Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I wonder how much Feaster being a chatty cathy buys him cover in the media?

Not saying this is the case here, but it's the first time I've thought of it.

95% of the media has trashed him

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

not really, this is what he had to say:

"my take on it is, Gary Bettman would have never let it happen to the Calgary Flames... ...my take is, Gary Bettman and the NHL will make a clarification on this but it's not Jay Feasters fault, its the CBA's fault and Gary will fix it"

yeah that is pretty clear to me

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think that much we can all agree on. If they knew about the issue, they would have had Morris and O'Reilly over a barrel.

YUP. Whats the total $ for the blunder? I think around $5 million and a bunch of games that O Reilly would have been on the team.

Not to mention how much leverage Duchene and Landeskog will have.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Look, we can waste our time on faux outrage over a fabricated controversy, or we can just move on with our lives, recognizing that a) Feaster was very likely right, and b) it's moot anyway. Life is short, and outrage is a precious commodity. Let's save it for Burrows dives and broadcasters who love the Oilers.

Considering it isn't clear at all and is very clear that Feaster was likely wrong not sure why we would move on recognizing wrong information.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I wonder how much Feaster being a chatty cathy buys him cover in the media?

Not saying this is the case here, but it's the first time I've thought of it.

Stock did say I know we are supposed to be defending the Flames as much as possible here, as though that was talked about in the pre-show meeting.

Not sure if it is because of Feaster or it being a Canadian team on HNIC. But Friedman especially seemed to not want to admit the Flames screwed up while quietly finally doing it at the end when asked about it.

[$ven27]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Listening to the Fan yesterday, and they said they were surfing around the net and that the general concensus was the Colorado fans think Sherman in an idiot for matching. They hate the contract for that calibre of player. I know fans aren't always the best measure, but it sounds like many want heads to roll there too.

Yeah, a lot of Colorado fans seem to be upset. However there is the few rational fans saying it's just good to have him back and perhaps over the duration of his contract he can mend some fences with the organization and sign a long term deal, I don't see that happening though. He could have got a really good deal if he knew that he'd have to pass through waivers, but many GMs didn't know about the rule.
Also, I've heard people say that they should have basically blackmailed Feaster into trading Brodie to them for a 5th and in return they will match, that sounds great and all but that doesn't seem like it'd be legal?

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You very evidently still have not read the language that is in dispute. I am not "missing the point." The language of the exception applies to RFA players, not their clubs. That is why the "for greater clarity" clause is in there. The exception has nothing to do with trades at all.
[...]

I followed the discussion, but I think it's clear that you're a late arrival to it. I'm not saying the exception had anything to do with trades, I was asking why you are focusing on that instead of the substance of Ped's post that explained that basics of the issue, for example.

You're treating it as a settled issue. You're repeating things that everyone knows already and you don't admit that the RFA question is an open issue that still needs to be clarified.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by moon

Stock did say I know we are supposed to be defending the Flames as much as possible here, as though that was talked about in the pre-show meeting.

Not sure if it is because of Feaster or it being a Canadian team on HNIC. But Friedman especially seemed to not want to admit the Flames screwed up while quietly finally doing it at the end when asked about it.

holy, how tightly is your tinfoil hat strapped on??

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

It's highly amusing to read the thrashings of many who clearly have no legal background or understanding of how legal agreements work. The words are the point - not what Bill Daly "thinks" or some SN writer gets people to prattle - and Daly is certainly not the final arbiter of how the CBA or MOU is to be interpreted. (An arbitrator would be doing that.)

Thanks to those in this thread who do, indeed, clearly have legal training or are lawyers for actually reading the words of the article and understanding and defending the rather significant difference between "a club" and "the club".

The wording in the MOU is unclear and imprecise and the NHL would have had absolutely zero choice but to allow the deal to conclude in its intended manner. No waiver would be required. How that particular article might show up in the drafted CBA is another matter - but we likely won't find that out for quite some time.

Feaster did what a good lawyer does - he found a loophole and used it.

hey i'll admit that i am no lawyer (thank god) but i'd like to see how would Feaster argue that within one legal document where "a club" in "a club's roster" clearly means "a given club's" "one club's roster" ("Calgary's roster" or "Detroit's roster") and this language is consistent within this document it all of a sudden means "any club" in one short sentence.

(might as well argue a club means a wooden stick)

[Henry Fool]

I think there are a lot of hockey people who want to help Feaster save face, especially since it's an issue that no one seems to have been aware of.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

holy, how tightly is your tinfoil hat strapped on??

I am wearing a tinfoil hat because I suggested that the CBC crew talked about the Hotstove prior to them going on air and that they might want to make sure their on air guys don't say anything that will piss off viewers?

