Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by 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/

"This is a weird paragraph. It says if a player is already signed, but plays in Europe after the start of the NHL season, then 13.23 applies. But if he’s an unsigned RFA, plays in Europe after the start of the season, and then signs in the middle of the season, then 13.23 doesn’t apply. Why prevent the signed player from returning, but not the freshly signed player? Is that really what the 2013 clause is trying to say? Who knows. But that is literally what it says and it’s not ambiguous. (Why they changed the rule in this way is another question, and not at all clear; but the literal meaning of the rule is clear. O’Reilly doesn’t have to clear waivers, because he was a mid-season signing.)"

[Badgers Nose]

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.

In my opinion at a minimum he would've turned into a Craig Conroy type player when he was at his prime. And I'm pretty sure that a lot of fans would accept a $5 million contract for a player that can both get the most out of Iggy and who would also be an excellent face-off man and defensive forward.

The media criticism of the flames over the last few years makes it difficult to accept anything they say without suspicion of bias. I am not saying that they are always wrong, but I am saying that you need to read carefully and have a healthy dose of cynicism when you read their work.

I see very little balance in almost anything that's written about the flames these days.

That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do, but this team does occasionally do some very good things. It isn't all bad.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

"This is a weird paragraph. It says if a player is already signed, but plays in Europe after the start of the NHL season, then 13.23 applies. But if he’s an unsigned RFA, plays in Europe after the start of the season, and then signs in the middle of the season, then 13.23 doesn’t apply. Why prevent the signed player from returning, but not the freshly signed player? Is that really what the 2013 clause is trying to say? Who knows. But that is literally what it says and it’s not ambiguous. (Why they changed the rule in this way is another question, and not at all clear; but the literal meaning of the rule is clear. O’Reilly doesn’t have to clear waivers, because he was a mid-season signing.)"

The "spirit" of the CBA hasn't really been touched upon, because there is a wide range of opinions.

My guess on the above is that they want to discourage players on current contracts from bolting overseas, and allow unsigned players to return unencumbered.

The wrinkle is offer sheets, and just what they want to encourage and discourage

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by sa226

The "spirit" of the CBA hasn't really been touched upon, because there is a wide range of opinions.

My guess on the above is that they want to discourage players on current contracts from bolting overseas, and allow unsigned players to return unencumbered.

The wrinkle is offer sheets, and just what they want to encourage and discourage

This scenario as it played out would seem to be in the best interests of the players Association. It resolves a contractual dispute with the player getting healthy raise, and of course it raises the bar higher for young centers when it comes to contract negotiation.

So I don't understand why they wouldn't come out in support of this interpretation of the memorandum of understanding.

Furthermore, I have to trust that Jay's Feaster as a trained lawyer would understand the minutiae of this agreement and would have some solid footing to challenge any interpretation of what he did that was contrary to what he was trying to achieve.

So far the reporting on this incident has been a massive disappointment.

I feel a little bit manipulated in terms of all the highs and lows.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by 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/

First time posted that I saw. He has four articles on it, and I'll link them chronologically.

1. I don't think Ryan O'Reilly can play in the NHL this season
2. Why I'm wrong and everyone is...also wrong
3. Jay Feaster is right and you are wrong
4. Chris Johnston doubles down on his false "scoop" re the Flames and O'Reilly

The revelation for me was this, from teh 2nd link...

This is a weird paragraph. It says if a player is already signed, but plays in Europe after the start of the NHL season, then 13.23 applies. But if he’s an unsigned RFA, plays in Europe after the start of the season, and then signs in the middle of the season, then 13.23 doesn’t apply. Why prevent the signed player from returning, but not the freshly signed player? Is that really what the 2013 clause is trying to say? Who knows. But that is literally what it says and it’s not ambiguous. (Why they changed the rule in this way is another question, and not at all clear; but the literal meaning of the rule is clear. O’Reilly doesn’t have to clear waivers, because he was a mid-season signing.)

I thought Jay's "loophole" was the difference between "a" club and "the" club, and how that language was significantly less precise than the previous CBA.

This guys take makes more sense, that it's the unsigned status of O'Reilly that was key, not weak language that a lawyer can exploit.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

This scenario as it played out would seem to be in the best interests of the players Association. It resolves a contractual dispute with the player getting healthy raise, and of course it raises the bar higher for young centers when it comes to contract negotiation.

So I don't understand why they wouldn't come out in support of this interpretation of the memorandum of understanding.

Furthermore, I have to trust that Jay's Feaster as a trained lawyer would understand the minutiae of this agreement and would have some solid footing to challenge any interpretation of what he did that was contrary to what he was trying to achieve.

So far the reporting on this incident has been a massive disappointment.

I feel a little bit manipulated in terms of all the highs and lows.

Jay Feaster is a trained lawyer, but isn't Gary Bettman who helped write the rules also a trained lawyer?

I have said it before and i will say it again:

Going by Feasters statement he knew about the rule and was ready to challenge if it came down to it. That challenge would have taken weeks for a decision. Even if Feaster had won, this team would more than likely have been out of it and handing the Av's a top 5 pick.

Sorry but that is not a good back up plan.

[Mr.Coffee]

It's obvious he fataed up, it's less obvious why he can't admit this point blank publicly. You'd earn a lot more respect from just owning up and secondly, since nobody else on Earth knew about this rule, it's sort of hard to crucify him for not knowing. It is easy to crucify him for not clarifying with the NHL though, especially when he comes out and acts a little arrogant about it.

[Badgers Nose]

I think the bloodfetish post explains it neatly.

[browna]

Even if the argument is that Feaster did this with full intention to put his lawyer hat on to head to a fight with the league from the start, the chips that he was willing to gamble away were not worth the very real risk of it going bad.

