Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.

Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.

People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.

Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.

People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.

I dunno, man.

this whole thing is a story because the reporter bothered to make a phone call to clarify things with the league. The league seems pretty clear on the ruling but were unaware O'Reilly had played games in the KHL after January 19th.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

I'm happy to see feaster making an effort. Some of you are reacting as though he got drunk in Vegas and screamed "YOLO!!!" at the top of his lungs while throwing a pile of draft picks on red.

Can't wait to see what happens next.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Hugh Jahrmes

I'm happy to see feaster making an effort. Some of you are reacting as though he got drunk in Vegas and screamed "YOLO!!!" at the top of his lungs while throwing a pile of draft picks on red.

Can't wait to see what happens next.

Kevin Lowe makes efforts as well. Doesn't mean he's doing a good job.

A move like this is concerning for the future. He's trying way to hard to get #1 C via homeruns. The only way you get them is by giving up Iggy+, or drafting them, which he should be doing with his 1 round pick. Not giving them away for nothing. #1Cs are pretty much impossible to get a whole of unless you're willing to give up a lot because they are valuable to the teams that got them.

Feaster can keep trying to fetch one. But he's gotta understand that you're team is not going to be better since you gave a lot for it in return.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.

Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.

People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.

The reporter was on the Fan 960 on Friday. According to him, he was clarifying with the league whether or not O'Reilly would need to clear waivers to play for the Flames. They told him that O'Reilly would have to clear waivers if he had played in the KHL after the start of the playing season. He then went on to confirm that O'Reilly played after Jan 19.

Pretty sure from the reporter's point of view the league telling him the rules would constitute adequate fact checking.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You shouldn't be, you should wake up in a cold sweat at night wondering what Feaster's next "home run" is, to squeak this years team into the playoffs.

I would have much prefered him have the "brains" to avoid needlessly embaressing the franchise that's going to happen on hockey night in Canada tonight

After all he said it himself "He's not done"

You Only Hate Once?

You seem to have cold sweats for the both of us, so I'll let you handle it. And if you're worried about how others percieve your team then you should get out of the fan business, IMO.

[Ezio]

I just have to sit back and snicker at Feaster's incompetence, just a refreshing taste of irony.

FEASTER'S COMMENTS ON OLERS PENNER OFFERSHEET

Those smirks may have been outright guffaws out of Buffalo and wherever Brian Burke was at the time; however, I am certain not too many of my former colleagues were pitying Mac-T and his under-performing asset. (Dustin Penner)

For most GMs there was probably a sense of, “it looks good on you, Edmonton.”

Feaster is the perfect guy at helm for the Flames. Management wants to win, he wants to win, players want to win. I don't think he's done that bad, in fact his drafting looks decent, but like others said, you shouldn't get pats on the back for trying. As an Oilers fan, this really does remind me of the Heatley/Hossa saga, it does not get pretty when the media will continuously pump out garbage.

How could Edmonton possibly know for certain, based on one good (not great, just good) season, that Penner’s 2006-07 campaign was the “starting point?” How can one season foretell a trend, especially when it happens in the context of magical team success?

I have to just point at Ryan O'Reilly's 'one good season', who otherwise has been a grinder at this level. Two sub 30 point seasons with one good season last year.

While Edmonton’s offer sheets were well within the rules and complied fully with the CBA, the fact remains those offer sheets caused one NHL team to dramatically overpay to retain one of its rising star players (and do so well ahead of when it otherwise might have had to budget to do so). And another NHL team to lose the financial and organizational investment it had made in the development of a good (not great) young player.

Says the man who gives a 6.5m 2nd yr option QO, losing ALL leverage when new contract is up. I can only help but snicker, like Feaster did with Kevin Lowe and Company.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.

Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.

People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.

To risk your first round pick on a technicality is just as stupid as if he didn't know

[Weiser Wonder]

People sure do find any reason to defend what was pretty clearly a terrible decision made without doing due diligence. Say there's a 70 or even 80% chance Feaster is right, it's still a bad gamble. And that's probably not even the case. There's a good chance he didn't even consider that or didn't know O'Reilly had played after January 19th.

Don't assume Feaster is competent just because of his job title.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

To risk your first round pick on a technicality is just as stupid as if he didn't know

I wouldn't characterize it like that. He read the clause, interpreted it a certain way (a way I happen to agree with). In effect, he did know how the clause worked--he may have been wrong (I suspect he probably wasn't) but that's not the same thing as "risking the pick on a technicality."

