Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[sven]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

After digesting this for a while and reading the last 10 or so pages of this thread, this is my opinion.

First of all, the intricacies of the CBA or the MOU is immaterial to me. I am not qualified nor do I have experience to draw on to make judgements on what the document supports.

What does interest me is Feaster's "state of mind" or thought process through preparing the offer sheet. There seems to be possible 2 scenarios that may have happened.


Scenario 1: Feaster knew the NHL would put O'Reilly on waivers and planned to challenge it

This scenario is inexcusable for me. I don't care how solid a case Feaster would have presented. There is no way he can guarantee that a judge/mediator would agree with his position . Feaster would be gambling the 1st and 3rd rounders on the chance he could convince the league or get a ruling that O'Reilly would not have to clear waivers to play for the Flames. For a team like the Flames to lose a 1st and 3rd and receive nothing in return would be crippling.

It would be analagous on using the next few years of your mortgage payments to buy lottery tickets in the hopes of winning but ending up homeless. In this case Feaster should be let go.


Scenario 2: Feaster honestly didn't know that O'Reilly would have to pass through waivers

I think this is the more likely of the two scenarios. I do have to question how Feaster came up with his interpretation of 13.23. If a reasonable person with similar experience and education to that of Jay Feaster's can independently come up with the same interpretation as Feaster, then I guess his interpretation of 13.23 is valid as anyone's and he can be justified in not clarifying the rule with the league. This seems to be the case as supported by the reactions of O'Reilly's agent and other GMs. If this is indeed what happened I can't help but support Feaster even if he ended up losing the draft picks cause he did the job to the best of his abilities.

However, there is one caveat to this. I understand the MOU is vague and the GMs had no hand in writing it or the drafts for the final CBA, but as an NHL GM Feaster knows (or at least should know) the reasoning behind 13.23 (i.e. the spirit of why such a rule exists). If his interpretation violates the spirit of 13.23 but not the letter of it, he is naive not to think the league would have a different interpretation and should have called to clarify. In this case he can't objectively read and interpret the CBA and should be fired.

Lol no thats too much logic for some of us here...
I've been saying that as well and the cry babies asked me to stop spamming

How does someone read what you wrote and then think...
a) it's not Feaster's fault, it's an obscure rule
b) it's not Feaster's fault, the wording is ambiguous

Take your homer glasses off folks. If Mike Gillis did this, we would not only be loving it but also be making a Jay Feaster appreciation thread.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Oh come the #### on. Murray Edwards had a direct hand in the CBA/MOU draft? You can't possibly know that, and it's a pretty far stretch to even speculate it. Time to take a step back and breathe.

What?

It is a well known fact that he was one of the primary negotiators for the owners.

I have no idea whether or not Feaster talked to him about this (and I stated that), but I would think that ME would probably have pretty clear opinions on what the intent of that document was.

[$ven27]

nm.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Reasoning behind that?
I can't see him doing so as it would lead to long and drawn PR circus (even more so than this) just to show everybody "Hey guys, this is what I had planned to take advantage of both Colorado and the NHL!" Doubt either the Avs or the league would appreciate this. If anything, he would get a lot of backlash and elevated to almost Burke-like big mouth status.


Doing all of that publicity would only serve to (temporarily) appease the insatiable fans who have had unrealistic expectations.

Better than the BS statement in which he stated he knew the rules and checked with Pat Morris (who subsequently denied such incident) and then ending the conversation with no further comments lol

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by sven

Lol no thats too much logic for some of us here...
I've been saying that as well and the cry babies asked me to stop spamming

How does someone read what you wrote and then think...
a) it's not Feaster's fault, it's an obscure rule
b) it's not Feaster's fault, the wording is ambiguous

Take your homer glasses off folks. If Mike Gillis did this, we would not only be loving it but also be making a Jay Feaster appreciation thread.

Yeah, you're gonna last a real long time around here.

[MisterJoji]

Just a funny tidbit, I was googling "Jay Feaster transactions" and the 3rd most popular autofill was "Jay Feaster is an idiot". Ouch.

