Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

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.

I interpreted your post as meaning that you didn't read it. The fact that you thought it mattered whether O'Reilly was another indication.

Can you point me to an "expert" who thinks that Feaster's reading of this language was wrong? What I have seen is fans and media getting exercised over this issue and others saying either that the clause is ambiguous (I happen to disagree) or that Feaster is probably right.

Not all opinions are created equal, and when it comes to interpreting legal language, I will take Jay Feaster over Chris Johnston any day.

However, if your opinion is "it's ambiguous and Feaster should have checked," I think that's reasonable. I happen to disagree, but it's not a ridiculous opinion. What IS ridiculous is treating this like it's completely obvious that O'Reilly would have gone on waivers. Frankly, even the NHL doesn't take that position, but a few in this thread inexplicably do. If you're not one of them, then I apologize for immying that you were.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

By signing the offersheet O'Reilly ceases to become 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.

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.

your first paragraph contradicts your second though, does it not?

"He has a contract with terms. The only dispute is which team is going to be in possession of said contract."

and then...

"he is a player under contract for the Colorado Avalanche."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

All players on a club's reserve list... exempt from the application of CBA 13.23... in the case of a mid-season signing.

That's it, mid-season signing, not mid-season signing by that team.

It even goes on to give an example of a traded player still being exempt.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

your first paragraph contradicts your second though, does it not?

"He has a contract with terms. The only dispute is which team is going to be in possession of said contract."

and then...

"he is a player under contract for the Colorado Avalanche."

They do not contradict each other. Colorado, as they chose to do, was fully within their rights to not have the player leave their roster. When the offersheet is signed, the Flames don't move O'Reilly's NHL profile over to their team page, there is no transaction history with the league between the two teams and his original club retains his rights until they choose not to have them.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The Flames managed to dodge a major bullet apparently. A bullet that Feaster aimed right at his own head. Just because it missed doesn't excuse the borderline ######ed move on his part.

Fire him.

You like to play both sides I guess...

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I interpreted your post as meaning that you didn't read it. The fact that you thought it mattered whether O'Reilly was another indication.

Can you point me to an "expert" who thinks that Feaster's reading of this language was wrong? What I have seen is fans and media getting exercised over this issue and others saying either that the clause is ambiguous (I happen to disagree) or that Feaster is probably right.

Not all opinions are created equal, and when it comes to interpreting legal language, I will take Jay Feaster over Chris Johnston any day.

However, if your opinion is "it's ambiguous and Feaster should have checked," I think that's reasonable. I happen to disagree, but it's not a ridiculous opinion. What IS ridiculous is treating this like it's completely obvious that O'Reilly would have gone on waivers. Frankly, even the NHL doesn't take that position, but a few in this thread inexplicably do. If you're not one of them, then I apologize for immying that you were.

The first sentence in your post in incomplete. I don't know if there's something I should respond or not.

It wasn't just one Sportsnet writer. Here's TSN for example:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417108

I don't think there are that many people who think that there's no room for interpretation. Like I've said, the whole issue is that there is room for interpretation in the first place and that you shouldn't gamble millions of dollars and the future of the team because you think you have the legal argument on your side. You're supposed to be 100% sure. What I wanted hear from Feaster is that they checked with everyone to make sure.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Yoho

You like to play both sides I guess...

I don't limit myself to one side of the argument or the other. I make judgements as information comes in. If information comes in that Feaster was in the right, I'm not about to stubbornly stick to one side, that's childish.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

They do not contradict each other. Colorado, as they chose to do, was fully within their rights to not have the player leave their roster. When the offersheet is signed, the Flames don't move O'Reilly's NHL profile over to their team page, there is no transaction history with the league between the two teams and his original club retains his rights until they choose not to have them.

is a player without a contract on their roster though, or their reserve list?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

is a player without a contract on their roster though, or their reserve list?

Does it matter? We're talking about a player with a contract.

[Dion]

Waiver Issue Open To Interpretation

However, since the old CBA expired and the new CBA has yet to be ratified, reference is had to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). On page 19 of the MOU (which is a summary of the terms that govern the relationship between the parties moving ahead until the new CBA is drafted), it states as follows:

In other words, the language doesn't expressly provide that a player may only avoid waivers if he re-signs with the team that holds his rights (in this case the Avs). Instead, it states that so long as the player is on “a” Club's Reserve and Restricted Free Agent list, he will not be subject to waivers before playing, regardless of where he signs.

Put another way, the Flames likely interpreted the MOU to provide that O’Reilly being on the Avs reserve list makes him waiver exempt for all teams.

