Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Vulcan]

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.

The thing is this offer wasn't likely to work anyways. For a team to let him go because they can't afford to keep him under these circumstances, well they might as well fold up and move somewhere else. The accepted circumstances to go after a RFA is when the other team has cap problems as in the case of Penner, the only player since 97 ( Chris Gratton )who wasn't matched by his team.

The result is that Colorado is stuck with his $6.5 M contract. As is said, "All's well that ends well".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

The only thing irresponsible here is that Feaster basically says he knew that this was the case and did it anyway. I happen to think that Feaster has done a good job so far; the team is playing a totally different style this season, and while we're not winning a ton, I can see progress.

Problem is that this is inexcusable. You can't gamble away first round picks! In all honesty if the statement was along the lines of "it's a new CBA and we simply didn't see that" it would be better than "we knew and thought we were above the law". It shows a gross negligence on the Flames part to act that foolishly.

The reason I think he should be fired though, is because this is exactly what he gets paid for. Almost anyone here on the board could give a "hockey" opinion about whether a 1st and 3rd for ROR is a good idea; some better than others. The thing that most of us can't do as well though is that business aspect. We don't always know the cap implications as well, or the specifics of the CBA/MOU. That's supposed to be what the GM does and in this instance he either failed to act properly or charted a course bound for disaster.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it's clear as a bell. The league screwed up by first replying as though the old CBA had been in effect, not realizing (though Feaster evidently did) that rule 13.23 creates an exception for unsigned players. They now refuse to repeat their earlier incorrect statement, and don't want to "clarify" as it is now a moot point.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's clear as a bell. The league screwed up by first replying as though the old CBA had been in effect, not realizing (though Feaster evidently did) that rule 13.23 creates an exception for unsigned players. They now refuse to repeat their earlier incorrect statement, and don't want to "clarify" as it is now a moot point.

That's not true at all. The whole discussion was based on the interpretation of that new exception.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

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.

And it's not like Feaster said that he read it one way and didn't consider that there could be another plausible interpretation. He flat out admits that there are different possible interpretations based on the fact that he said he was prepared to make a case. That's a silly risk to take. Add to that, he opted not to call Daly and ask, that would suggest he knew what the intended interpretation would be and it wouldn't help his cause.

Man, I would rather just think that he was oblivious. That is a less scary proposition.

[sven]

Feaster was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation when he had to comment on his actions.

Either way, he was screwed.

But then again, maybe not because our loyal fans want the original reporter that DID do his due diligence (calling the league, checking ROR's KHL schedule) fired for this instead...

I'm a huge Flames fan as well but maybe this kind of brainwashed loyalty is not good in that the management has no accountability for stupid actions because we will always support their moves.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's clear as a bell. The league screwed up by first replying as though the old CBA had been in effect, not realizing (though Feaster evidently did) that rule 13.23 creates an exception for unsigned players. They now refuse to repeat their earlier incorrect statement, and don't want to "clarify" as it is now a moot point.

Given that Daly had responded to a question in January about O'Reilly needing waivers if he was traded and had mentioned the change in the new CBA that meant he didn't need to in that scenario, I can't imagine that was the case.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

so the same can be said for Feaster but then ROR's agents contradictory statement should be taken as gospel because its supports your view?

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's clear as a bell. The league screwed up by first replying as though the old CBA had been in effect, not realizing (though Feaster evidently did) that rule 13.23 creates an exception for unsigned players. They now refuse to repeat their earlier incorrect statement, and don't want to "clarify" as it is now a moot point.

Well the Flames said they weren't going to discuss it anymore. For the league to keep commenting on the situation may have drawn the Flames to comment again followed by a league response and a cycle would continue. Pretty soon the whole thing would be just arguing back and forth via press releases.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by nik-

All three of your points are irrelevant (In my humble opinion)

fyp

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

so the same can be said for Feaster but then ROR's agents contradictory statement should be taken as gospel because its supports your view?

Not at all.

I said earlier in the thread that they are both accountable and either one could be lying.

I think it's less likely that O'Reilly's agent would purposely mislead the Flames though and then lie to the media after. I am sure that Feaster would have leaked that tidbit by now if it was true. Morris would be burning bridges all over the league for the sake of one client if he did that. It's conceivable, but would be professional suicide.

