Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Because the army of idiots involved from both sides of the negotiation write incomprehensible rules and memos of understanding?

Are you kidding this rule or similar versions of it has been around for decades. I read the section, it's not tough to comprehend. At the very least it warrants a discussion with the league for clarificaiton if you have a different view. The way Feaster says he does now.

[morgin]

MOU exists because they didn't have time to draft a full CBA before the season got going.

MOUs are typically full of problematic drafting. This is not new. it's a result of having a short document trying to summarize complicated concepts.

This is likely an issue no one really anticipated in the drafting of the MOU - it's clear by the "for further clarity" statement they contemplated situations involving trading RFA rights, but they didn't specifically address in the drafting whether the new waiver would apply to offer sheets. The use of "a Club's reserve list" vs. "Player's Club's reserve list" or "the Club holding the rights to that Player's reserve list at the start of the season" is sloppy and evidences the issue.

Feaster is 100% right that there was a possible issue to advance with the league if they took a contrary position (which they kind of have but kind of haven't?). If the agreement was that each club should have a list of RFA's who would be waiver exempt, and that exemption only applied for those players when they signed to that team, it should say so, vs being ambiguous about whether it was enough that the player was on someone's list.

Is it kind of bush league that this came out in public the way it did? Sure. I'm of the opinion though that had no one noticed the sloppy MOU drafting, and had Colorado not made this moot by matching, no one involved would have actually interpreted it the way the NHL is saying now. They would have interpreted it the way Feaster does, which is that the exemption was meant to allow RFAs who played overseas during the lockout to not fall within the waiver rule of the old CBA, which allows rights trading and offer sheets to operate as they would had this not been a wonky season with the lockout.

So, Feaster may be taking the heat for this, but I think that the likely outcome would have never actually involved this waiver BS had Colorado not matched. This is a non-story in a lot of ways.

[dammage79]

I am going to be very very interested in the redemption trade feaster makes sometime this weekend or the following week. He knows he has to blow the doors off to make the optics of yesterday go away.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Are you kidding this rule or similar versions of it has been around for decades. I read the section, it's not tough to comprehend. At the very least it warrants a discussion with the league for clarificaiton if you have a different view. The way Feaster says he does now.

When it gets changed at the last minute in the CBA negotiation, what was around before it for decades doesn't matter.

Indeed, listen to the clear direction given by the league to remove all doubt about the matter once and for all.

Originally Posted by Stupid ####ing Lawyers

The NHL declined on Friday to clarify whether O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if the Avalanche didn't match Calgary's offer sheet.

"We agree with the Flames in the sense that the entire issue has become an academic point," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email to The Canadian Press. "Ryan O'Reilly has signed a contract with the Colorado Avalanche and the contract has been registered. We have nothing further to say on the subject."

Stupid ####ing lawyers.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by morgin

MOU exists because they didn't have time to draft a full CBA before the season got going.

MOUs are typically full of problematic drafting. This is not new. it's a result of having a short document trying to summarize complicated concepts.

This is likely an issue no one really anticipated in the drafting of the MOU - it's clear by the "for further clarity" statement they contemplated situations involving trading RFA rights, but they didn't specifically address in the drafting whether the new waiver would apply to offer sheets. The use of "a Club's reserve list" vs. "Player's Club's reserve list" or "the Club holding the rights to that Player's reserve list at the start of the season" is sloppy and evidences the issue.

Feaster is 100% right that there was a possible issue to advance with the league if they took a contrary position (which they have). If the agreement was that each club should have a list of RFA's who would be waiver exempt, and that exemption only applied for those players when they signed to that team, it should say so, vs being ambiguous about whether it was enough that the player was on someone's list.

Is it kind of bush league that this came out in public the way it did? Sure. I'm of the opinion though that had no one noticed the sloppy MOU drafting, and had Colorado not made this moot by matching, no one involved would have actually interpreted it the way the NHL is saying now. They would have interpreted it the way Feaster does, which is that the exemption was meant to allow RFAs who played overseas during the lockout to not fall within the waiver rule of the old CBA, which allows rights trading and offer sheets to operate as they would had this not been a wonky season with the lockout.

So, Feaster may be taking the heat for this, but I think that the likely outcome would have never actually involved this waiver BS had Colorado not matched. This is a non-story in a lot of ways.

I am out of "thank you's" but, thank you

[gargamel]

This poll needs a 4th option: Feaster's interpretation of the rule was correct.

