Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by browna

So he didn't make a mistake by not clarifying the issue with the league before proceeding?

i dont believe so, it would have pointed out their flaw and they would have changed the wording and blocked his shot at signing ROR.

its like if you go to a gas station and its labelled on the big sign as $1.12/L but when you get to the pump its $1.02 - if you go inside and tell them, they will probably thank you and change the price at the pump. If you fuel up then they can't charge you $1.12.
sneaky and underhanded? yeah.
in the wrong? no

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

i dont believe so, it would have pointed out their flaw and they would have changed the wording and blocked his shot at signing ROR.

its like if you go to a gas station and its labelled on the big sign as $1.12/L but when you get to the pump its $1.02 - if you go inside and tell them, they will probably thank you and change the price at the pump. If you fuel up then they can't charge you $1.12.
sneaky and underhanded? yeah.
in the wrong? no

Except if you do happen to lose the argument, all you do is pay a few more dollars. With Flames, they would've lost their 1st, 3rd, and not even get their "franchise player."

Much, much, much more to lose. It was stupid when the Flames are at a point that they need to give much more value to their draft picks and prospects. But since Feaster wants to throw away what will be a good pick, I guess they don't care about it that much.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by 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.

But it's not as though there were not similar precedents of players playing in Europe needing to clear waivers prior to getting back into the NHL. Nabokov and Svatos just year were plucked from the waiver wires when they tried to re-enter the NHL.

In light of those incidents, it was up to the organization to ensure that they knew the possible ramifications.

The rationale that it was a "small clause" is moot: Feaster's statement made it clear they were aware of the clause prior to making the offer.

What it comes down to then is interpretation of that clause. IMO the Flames should have sought clarification from the NHL (an impartial third party, who would ultimately preside over any ruling) They choose not to, and that is the reason for people being upset.

Rolling the dice on part of the organization's future on a hunch is at best risky and at worst negligent.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Would have thanked your post, Titan, but I'm all out.

I would expect in a case where the intent of a clause is unclear that they'd start with the language they do have (the MOU) and go from there. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps someone more experienced could comment.

At any rate I'm glad this thread has turned into a discussion now, and not the witch-hunt it started as.

I agree but have not seen the MOU. I only saw the Summary document that someone linked to. If any one has a link to it that would be interesting.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Except if you do happen to lose the argument, all you do is pay a few more dollars. With Flames, they would've lost their 1st, 3rd, and not even get their "franchise player."

Much, much, much more to lose. It was stupid when the Flames are at a point that they need to give much more value to their draft picks and prospects. But since Feaster wants to throw away what will be a good pick, I guess they don't care about it that much.

if you are a lawyer and know that you are protected from that happening, and would have the backing of the NHLPA as well, then the risk is nil.

great move.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Joborule

It's incredibly reckless and dangerous to go through with that without simply touching base with the NHL still. Let's say that Avs didn't match and the process had to go through, the court case decision would take a while to get done. Therefore the Flames still wouldn't have ROR and their picks would be gone while this is in limbo.

It just wasn't worth the risk to get into a very messy situation. It was stupid and quite simply a fireable offense from him. I can't trust him to make good or wise decisions going further.

Exactly. And that's not "forks and pitchforks" as people making assumptions about his knowledge or the rule or state of mind entering this offer sheet process, are now accusing of.

He's taking a serious risk with what Flames assets was on the line, in a not so "open and shut" case, that would've gone probably at best to arbitration.

Additionally, is dragging the organization into that fight with the NHL worth the time and energy, to hold this situation up pick a fight the principal of the NHL? The offer sheet is sticking the neck out enough as a bold move. Taking it further to battle the NHL(or NHLPA, or both) on a principal or interpretation of wording on top of that, seems more then excessive, again given what was on the line for the Flames organization as a whole. if they lost.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Therefore the Flames still wouldn't have ROR and their picks would be gone while this is in limbo.

why would the picks be gone before a decision was made? wouldn't they also be in limbo??

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by browna

Exactly. And that's not "forks and pitchforks" as people making assumptions about his knowledge or the rule or state of mind entering this offer sheet process, are now accusing of.

He's taking a serious risk with what Flames assets was on the line, in a not so "open and shut" case, that would've gone probably at best to arbitration.

Additionally, is dragging the organization into that fight with the NHL worth the time and energy, to hold this situation up pick a fight the principal of the NHL? The offer sheet is sticking the neck out enough as a bold move. Taking it further to battle the NHL(or NHLPA, or both) on a principal or interpretation of wording on top of that, seems more then excessive, again given what was on the line for the Flames organization as a whole. if they lost.

At the same time, it's not like the NHL is going to try and find every weapon to crush all who try to interpret the current ambiguous rules. Likely the NHL or the arbitrator will listen to the Flames' case of their reasoning for interpreting the way they did. Looking at it from that perspective, it would be silly to think that a lawyer trained individual like Feaster doesn't have a strong case to work with in believing that they don't merely have a possibility but the probability of 'winning'.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

i dont believe so, it would have pointed out their flaw and they would have changed the wording and blocked his shot at signing ROR.

its like if you go to a gas station and its labelled on the big sign as $1.12/L but when you get to the pump its $1.02 - if you go inside and tell them, they will probably thank you and change the price at the pump. If you fuel up then they can't charge you $1.12.
sneaky and underhanded? yeah.
in the wrong? no

In collective bargaining the interperations of both bargining agents supersede the wording of the collective agreement. Feaster is not one of those.

So checking with one or more parties is the minimum proper due diligence.