[sven]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Well the Flames said they weren't going to discuss it anymore. For the league to keep commenting on the situation may have drawn the Flames to comment again followed by a league response and a cycle would continue. Pretty soon the whole thing would be just arguing back and forth via press releases.

I think the league will need to address it again once everything calms down because they need to clarify the CBA to prevent issues in the future.

NHLPA should be asking for clarification as well as someone previously pointed out, if ROR in fact HAD to go through waivers, it would deter a team from giving him an offer sheet thereby decreasing his salary (which the NHLPA does NOT want)

So to make sure their salaries don't decrease because of ambiguity, if the NHLPA feels like ROR shoudl have been waiver exempt, they need to clarify this or they would be shooting themselves in the foot for future cases

[JiriHrdina]

I think the tough thing in this case is that we don't really know what would have happened. We can only guess.
And we probably will never know because I think all parties involves are happy that this didn't go down as it could have - because the NHL, Flames, the player agent, and ROR himself all would have been in a tricky spot.

[sven]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not at all.

I said earlier in the thread that they are both accountable and either one could be lying.

I think it's less likely that O'Reilly's agent would purposely misled the Flames though and then lie to the media after. I am sure that Feaster would have leaked that tidbit by now if it was true. Morris would be burning bridges all over the league for the sake of one client if he did that. It's conceivable, but would be professional suicide.

Pat Morris admitted he didn't know about the possibility of ROR going on waivers. I think thats pretty straight forward because who wants to admit they were clueless and almost screwed up their client's future?

I have more respect for Morris for admitting this than Feaster's BS that they knew the rules and were willing to go through with it with their asinine interpretation

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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

Except I don't see how those support Feaster at all.

A player is exempt from waivers if he's on a club's reserve or restricted free agent list and then signs with that club mid-season. It goes on to clarify if the player is traded, for example, and then signs he is exempt.

So unless you read "a club" to mean "any club," which I don't see how you can, the rules are pretty clear.

And I'm pretty sure it says "a club" and not "the club" because this is a CBA dealing with all clubs.

So O' Reilly was on Colorado's restricted free agent list and therefore doesn't require waivers. If his rights were traded to Calgary (or any other team) he would transfer to that teams restricted free agent list and not require waivers once he subsequently.

But he signed a deal with a team who's list he was not on, so therefore he requires waivers.

I really don't see how you can interpret that any other way.

And how many times is the reporter supposed to call the league to confirm? He did once but magically in this case he's supposed to do it again?

Feaster messed up. So did a lot of people apparently.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ped

Except I don't see how those support Feaster at all.

A player is exempt from waivers if he's on a club's reserve or restricted free agent list and then signs with that club mid-season. It goes on to clarify if the player is traded, for example, and then signs he is exempt.

So unless you read "a club" to mean "any club," which I don't see how you can, the rules are pretty clear.

And I'm pretty sure it says "a club" and not "the club" because this is a CBA dealing with all clubs.

So O' Reilly was on Colorado's restricted free agent list and therefore doesn't require waivers. If his rights were traded to Calgary (or any other team) he would transfer to that teams restricted free agent list and not require waivers once he subsequently.

But he signed a deal with a team who's list he was not on, so therefore he requires waivers.

I really don't see how you can interpret that any other way.

And how many times is the reporter supposed to call the league to confirm? He did once but magically in this case he's supposed to do it again?

Feaster messed up. So did a lot of people apparently.

Exactly!

If "a club" meant "any club", they wouldn't need to have a specific exemption in place in case of a trade.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

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.

And why exactly is pat Morris mr reliable here?

[sven]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Exactly!

If "a club" meant "any club", they wouldn't need to have a specific exemption in place in case of a trade.

I agree. And by that logic, whenever they use "club" in the CBA, if it meant all teams, that means all teams own the rights to every NHL player...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by valo403

And why exactly is pat Morris mr reliable here?

Already answered this question. No one knows for sure, but he would have more to lose.

Let's say that Feaster's version is correct and both he and Morris were aware of the issue and both decided that they were absolutely sure their interpretation was correct. Then, after the media gets ahold of the story, Morris claims he had no idea of the issue at all.

If that were true, he would be purposely risk sacrificing everything for him and the agency for the sake of one client. I can't see any agent doing that, but it is conceivable.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by valo403

And why exactly is pat Morris mr reliable here?

So the agent says that he was unaware of the issue. Feaster then says that the Flames and the agent agreed on the interpretation. I don't see why the agent would lie about that.