Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Also if Feaster think he is a genius for finding this "loop hole" and risking it, knowing it can be interpreted differently and there is a chance the Flames could come up with nothing AND lost $2.5M... then for sure, he should be fired and would be quite possibly the stupidest thing I can think of that any GM has done in the history of the NHL.

Mistakes are forgivable, this "finding a loop hole" crap is stupid.

Oh I agree. It was a stupid gamble. But if it was an intentional strategy (rather then a big whoops) he did find a potential loophole. He never should have used it though.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The only peices of that post relating to Feaster are Richards & Cervenka, really.

Sutter made the Phaneuf trade
Sutter signed Stajan to a 4 year extension 2 months later.
Sutter signed Morrison, but Feaster re-signed him, so that counts as well.
Sutter traded for Jokinen, traded Jokinen away, and re-signed Jokinen
Conroy retired.

Whether he made the moves or not is irrelevant. One would hope he knew they happened and had the opportunity to learn from them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm off the opinion that under the terms of the MOU, waivers would not have been needed. However, when you add up the risks of the CBA being worded differently to (and having precendence over) the MOU, an arbiter siding with NHL/Columbus' interpretation of the CBA/MOU, and the offer sheet in itself potentially being a bad deal, I don't like the offer sheet. Not sure if I dislike it enough for it to be fireable.

=====================

For what damages? Lack of fan confidence?

That would've upped the draft pick compensation. $5M was about as high as they could go without their 2nd rounder (which they don't have) coming into play, and then beyond that you're talking multiple 1st rounders.

Damage to reputation is actionable and recoverable

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Pointman

So, although I'm sure that initial Daly's interpretation was correct, he said it based strictly on the rule without realizing that he made everyone look like idiots and put some reputations&jobs in jeopardy. Once he got it, he recanted.

Im of the other opinion on Daley. He was asked leading questions by the media on a hypothetical issue that couldnt happen again this season. So followed the reporters logic. The he goes back, sees the storm hes created, reads the clause, thinks about the intent of the clause and why the PA wanted it in there, gets a phone call from Fehr saying that isnt what they agreed to and that it better be fixed in the actual CBA. And the he comes out and quietly retracts his statement after dragging a GM who used and offer sheet through the Mud.

The truth of the intent of this clause will be in the wording of the final CBA

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

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?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417108


Mods could we get a poll please.

No

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by valo403

Damage to reputation is actionable and recoverable

Feasted should sue the team on the ice if he is going for those damages

[mister__big]

After reading through all 62 pages of this thread (I should get a medal for that) and rationally thinking through the events that unfolded, I give Feaster the benefit of the doubt and I believe he really did think O'Reilly would not have to clear waivers. Here's what I think happened:

1. Feaster and Flames read the MOU and found that it was ambiguous at best. They decide that based on the wording, it is reasonable to argue that "a team" could mean "any team" and that the Flames would not have to put O'Reilly on waivers.

2. Feaster decides NOT to call the league to verify. He knows that by calling, there is a good chance that the league will say that the Flames' interpretation is incorrect and thus they wouldn't be able to go ahead with the offer sheet.

3. Judging on Pat Morris' (O'Reilly's agent) comments where he said he had no idea about the waiver rule, it is possible Feaster did not check with Morris regarding this matter, as doing so might have caused Morris to call the league to make sure.

Now, given the above scenario, I think what Feaster did was incredibly sneaky and underhanded, similar to New Jersey when they tried to circumvent the spirit of the salary cap with Kovalchuk's salary. I understand that Feaster is a lawyer and that's what they do (find faults and argue over semantics to their advantage), but I don't think the NHL and GMs of other teams will be amused by his antics. Ken Holland basically fired a shot at Feaster when he said that if he were in the same situation, he would have checked with the league first. Holland did go on to say that he's sure the Flames did their due diligence but he's just paying lip service. If you read between the lines you can tell he wasn't too pleased by what transpired.