Articles 10 and 13 of the old CBA, the portions that govern offer sheets and waivers, are chalk full of references to the “Prior Club” (the Avalanche) and the “New Club.” (the Flames) This is significant because it shows that the NHL and the NHLPA have treated the Prior Club and the New Club differently in other provisions of the CBA.


So the MOU does not distinguish as to the club signing the player. So the language is such that the parties understood there would not be a distinction between the Prior and New Clubs in this regard.

This gives the Flames an arguable case that O’Reilly should not have been placed on waivers. Not surprisingly, the Flames have stated that their interpretation is not consistent with the League’s interpretation on this point. This is perhaps a strained argument since arguably the idea between the provision was to let current teams bring their players back post-lockout without a penalty. Still, the language utilized by the sides casts some doubt in its interpretation.

If the O’Reilly did indeed go on waivers, we may have seen the case go to arbitration by way of a Flames grievance. That would have been messy.

http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca...e-open-to.html

[Itse]

I feel that what ever the interpretation on the situation is, we can start discussing the next GM. Even if the owners were originally onboard with Feasters plan, the fan and publicity backlash are by themselves a huge black mark on Feaster. Plus there's the possibility that he just upset the other GM's over nothing.

Of course you need to factor in that the Flames are right now heading for one of their worst regular season records ever. Feaster pretty much needs a playoff round win or a great trade for that elusive #1 center to pull himself to the clear for a while.

It's like with Darryl and his failed mid-season rebuild / Phaneuf-trade. It wasn't the end, but it was the beginning of the countdown, and once the countdown starts it's really hard to stop.

[$ven27]

In a way I really hope we bomb this season, just so that ownership maybe wakes up.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does it matter? We're talking about a player with a contract.

The contact wouldn't be finalized until Colorado decides to match or walk away, no?

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does it matter? We're talking about a player with a contract.

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to clarify for my own curiosity and you sounded well informed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

The contact wouldn't be finalized until Colorado decides to match or walk away, no?

no, as far as I understand it anyway, the contract itself is finalized. The player and organization that employs him are bound to it in it's entirety and cannot be walked away from like in a non-binding salary arbitration award.

Think of an offersheet this way. Colorado owns O'Reilly's rights, the flames propose to O'Reilly a contract. He decides it meets his needs/demands/desires and signs it. Now, the contract is signed, the specifics of bonus, all that, is finalized. What remains is whether the Avalanche will trade this contract to the flames for a pre-determined compensatory amount or whether they will choose the keep the player and pay him the sum of the contract he signed, but the contract itself is final and the only remaining unresolved issue is between the two teams.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

is a player without a contract on their roster though, or their reserve list?

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to clarify for my own curiosity and you sounded well informed.

He's on their reserve list, the same way, say, a player playing in a european league is, or an unsigned rookie like Tim Erixon was.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

no, as far as I understand it anyway, the contract itself is finalized. The player and organization that employs him are bound to it in it's entirety and cannot walked away from like in salary arbitration award.

Think of an offersheet this way. Colorado owns O'Reilly's rights, the flames propose to O'Reilly a contract. He decides it meets his needs/demands/desires and signs it. Now, the contract is signed, the specifics of bonus, all that, is finalized. What remains is whether the Avalanche will not trade this contract to the flames for a pre-determined compensatory amount or whether they will choose the keep the player and pay him the sum of the contract he signed, but the contract itself is final and the only remaining unresolved issue is between the two teams.

I'm not sure how this works in the context of a CBA, but I suspect it's better to think of the Avs decision as a condition precedent that must be met prior to the contract between Calgary and O'Reilly having any legal force.

Either way, it's immaterial in my view: the way I look at it, the exemption in Rule 13.23 applies to the player, not the team--and so long as they are "on a Club's RFA list," they are exempt for the purposes of "a mid-season signing." Whether the contract forms before or after the Avs decision doesn't change anything.

[Flames_Gimp]

no..he forced a rival team to over pay a player.. it's funny!

[mister__big]

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.

Actually the reporter did more fact-checking than Feaster did. He called the league to get their verification, which is something Feaster didn't bother to do (or didn't want to do).

[VladtheImpaler]

I read the clause, and it's not well written, leaving it open to interpretation. Based on the original sentence and then the trade example/clarification, it sounds like the player is exempt if he is signed by the team on whose reserve list he is. Hence, the exemption following the player to team B in case of a trade.
The trade clarification actually makes it more likely that Feaster was wrong because why would they bother to clarify that the exemption would follow the player with a trade? If the player was exempt in case of signing by 'any' team, the trade clarification is irrelevant.
Therefore, there is a very good chance that Feaster was wrong... and should therefore be fired for risking 2 picks on a "hunch"...