I am saying that based on what Stock said not just pulling it out of thin air.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You very evidently still have not read the language that is in dispute. I am not "missing the point." The language of the exception applies to RFA players, not their clubs. That is why the "for greater clarity" clause is in there. The exception has nothing to do with trades at all.

Look, we can waste our time on faux outrage over a fabricated controversy, or we can just move on with our lives, recognizing that a) Feaster was very likely right, and b) it's moot anyway. Life is short, and outrage is a precious commodity. Let's save it for Burrows dives and broadcasters who love the Oilers.

I don't think anyone is outraged. I think the drama and speculation of following the team and those involved with the team is fun. Sort of like speculating about a TV show plot.

From my perspective, it doesn't seem like Feaster knows what he is doing. I think he should be replaced.

But I don't really care much one way or the other.

[Enoch Root]

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.

I don't think it's just about 'a' vs 'the'...

Here is the relevant quote:

All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing. For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23

'All players on a club's reserve list' to me refers to a specific team, IMO (i.e. Colorado, in this case).

However, it says they are exempt. It DOESN'T say that they will NO LONGER be exempt for another team. It simply says they will be exempt in the case of a mid-season signing. Not a mid-season signing by that team. In fact, it offers the trade as an example.

I read that as the player is exempt, and they remain exempt, even for another team.

Also, it does not limit the transfer to a trade, it merely uses trade as an example.

The more I read that, the more confident I become that Feaster may be right.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Friedman waffled and said the league will clarify this in the future.

Healy said the Flames suck and are to blame, but that the agent would not have any blame.

PJ stuttered that the Flames suck but had no reason why.

Maclean stayed away from laying blame and said it will be clarified in the future.

that pretty much covers it

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

I followed the discussion.

Look, this isn't meant to sound mean: but you really should read the actual language in dispute before forming an opinion. I also "followed the discussion" at first, but my opinion changed completely after I read the clause in dispute. You really can't have an informed opinion about this unless you read the Rule in its entirety, in context.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think it's just about 'a' vs 'the'...

Here is the relevant quote:

All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing. For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23

'All players on a club's reserve list' to me refers to a specific team, IMO (i.e. Colorado, in this case).

However, it says they are exempt. It DOESN'T say that they will NO LONGER be exempt for another team. It simply says they will be exempt in the case of a mid-season signing. Not a mid-season signing by that team. In fact, it offers the trade as an example.

I read that as the player is exempt, and they remain exempt, even for another team.

Also, it does not limit the transfer to a trade, it merely uses trade as an example.

The more I read that, the more confident I become that Feaster may be right.

There's a good chance Feaster would have won the argument if Colorado hadn't matched. But was there no way of making absolutely sure before making the offer?

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Look, this isn't meant to sound mean: but you really should read the actual language in dispute before forming an opinion. I also "followed the discussion" at first, but my opinion changed completely after I read the clause in dispute. You really can't have an informed opinion about this unless you read the Rule in its entirety, in context.

I've read the language. What I take from it is that there is an issue needing clarification and I'm not the only one who holds that view. You're saying that if only I read the passage that has generated tons of discussion among fans and experts, the whole issue will instantly become crystal clear to me. And since I don't think it's clear, in your mind I must not have read it at all. I think that's pretty weak.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

not really, this is what he had to say:

"my take on it is, Gary Bettman would have never let it happen to the Calgary Flames... ...my take is, Gary Bettman and the NHL will make a clarification on this but it's not Jay Feasters fault, its the CBA's fault and Gary will fix it"

Agreed, but I characterize that as a waffle. Blaming the document is nonsensical. It's the interpretations that are right or wrong, and the humans do the interpreting.

So either Feaster is right because he interpreted correctly, or Feaster is wrong because he interpreted incorrectly.

[Flash Walken]

By signing the offersheet O'Reilly ceases to be a restricted free agent. He has a contract with terms. The only dispute is which team is going to be in possession of said contract.

If the flames trade for Jay Bouwmeester and sign him to an extension before July 1st, he is not an unrestricted free agent on july 1st. He's a player with a signed SPC.

The contract is signed, the ambiguity of his status is non-existent. Until such a time as the Avalanche determine whether they will continue to retain his rights or take the compensation in exchange for his rights, he is a player under contract for the Colorado Avalanche.

[Johnny Rotten]

I didn't see the Satellite Hotstove tonight, although I admit I was interested in what they'd say for whatever reasons. But I find it interesting that we'd be interested in what any of those guys would think; aren't we supposed to hate the eastern media? Not to mention that it's like any of those guys could understand the CBA.

Bring back Al Strachan!!

[JazzyFlame]

Fire feaster