Regardless of whether Feaster or Bill Daly was right, this fiasco has severely damaged the reputation of the Flames and for that reason, someone will take the fall. I don't think Feaster will be fired, but the damage has been done and the public's and NHL executives' perception of the Flames has taken a huge nose dive.

All in all, I think Feaster should be fired just so the team can be rid of the stench of this disaster and move on.

[Iggy3x]

I read on National Post and ESPN that The NHL refused to make comment on the waiver clause - Article 13.23:

"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."

I think Feaster definitely should have checked with the league (but I can also see why he didn't). However, as a league, I think it is the responsibility for it to clarify so the fans, players, GMs and owners know what is the official interpretation. By not clarifying, it is irresponsible.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Iggy3x

I read on National Post and ESPN that The NHL refused to make comment on the waiver clause - Article 13.23:

"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."

I think Feaster definitely should have checked with the league (but I can also see why he didn't). However, as a league, I think it is the responsibility for it to clarify so the fans, players, GMs and owners know what is the official interpretation. By not clarifying, it is irresponsible.

no kidding, Feaster is being dragged through the mud and the league itself isnt doing anything, I believe its because they know how bad they screwed up. so bloody irresponsible to let the person who pointed out your flaw take the fault for it. total BS

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

no kidding, Feaster is being dragged through the mud and the league itself isnt doing anything, I believe its because they know how bad they screwed up. so bloody irresponsible to let the person who pointed out your flaw take the fault for it. total BS

Feaster either did it on purpose or he didn't. If he did it on purpose, then it was a conscious decision to try and get away with something. If that is the case, then he deserves to take the heat alone.

If it was an accident and he didn't do his due dilligence, then it is incompetance.

Either way, it's on him.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Feaster either did it on purpose or he didn't. If he did it on purpose, then it was a conscious decision to try and get away with something. If that is the case, then he deserves to take the heat alone. \

so because he tried to get away with something that was worded in a way that favoured him, he should be blamed for how it was worded?

Wrong.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

so because he tried to get away with something that was worded in a way that favoured him, he should be blamed for how it was worded?

Wrong.

Especially since he did so in order to improve the team. As posted several pages back, chances are that ROR would not have gone through waivers had Colorado not matched.

Looking back at the beginning of the initial thread about offer sheeting ROR, most people were excited or looking forward to seeing what was going to happen next.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

so because he tried to get away with something that was worded in a way that favoured him, he should be blamed for how it was worded?

Wrong.

Last weekend, my sister told my 6 year old niece she had to go to bed if she didn't eat her dinner. My niece agreed and was later found in her parent's bed watching TV. She argued that it wasn't specified which bed she had to go to. Needless to say, she lost the argument.

What Feaster did was the equivalent of a smart ass kid trying to pull one over (it wasn't wise or clever). If he would have succeeded and had brought the spotlight down on the NHL becasue of it, it would have been a media circus. Why would they feel the need to defend him now after what he did? He is lucky they are going with "no comment" at this point. All he had to do was make a phone call.

That is of course assuming was his plan and he didn't just bumble into this mess, which is more likely IMO.

[GirlySports]

Can we just agree that everyone didn't know?

Feaster didn't know, LaCroix didn't know, ROR and his agent didn't know and there are a few other GMs who are happy it was Feaster and not them who made this offer.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Especially since he did so in order to improve the team. As posted several pages back, chances are that ROR would not have gone through waivers had Colorado not matched.

Looking back at the beginning of the initial thread about offer sheeting ROR, most people were excited or looking forward to seeing what was going to happen next.

So you are saying Feaster on purpose, risked losing a 1st and a 3rd for nothing just to try and challenge a "loop hole" that the league may or may not take a hardline stance on?

Seems like an asinine strategy for a team that has few assets already.

[Ashasx]

Has anyone read these, or am I late to the story?

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...-feaster-righ/

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...s-false-scoop/

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It is a gamble though, and, more to the point, is O'Reilly such an outstanding player of franchise quality or the salary they would get him for so low or some combination of the both, to make this gamble worthwhile.