[timbit]

Watch Hot Stove tonight. Won't be pretty.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by timbit

Watch Hot Stove tonight. Won't be pretty.

Either popcorn or alcohol. That'll help.

[sven]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Yeah, you're gonna last a real long time around here.

Sorry why's that?

I love this team but I can't criticize it when it makes grave errors?
It can only be happy talk?

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by sven

Sorry why's that?

I love this team but I can't criticize it when it makes grave errors?
It can only be happy talk?

No, feel free to criticize all you want. But leave the petty insults out of it if you don't mind.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What?

It is a well known fact that he was one of the primary negotiators for the owners.

I have no idea whether or not Feaster palked to him about this (and I stated that), but I would think that ME would probably have pretty clear opinions on what the intent of that document was.

There was a reason it took almost a week after the announcement of the lockout being done, to get the MOU done, then ratified. Fehr and Bettman and the players were back to work, leaving league and PA lawyers to hash out the MOU (and not yet having released a full document).

Edwards, for the extent he was one of the primary negotiators, isn't getting his hands dirty with clause 13.23 or those finer points, or were Bettman, Fehr or the senior players involved. The 13.23 RFA waiver adjustment was well down the list of negotiations points, it probably wasn't even talked about in the main meetings, and was cleared up between the nameless PA and league lawyers in the days following the announcement, or even during the meetings.

Throwing Murray Edwards under the bus for this, because he was sitting in meetings in Toronto trying to get the game of hockey back on the ice, is ridiculously long stretch. All the owners ratified this MOU document, as did all the players, and they're all claiming not to know this rule either.

[sven]

Originally Posted by $ven27

No, feel free to criticize all you want. But leave the petty insults out of it if you don't mind.

Oh snap...sorry man, you were the one asking me to stop spamming.
Sorry for calling you a cry baby

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by browna

Throwing Murray Edwards under the bus for this, because he was sitting in meetings in Toronto trying to get the game of hockey back on the ice, is ridiculously long stretch. All the owners ratified this MOU document, as did all the players, and they're all claiming not to know this rule either.

I dont think he was throwing M E under the bus, he was stating that he was a major player in the new CBA discussions and would understand the intent of the issue

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by sven

Oh snap...sorry man, you were the one asking me to stop spamming.
Sorry for calling you a cry baby

way to prove him wrong. great post, mature...

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by sven

Oh snap...sorry man, you were the one asking me to stop spamming.
Sorry for calling you a cry baby

I don't recall doing that. I was talking about in general, however I hate you anyways, you stole my name.
Didn't mean to potentially derail a thread.

[sven]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

way to prove him wrong. great post, mature...

OK, so I can't even apologize anymore?

It was honestly my natural reaction. I realized why he said what he said and then apologized for it.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by browna

There was a reason it took almost a week after the announcement of the lockout being done, to get the MOU done, then ratified. Fehr and Bettman and the players were back to work, leaving league and PA lawyers to hash out the MOU (and not yet having released a full document).

Edwards, for the extent he was one of the primary negotiators, isn't getting his hands dirty with clause 13.23 or those finer points, or were Bettman, Fehr or the senior players involved. The 13.23 RFA waiver adjustment was well down the list of negotiations points, it probably wasn't even talked about in the main meetings, and was cleared up between the nameless PA and league lawyers in the days following the announcement, or even during the meetings.

Throwing Murray Edwards under the bus for this, because he was sitting in meetings in Toronto trying to get the game of hockey back on the ice, is ridiculously long stretch. All the owners ratified this MOU document, as did all the players, and they're all claiming not to know this rule either.

??

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by sven

OK, so I can't even apologize anymore?

It was honestly my natural reaction. I realized why he said what he said and then apologized for it.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

sorry, thought you were being a dick and calling him a cry baby again

[sven]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

sorry, thought you were being a dick and calling him a cry baby again

Lol ok, no more name calling.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

??

Wrong wording, fine...but implying that Edwards should've had more intimate knowledge of each of the finer points and clauses, and that should somehow preclude someone else in the organization such as Feaster from ultimate liability and responsibility, is incorrect.