If he were wrong, getting lucky by having Colorado match would not save him, but I don't see how "a club" can be turned into "the club" in the CBA. Feaster did nothing wrong here.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

wow, what an embarrassing show of incompetence...looks good on him

This is the guy steering the ship???

Canucks still suck, that is undeniable, looks good on them. Another year of failing in the playoffs for the Canucks, looks good on them.

[sven]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Canucks still suck, that is undeniable, looks good on them. Another year of failing in the playoffs for the Canucks, looks good on them.

Wow, I hate the Olympic Dive team as well but let's stay on topic...

[868904]

Can we also fire Ken King and get new owners? Or at least maybe someone other than Murray Edwards in charge?

The ownership group here is in denial to the fact that this team needs to be rebuilt. Everyone outside of Calgary sees it and it's way past due. This organization is a joke right now, the biggest joke and laughing stock of the NHL.

I honestly don't even see what GM in their right mind would take this job on if Feaster was fired. Everyone knows what has to be done, but the owners are delusional and won't let it happen. Only Feaster was desperate enough to take the job on and play along. Any real good or qualified GM will pass.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

When it gets changed at the last minute in the CBA negotiation, what was around before it for decades doesn't matter.

Indeed, listen to the clear direction given by the league to remove all doubt about the matter once and for all.



Stupid ####ing lawyers.

Interesting that he took a step back from apparently what he told TSN this morning. I assume O'Reilly was the last RFA that this could have been an issue for, and that it will be clarified in the final wording of the CBA.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by gargamel

This poll needs a 4th option: Feaster's interpretation of the rule was correct.

If he were wrong, getting lucky by having Colorado match would not save him, but I don't see how "a club" can be turned into "the club" in the CBA. Feaster did nothing wrong here.

What Feaster did wrong was gamble a first and second round pick on an 'interpretation', a gamble that, even if iit did pay off, gets the team a player at a reletively high price and for a couple of years who has some significant issues around how he deals with his team.

When the Canucks took a winger on getting Pavel Bure out of Russia they used a late round oick in case it didn't work out.

Taking a lconsiderable risk on losing your picks for nothing with a reward that is no where near a bargin is assanine

[jschick88]

Originally Posted by henriksedin33

wow, what an embarrassing show of incompetence...looks good on him

This is the guy steering the ship???

Welcome back!! Not surprised you show up when something negative happens with the Flames. Can't wait for another bold prediction from you.

[Mike Vernon]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I can't believe that anyone thinks he should be fired given the state of the document and the number of teams that were under the same impression. It appears the only person who knew of this rule was Bill Daly.

It's entirely possible the Flames verified with the NHL front office before they submitted the offer sheet and that they were under the same impression as the Flames. Do you have any evidence they drafted and submitted this in a vacuum?

Thank you for this post. The regular "knee jerkers" are working over time on this thread. Im sure most are avid fans of other teams wishing the Flames misery.

We dont know if the Flames talked to the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet. We dont know how the NHL interprets the CBA in this instance. We don't know if the NHL would have made the Flames clear ROR in waivers before acquiring him...We dont know, none of us do. Yet lets fire Feaster!!! Sheesh, this is 44+ pages of garbage. Ive seen a lot of garbage on this forum but this takes the cake. Well done doomsdayers. Well done!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

Thank you for this post. The regular "knee jerkers" are working over time on this thread. Im sure most are avid fans of other teams wishing the Flames misery.

We dont know if the Flames talked to the NHL prior to submitting the offer sheet. We dont know how the NHL interprets the CBA in this instance. We don't know if the NHL would have made the Flames clear ROR in waivers before acquiring him...We dont know, none of us do. Yet lets fire Feaster!!! Sheesh, this is 44+ pages of garbage. Ive seen a lot of garbage on this forum but this takes the cake. Well done doomsdayers. Well done!

We actually do know that Feaster didn't talk to the league as he told us he didn't

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by morgin

MOU exists because they didn't have time to draft a full CBA before the season got going.

MOUs are typically full of problematic drafting. This is not new. it's a result of having a short document trying to summarize complicated concepts.

This is likely an issue no one really anticipated in the drafting of the MOU - it's clear by the "for further clarity" statement they contemplated situations involving trading RFA rights, but they didn't specifically address in the drafting whether the new waiver would apply to offer sheets. The use of "a Club's reserve list" vs. "Player's Club's reserve list" or "the Club holding the rights to that Player's reserve list at the start of the season" is sloppy and evidences the issue.