If there is a posibility you lose your picks and a couple of million with nothing to show for it you would expect the payoff to be for nothing less than a Stamkos or a Seguin or maybe a lesser player at a huge discount, O'Reilly may be a good player but he is neither franchise quality or particularly cheap in this deal.

Agreed. From the outside looking in, at the minimum, it looks like a gamble. I guess we will never really know whether it was an oversight with a smooth talking coverup, or a calculated risk they were cofortable would work itself out in their favor. As the dust settles, it looks like the Flames interpretation of the MOU would have prevailed. I guess I am willing to put my pitchfork away for another day.

As for whether you think ROR is worth all of this... I dont know enough about him to say, and am not prepared to debate that. I will say that I, for the most part, have been satisfied with their pro scouting lately. Wideman and Hudler seem like great acquisitions, and there does seem to be more emphasis on skill in the cupboard lately. ROR may not turn out to be a franchise player, but with our dire need, ha may still have been a franchise changing player to the Flames. I would have enjoyed watching that drama unfold.

In the end, Feaster was able to put the screws to a division rival, and the benefits of that may yet develop further. In my mind, I guess I will have to find another reason to fire Feaster. This ends up being much ado about nothing.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

So you are saying Feaster on purpose, risked losing a 1st and a 3rd for nothing just to try and challenge a "loop hole" that the league may or may not take a hardline stance on?

Seems like an asinine strategy for a team that has few assets already.

Feaster obviously felt that the risk was much smaller. Can't say exactly how it would have turned out as we can speculate but I can't help to think that our GM would have had prepared for that particular situation.
Instead we're left with talking about how bad it could have been after the fact as a result of an interpretation made and lead by the media the (originally) ambiguous rule.

But hey, if it really did turn out that Feaster blind folded himself and decided to with a suicidal plan that 'luckily' failed, by all means fire the trebuchet at the ownership and management.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Last weekend, my sister told my 6 year old niece she had to go to bed if she didn't eat her dinner. My niece agreed and was later found in her parent's bed watching TV. She argued that it wasn't specified which bed she had to go to. Needless to say, she lost the argument.

What Feaster did was the equivalent of a smart ass kid trying to pull one over (it wasn't wise or clever). If he would have succeeded and had brought the spotlight down on the NHL becasue of it, it would have been a media circus. Why would they feel the need to defend him now after what he did? He is lucky they are going with "no comment" at this point. All he had to do was make a phone call.

That is of course assuming was his plan and he didn't just bumble into this mess, which is more likely IMO.

and I would commend your niece for doing that, and would imagine that in the future your sister will make her expectations crystal clear - just as Im sure the NHL will do.

do you think that your neice was wrong? or do you think it was a fairly clever interpretation of what your sister said? she did exactly as your sister asked her to do - it is not your nieces fault that your sister wasnt clear.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Agreed. From the outside looking in, at the minimum, it looks like a gamble. I guess we will never really know whether it was an oversight with a smooth talking coverup, or a calculated risk they were cofortable would work itself out in their favor. As the dust settles, it looks like the Flames interpretation of the MOU would have prevailed. I guess I am willing to put my pitchfork away for another day.

As for whether you think ROR is worth all of this... I dont know enough about him to say, and am not prepared to debate that. I will say that I, for the most part, have been satisfied with their pro scouting lately. Wideman and Hudler seem like great acquisitions, and there does seem to be more emphasis on skill in the cupboard lately. ROR may not turn out to be a franchise player, but with our dire need, ha may still have been a franchise changing player to the Flames. I would have enjoyed watching that drama unfold.

In the end, Feaster was able to put the screws to a division rival, and the benefits of that may yet develop further. In my mind, I guess I will have to find another reason to fire Feaster. This ends up being much ado about nothing.

I am out of thanks again, but this is an extremely well worded and thought out post. Thank you