and maybe Bouwmeester deals.) Feaster did manage to get us out of many of our terrible contracts but he was also the cause of a few of them (Babchuk, Sarich, Tanguay.) Overall I'd say he didn't make many catastrophic mistakes but he also didn't advance the rebuild as quickly as we could have.

As for Burke I've always liked him. I like his assessment that we lack size, strength and physicality is a true assessment. I think his blueprint does work and that the successful teams do have the size we lack. So I am optimistic that we'll be moving towards getting some powerforwards and some physical defensive defensemen. And at this point that are some of the last few key pieces we need IMO. If we can get a 1st line powerforward or a big top 2 defenseman we are looking good. Even if we have to settle for a top two line centre I think we're looking good as long as Burke is emphasizing finding powerforwards and d-men with size (not ignoring skill/skating.)

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by darthma

Conroy made the cut though, right?... I tried to look through the threads but it's insanity.

In the Burke presser he said that Conroy isn't going anywhere and he isn't promoting anyone right now within. I like Conroy and think he is good to have in there.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I think it is now safe to say that I was at a STH meeting where KK admitted that there was a screwup. I wrote the following at the time to a couple of CPers privately:

We had a small STH meet and greet and the first thing he talked about was the "elephant in the room". He apologized, said the Flames made a mistake and said if anyone quoted him publicly or tweeted it etc. he'd deny he said it (which is why I'm passing this on privately). He said that as any accountant or lawyer knows, when there's doubt, you ask for an advance ruling and that they did not do so. They felt that they'd embarrassed the club, themselves and the fans and he wanted to apologize to us as STHs for that.

I would take that to mean that there was "every chance" they would have lost the pick. Alternatively, maybe KK was just trying to be the broad-shouldered guy and take the heat.

Given that Burke was apparently brought in to assess the club, I'd have to suspect that was also part of the consideration.

This should effectively end all debate about the ROR fiasco. It was a mistake. In addition to completely misjudging the player too.