Feaster is 100% right that there was a possible issue to advance with the league if they took a contrary position (which they have). If the agreement was that each club should have a list of RFA's who would be waiver exempt, and that exemption only applied for those players when they signed to that team, it should say so, vs being ambiguous about whether it was enough that the player was on someone's list.

Is it kind of bush league that this came out in public the way it did? Sure. I'm of the opinion though that had no one noticed the sloppy MOU drafting, and had Colorado not made this moot by matching, no one involved would have actually interpreted it the way the NHL is saying now. They would have interpreted it the way Feaster does, which is that the exemption was meant to allow RFAs who played overseas during the lockout to not fall within the waiver rule of the old CBA, which allows rights trading and offer sheets to operate as they would had this not been a wonky season with the lockout.

So, Feaster may be taking the heat for this, but I think that the likely outcome would have never actually involved this waiver BS had Colorado not matched. This is a non-story in a lot of ways.

Thanks for this. A good second perspective on the issue.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by wiiwii

No. This confirms for me that Feaster is exactly the kind of guy I want to see running the Flames franchise going forward, for hopefully many years.

Are you stupid enough to think this question was directed towards Oiler fans?

[morgin]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What Feaster did wrong was gamble a first and second round pick on an 'interpretation', a gamble that, even if iit did pay off, gets the team a player at a reletively high price and for a couple of years who has some significant issues around how he deals with his team.

When the Canucks took a winger on getting Pavel Bure out of Russia they used a late round oick in case it didn't work out.

Taking a lconsiderable risk on losing your picks for nothing with a reward that is no where near a bargin is assanine

We'll never know now that sports media (which in this case is really just a bunch of legally unqualified people who know about sports trying to cover complicated concepts like contract law) has run with this story. However, the more I think about this, the more I think there was literally almost zero gamble.

All Players on 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. For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23.

It seems absurd to read this exemption and deduce that it was meant to not include offer sheet signings. In fact, I would think that if they wanted to do so, they would probably need to have a statement saying "for further clarity, this exemption shall not apply in the case of a Player on a Club's Restricted Free Agent List signing an offer sheet with another Club." or something of that nature.

The whole idea was to permit certain overseas players (in this case, a RFA) to get back into the NHL when the prior CBA would have required them to go through waivers. It makes zero sense that they would be eligible for the exemption if it is their current team signing them or a rights trade, but not an offer sheet. Why would the whole offer sheet regime be ignored? I would think you'd actually need to specifically exclude it if that was the intention.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Feaster is only one lawyer, and it took a #### ton of lawyers to draft the MOU, the CBA, and to get the league to the lockout position in the first place. Blame the damn dirty lawyers. All of them, including Feaster. He deserves about 1/200th of the blame on this, at the most.

This makes absolutely no sense. Feaster did not do his homework before pulling the trigger on this offer. He is 100% to blame. End of story.

[Hockey_Ninja]

HAHAHA @ all of these Canucks/Oilers trolls showing up out of nowhere. Where the hell were they when the Canucks got manhandled by the Kings or when the Oilers get spanked?

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by morgin

MOU exists because they didn't have time to draft a full CBA before the season got going.

MOUs are typically full of problematic drafting. This is not new. it's a result of having a short document trying to summarize complicated concepts.

This is likely an issue no one really anticipated in the drafting of the MOU - it's clear by the "for further clarity" statement they contemplated situations involving trading RFA rights, but they didn't specifically address in the drafting whether the new waiver would apply to offer sheets. The use of "a Club's reserve list" vs. "Player's Club's reserve list" or "the Club holding the rights to that Player's reserve list at the start of the season" is sloppy and evidences the issue.

Feaster is 100% right that there was a possible issue to advance with the league if they took a contrary position (which they have). If the agreement was that each club should have a list of RFA's who would be waiver exempt, and that exemption only applied for those players when they signed to that team, it should say so, vs being ambiguous about whether it was enough that the player was on someone's list.

Is it kind of bush league that this came out in public the way it did? Sure. I'm of the opinion though that had no one noticed the sloppy MOU drafting, and had Colorado not made this moot by matching, no one involved would have actually interpreted it the way the NHL is saying now. They would have interpreted it the way Feaster does, which is that the exemption was meant to allow RFAs who played overseas during the lockout to not fall within the waiver rule of the old CBA, which allows rights trading and offer sheets to operate as they would had this not been a wonky season with the lockout.

So, Feaster may be taking the heat for this, but I think that the likely outcome would have never actually involved this waiver BS had Colorado not matched. This is a non-story in a lot of ways.

Only makes it all the more bitter that we did lose out on ROR and are left with pitchforks and torches.