The Flames losing money,two draft picks in a deep draft, and the player would've sent the franchise back from a hockey standpoint, even if you discount the reputation and perception hits it has and would take if this stretched out.

[Enoch Root]

Thanks for those links Ashasx.

Interesting articles and perspective.

What is frustrating me at his point is the complete lack of comments from the league. Considering the firestorm that this has generated, and the bad light that it has shed on one of the league's franchises, the league needs to clarify: either come out and establish that the Flames did in fact err, or come out and admit that they didn't.

I would suspect that the silence is a result of the fact that the league is uncertain and is scrambling to establish their position.

Again, if the Flames are in fact wrong, heads have to roll.

If it turns out they weren't then the league needs to step up and rectify this fiasco.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Jay Feaster is a trained lawyer, but isn't Gary Bettman who helped write the rules also a trained lawyer?

I have said it before and i will say it again:

Going by Feasters statement he knew about the rule and was ready to challenge if it came down to it. That challenge would have taken weeks for a decision. Even if Feaster had won, this team would more than likely have been out of it and handing the Av's a top 5 pick.

Sorry but that is not a good back up plan.

Yes he is, but he actually hasn't said anything yet. So we really don't know what his interpretation of it would be. We know what feasters interpretation of it would be. And that's about all we have.

Maybe the gentle and sensitive Elliott Friedman will have a response from the league later today. The hot stove should be very interesting tonight.

My guess is that they will cite unnamed sources in the players Association and the league office. Which means will be no further ahead tomorrow in understanding this issue.

I hesitate to call it a fiasco because as of right now I'm not sure that it actually is a fiasco. I only know that whole bunch of non-credible sports media say that it's a fiasco. Everything else being equal that probably means it wasn't a fiasco at all.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

So nice to read this thread 24 hours later. Everyone's calmed down and can think things through rationally.

After giving it further thought. I'm on Feaster's side on this one. It was a small clause that no one even knew about. Yes, Feaster should have thoroughly combed through all the clauses that apply, but no one could've guessed that a clause like that was present in the new CBA.

[Codes]

If that is the language Feaster was using to make the assertion that O'Reilly wouldn't have to clear waivers, then I would agree with him. That paragraph seems very black and white. This seems far more legitimate than arguing the interpretation between "a club" and "the club".

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thanks for those links Ashasx.

Interesting articles and perspective.

What is frustrating me at his point is the complete lack of comments from the league. Considering the firestorm that this has generated, and the bad light that it has shed on one of the league's franchises, the league needs to clarify: either come out and establish that the Flames did in fact err, or come out and admit that they didn't.

I would suspect that the silence is a result of the fact that the league is uncertain and is scrambling to establish their position.

Again, if the Flames are in fact wrong, heads have to roll.

If it turns out they weren't then the league needs to step up.

I think the nuance here completely missed by the sports media is the fact that the league has to support one of their franchises but in doing so they give the players Association something that they would actually want. It's a bit of a conundrum. And much much more complicated than the simple articles in the daily rags would lead you to believe.

[nik-]

Pick up the phone and make sure, don't gamble with our future on something you're not sure of. It's inexcusable and I'm shocked at how many people are trying to justify this.

[trew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thanks for those links Ashasx.

Interesting articles and perspective.

What is frustrating me at his point is the complete lack of comments from the league. Considering the firestorm that this has generated, and the bad light that it has shed on one of the league's franchises, the league needs to clarify: either come out and establish that the Flames did in fact err, or come out and admit that they didn't.

I would suspect that the silence is a result of the fact that the league is uncertain and is scrambling to establish their position.

Again, if the Flames are in fact wrong, heads have to roll.

If it turns out they weren't then the league needs to step up.

I don't see why heads have to roll, unless Feaster didn't clear this with Murray Edwards first.

After all, Murray is a very good lawyer, an NHL board of governors member, and has intimate first-hand knowledge of the CBA negotiations and the spirit of the agreement. If Feaster didn't consult him, then he very well might be fired.

If Murray was on board with the offer, then there's an excellent chance this would have rubber stamped though the NHL head office if Colorado failed to match.

[BigJim]

[QUOTE=I thought Jay's "loophole" was the difference between "a" club and "the" club, and how that language was significantly less precise than the previous CBA.

This guys take makes more sense, that it's the unsigned status of O'Reilly that was key, not weak language that a lawyer can exploit.[/QUOTE]

just asking...Where does anyone confirm that this is what Jay's interpretation was? I've just been reading all of the posts on this thread and others, and the various articles on this subject, and it seems that a lot of persons are now acknowledging that the was not a bungled transaction and was something that actually has some thought put into it, albeit a gamble.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by nik-

Pick up the phone and make sure, don't gamble with our future on something you're not sure of. It's inexcusable and I'm shocked at how many people are trying to justify this.

We get it, dude.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by BigJim

just asking...Where does anyone confirm that this is what Jay's interpretation was? I've just been reading all of the posts on this thread and others, and the various articles on this subject, and it seems that a lot of persons are now acknowledging that the was not a bungled transaction and was something that actually has some thought put into it, albeit a gamble.

The Flames statement did not go into specifics, so I don't think that confirmation exists, and probably never will.

Which is why I really wish Johnston had a Flames statement in his story, so that we could know what their thinking was at the time. For Feaster to say it was O'Reilly's unsigned status now, well I'm sure the easy response is "Yeah, right Feaster. NOW you say that. You're just covering your ass"

[BigJim]

Next...I think it's time to move on from this... What we all need to buck up everyone's spirits and take our mind of this issue is a trade of some "whipping boy", perhaps Jaybo, for a 1st rounder +. That will get everyone excited for this supposed "deep draft" and simultaneously start a critical analysis of the foolishness of trading your top minute-eating defenceman for "futures".