A reporter then called the league, posed what the league thought was a hypothetical, and got an off-the-cuff answer (which the league has since backed away from). He then ran with a sensational story instead of actually calling back and confirming the interpretation with the league once the stakes of it were actually clear.

It's irresponsible journalism, plain and simple. Sports journalists are seldom held to account for this sort of thing, so I don't expect that to start here, but that is bad fact checking; it just is. It's almost as though (gasp) the reporter didn't even care if the allegations were true and just wanted to stir up a controversy.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

People sure do find any reason to defend what was pretty clearly a terrible decision made without doing due diligence. Say there's a 70 or even 80% chance Feaster is right, it's still a bad gamble. And that's probably not even the case. There's a good chance he didn't even consider that or didn't know O'Reilly had played after January 19th.

Don't assume Feaster is competent just because of his job title.

great post

just cause you say something doesnt make it true.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

In a way I would have liked to have seen how this all played out legally if the Av's had not matched.

It would have gone like this:

Eric Duhatschek

Because O’Reilly had played two games in the Russia-based KHL for Magnitogorsk following the Jan. 19, 2013, start of the shortened NHL season, the Flames would have been obliged to offer O’Reilly on waivers if they’d won the bidding for his services.

Or at least, that is the official NHL interpretation of events.

The Flames offered a different take on the matter, issuing their own statement Friday, saying their view of “the transition rules governing restricted free agents was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation.” The Flames were “prepared to advance our position with the NHL,” but conveniently no longer had to “in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet. It is now an academic point.”

Well, okay.

The Flames could have advanced their position with the NHL’s legal minds until they were blue in the face, but if they’d lost the argument, it would have been a catastrophic blunder.

Think about how embarrassed the Flames would have been under that scenario – surrendering two draft choices to Colorado as compensation for signing O’Reilly, and then losing him immediately to, likely the 30th place Columbus Blue Jackets, on waivers.

That would have constituted a firing offence for general manager Jay Feaster, even if he were to argue there is room for interpretation in the new and complex rewording of the NHL waiver rules – and how they apply to players returning in-season from Europe.

The only conceivable silver lining on this debacle would be that the Calgary Flames FINALLY would take a step forward from the seemingly endless morass of mediocrity we will now be mired in for the foreseeable future.

I've suspected for a while now that Feaster has no idea what he's doing. I've hoped that it was the result of ownership pushing completely irrational mandates upon him (like "you can do what you want, but you can't trade Iginla").

This utter fiasco has made it pretty clear - he's got absolutely no idea what he's doing, no plan.

And the Flames have no future under his stewardship.

[Henry Fool]

So the reporter should lose his job for raising a potentially embarrassing question about the Flames? Wow. That's like the new benchmark for superfandom.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

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/

Reposted so that people can read these if they haven't already.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

So the reporter should lose his job for raising a potentially embarrassing question about the Flames? Wow. That's like the new benchmark for superfandom.

No. The reporter should lose his job for inventing a controversy and failing to fact-check it. Reporters are generally supposed to make sure their stories are accurate. This one didn't.

[sureLoss]

I don't know if I would call the league refusing to comment further on the issue as backing off on their original position. Maybe they want to quietly sweep this story under the rug. At least that is one interpretation of it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Either he didn't know it could be read that way, or did and risked it anyways. I cannot see that as anything but incompetent or irresponsible.

This is not the action of a man with a plan, it's a desperation move where either the consequences were not prepared for or weren't serious enough for him to worry about. I can't justify it as any kind of good asset management

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

great post

just cause you say something doesnt make it true.

The same could be said for Feaster. His whole; "I knew that already and was prepared to fight it out" defense doesn't hold water, especially when you consider O'Reilly's agent completely contradicted that statement.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No. The reporter should lose his job for inventing a controversy and failing to fact-check it. Reporters are generally supposed to make sure their stories are accurate. This one didn't.

He raised an issue that led to a big discussion that everyone took part in and fact checked it the best he was able. It was controversial because the issue wasn't clear to anyone. He didn't invent anything. To say that he should lose his job for that is ####ing hysterical.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

great post

just cause you say something doesnt make it true.

We are all speculating. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to assume Feaster somehow knew the ins and outs of every detail of the clause and knew how to mitigate all of the risk. That seems pretty far-fetched.

The fact is if the offer wasn't matched by the Avs then Feaster was risking losing a 1st and a 3rd for nothing. That's a bad risk to take, even if you are confident you'd win the rights to the player in the end.