[dammage79]

I am now more inclined to believe that this situation was more helping COL get their guy under contract while not admitting they needed to pay him more. Meaning that Feaster and company knew for a fact that COL would match and made the offer under the knowledge of this. Which begs a couple questions to be asked, why help out a NW divisional opponent get better half way through the season? And was this more of an illusion of management making an effort to appease the fans and media knowing full well this team doesn't have what it takes and want to ride the season out to a top five pick?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

if you are a lawyer and know that you are protected from that happening, and would have the backing of the NHLPA as well, then the risk is nil.

great move.

But Gary Betman is also a lawyer and he helped write the rules. All i can see is that Feaster while having a very good case to stand on, would have wasted weeks to get his win. In the meantime the current product on the ice would probably have been well out of a playoff spot by the time O Reilly would have been a flame. I don't see how the risk is nil if you are talking about this years team and potential of giving up a top 5 pick?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I am now more inclined to believe that this situation was more helping COL get their guy under contract while not admitting they needed to pay him more. Meaning that Feaster and company knew for a fact that COL would match and made the offer under the knowledge of this. Which begs a couple questions to be asked, why help out a NW divisional opponent get better half way through the season? And was this more of an illusion of management making an effort to appease the fans and media knowing full well this team doesn't have what it takes and want to ride the season out to a top five pick?

Don't buy it. Nothing in it for the flames except bad PR. Makes no sense.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by browna

Additionally, is dragging the organization into that fight with the NHL worth the time and energy, to hold this situation up pick a fight the principal of the NHL? The offer sheet is sticking the neck out enough as a bold move. Taking it further to battle the NHL(or NHLPA, or both) on a principal or interpretation of wording on top of that, seems more then excessive, again given what was on the line for the Flames organization as a whole. if they lost.

Actually, I'm quite pleased that Feaster has the stones to put himself in this position as I think it speaks well of what lengths he'll go to for this club.

Whether he was right to do so or not will be argued to death (with no clear victor, either). I can only hope he has the brains to match the balls.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

if you are a lawyer and know that you are protected from that happening, and would have the backing of the NHLPA as well, then the risk is nil.

great move.

I'm curious. I keep reading the NHLPA would back Feaster but why would that be?
I'm not trying to start a fight, just curious.

My thoughts are, the NHL and NHLPA drafted the CBA together and I'm under the understanding that the 2 parties would see this clause in the same manner or they would have clarified it to be even more obvious. The only one that saw it differently was Feaster in my opinion.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

But Gary Betman is also a lawyer and he helped write the rules. All i can see is that Feaster while having a very good case to stand on, would have wasted weeks to get his win. In the meantime the current product on the ice would probably have been well out of a playoff spot by the time O Reilly would have been a flame. I don't see how the risk is nil if you are talking about this years team and potential of giving up a top 5 pick?

this is just my belief so it is not an argument at all but i seriously do not see us having a top 5 pick - 8-9 at best IMO

of course that could be the case though. even still, if you go back and do ROR's draft again, he is probably a top 5 pick, so essentially we would have given up a 3rd rounder and an overpayment (which we have to do in cgy anyways) - im OK with that

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

In collective bargaining the interperations of both bargining agents supersede the wording of the collective agreement. Feaster is not one of those.

So checking with one or more parties is the minimum proper due diligence.

Ok, but Murray Edwards was definitely one of the parties that wrote that agreement.

To be clear, I don't disagree with your assertion, and I don't know whether or not he spoke to ME about it, just adding another point to the discussion.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by sven

I'm curious. I keep reading the NHLPA would back Feaster but why would that be?
I'm not trying to start a fight, just curious.

My thoughts are, the NHL and NHLPA drafted the CBA together and I'm under the understanding that the 2 parties would see this clause in the same manner or they would have clarified it to be even more obvious. The only one that saw it differently was Feaster in my opinion.

because in this case they would drive the value of young players up with ROR essentially commanding 6.5M

also they would want to protect what ROR and his agent believed were his rights, Im fairly certain he didnt want to go to CLB and they would step in to defend him

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

But Gary Betman is also a lawyer and he helped write the rules. All i can see is that Feaster while having a very good case to stand on, would have wasted weeks to get his win. In the meantime the current product on the ice would probably have been well out of a playoff spot by the time O Reilly would have been a flame. I don't see how the risk is nil if you are talking about this years team and potential of giving up a top 5 pick?

1) Really need to get rid of the top 5 pick idea. The Flames are not good most of the time. Nobody can argue that. At the same time, the realistic placing of their draft pick would have been anywhere from 7-14. A pick in that spot plus a 3rd for ROR? Fair trade since ROR has already been tested in the NHL offensively and defensively.

2) Even if the team was out of it, ROR is 22. This is not another Jokinen in his declining career. Once again, not a bad trade off.

[sven]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

But it's not as though there were not similar precedents of players playing in Europe needing to clear waivers prior to getting back into the NHL. Nabokov and Svatos just year were plucked from the waiver wires when they tried to re-enter the NHL.

In light of those incidents, it was up to the organization to ensure that they knew the possible ramifications.

The rationale that it was a "small clause" is moot: Feaster's statement made it clear they were aware of the clause prior to making the offer.

What it comes down to then is interpretation of that clause. IMO the Flames should have sought clarification from the NHL (an impartial third party, who would ultimately preside over any ruling) They choose not to, and that is the reason for people being upset.

Rolling the dice on part of the organization's future on a hunch is at best risky and at worst negligent.

I honestly don't understand how people don't see this...Anyway you dice it, Feaster made a grave error.

Their blind love for the organization blocks all logic...

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by sven

I honestly don't understand how people don't see this...Anyway you dice it, Feaster made a grave error.

Their blind love for the organization blocks all logic...

Here's the funny thing about this massive fiasco/grave error:


Nothing happened.