Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Right now there are 2 choices, either Feaster wasn't aware of the possibility of waivers, in which case he is running an incompetant management team, which is on him, or he knew but risked two picks and a couple of million for an average priced player with a short term contract, in which case hes a moron

The third choice is that Feaster's interpretation is the correct one, in which case he's neither incompetent nor a moron.

Of course, you could argue that the signing itself was a bit of a fiasco. I personally don't think O'Reilly is worth the draft picks in a year where Calgary may well draft first overall. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when Colorado matched.

I just don't think Feaster should be raked over the coals because of a hypothetical scenario based on a questionable reading of a rule in the CBA.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's not known for sure: Feaster didn't comment on it at all.

Don't let that get in the way of your outrage, though!

Heh, or get a good chuckle at the irony of calling for, without having all the information, the firing of someone because they supposedly didn't get all the information.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

this i think is what you're not understanding fully.

O'Reilly spoiled it himself by playing after the season started. He had leverage and wasted it, which is why Kyle Turris did not play in Europe while holding out on the yotes.

I believe this is what you are missing: they added an exemption for precisely this.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Heh, or get a good chuckle at the irony of calling for, without having all the information, the firing of someone because they supposedly didn't get all the information.

Whoa...

Did you just win this thread?

I...think so. I award you new goggles.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's not a question of like or dislike, there is a fairly established market valuation for centers, 5 million a year is not a bargin for a second to first line center, not saying its an overpayment but definatly an average cap hit, possibly even slightly high for a second line center, so we can say without doubt the offer doesn't have the upside of a tremendous bargin cap wise.

You say Feaster isn't an idiot and I would probably agree but there is no indication that he is anything but an average GM running an average managemnet team, in fact it would be fair to make the arguement it is probably a below average management team if taken strictly on the evidance of the last 2 years, my guess is that the Flames were not aware the kid played in the KHL, which appears to be what the waiver question hinges on, I do not think for a moment they thought about waivers as the offer or their actions (ie not calling the league for clarification) make no sense otherwise.

Right now there are 2 choices, either Feaster wasn't aware of the possibility of waivers, in which case he is running an incompetant management team, which is on him, or he knew but risked two picks and a couple of million for an average priced player with a short term contract, in which case hes a moron

Like all opinions they're subjective, he's had 2 years, I'm willing give him more than that. I like the people he's surrounded himself with, I don't think our prospect pool is as bad as everyone seems to think, I look at the Flames thru my rose tinted glasses ( but that's ok) and I hope Iggy retires here with a cup. I like what Feaster is trying. GFG

[afc wimbledon]

For all of you argueing the finer details of the CBA I would ask you to consider this, it doesn't matter, all that matters is was Feater risking two picks and a couiple of million with this deal and what was the payoff?

I would argue there is no way it was worth risking much of anything to sign a fairly average priced center with a history of contract problems to a short term deal, in fact the offer was questionable without the waiver risk, it looks insane with it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

For all of you argueing the finer details of the CBA I would ask you to consider this, it doesn't matter, all that matters is was Feater risking two picks and a couiple of million with this deal and what was the payoff?

I would argue there is no way it was worth risking much of anything to sign a fairly average priced center with a history of contract problems to a short term deal, in fact the offer was questionable without the waiver risk, it looks insane with it.

This I agree with. The good news is that Calgary still has its first round pick, and that may just be the best way to get the #1 center we've been waiting for since.... I don't know... Nieuwendyk?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by photon

Sorry wasn't clear, I meant is it known for sure that Feaster didn't call the NHL.

I have been meaning to address this but haven't gotten around to it yet.

From what I have seen, Feaster said that the Flames didn't agree with the NHL's interpretation of the rule (I will dig up the quote)

Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.
Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.
While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process

Far from certain, but to me, "as articulated to us this morning" would imply that they had in fact spoken to the NHL.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Where in the rule does it say that the exemption only applies to players on Calgary's reserve or RFA lists? This is what you don't seem to understand. Contractual drafting uses precise language: "a Club" is NOT the same as "the Club"--and the sentence isn't about the Club anyway, it's about the player.

This may help:

The rule: Any player playing overseas after the start of the season must pass through waivers before playing in the NHL this season.

The exception: The rule does NOT apply to any player who is on a Club's reserve or RFA list. (Note: the exemption is the player's, not the club's)

For greater clarity, this includes situations where the player's rights move from one team to another, (such as where a player on a reserve list is traded.)

I do see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty dumb to be arguing that the explanation of a rule in the MOU is ambiguous to the point of completely negating the ruling it's trying to explain in the first place which is essentially what I believe this argument to be.

You can argue the explanation is technically ambiguous and that's a great back and forth to have on a message board, but I think it's exceedingly damning to be gambling top draft picks on the notion you may be able to argue your point with a monolithic entity that has previously displayed little hesitancy in retroactively examining of regulations, rules and contracts.

One issue is the wording of a complex document that has yet to be distributed. The other issue is utter recklessness with a potential top 5 pick and subsequent fabrications and refusal to comment further on what is a substantially important issue in the short and long term health of the franchise. I think (!) this thread is about the second

Even if I agreed with you that Feaster could mount a reasonable argument that would somehow he convince the league to potentially damage 2 teams in the interest of one with a ruling that goes against the spirit of their own ruling (which I don't), it is incredibly short sighted, one might even say delusional, to believe gambling such a pick would be worth proving a point or taking advantage of a technicality of dubious ambiguity in a document that isn't even the finalized contract and is simply a guideline in place as a reference point on how to conduct business.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The third choice is that Feaster's interpretation is the correct one, in which case he's neither incompetent nor a moron.

Of course, you could argue that the signing itself was a bit of a fiasco. I personally don't think O'Reilly is worth the draft picks in a year where Calgary may well draft first overall. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when Colorado matched.

I just don't think Feaster should be raked over the coals because of a hypothetical scenario based on a questionable reading of a rule in the CBA.

If Feaster had called the league and they had told him 'of course we wouldn't expect the kid to go through waivers' I would agree, what is clear is that without the leagues advice Feaster was still rolling the dice, and again I come back to my point that there just wasn't any kind of payoff to make any kind of dice rolling for this kid worth while, if the payoff was this kid for 4 years at 3.5 million I would get it but at 2 years for 5 million and a first and a 2nd this was a low to high risk for no payoff what so ever.

This is basic gambling 101, what you bet is a function of what you get back.

Edit: I see we agree on this so I leave content

[sureLoss]

Trying to find in the 2005 CBA if there are any quirks with "a club" vs "the club":

Found this in 10.2:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Group 2 Player requests
salary arbitration, or a Club requests salary arbitration, pursuant to Article
12, such Player will not be eligible to negotiate with any Club other than
his Prior Club or sign an Offer Sheet pursuant to this Article 10, except as
provided in Section 12.10.

So apparently any club can invoke salary arbitration between a player and his team, even if that player is not on their team. Not sure how that is useful, but interesting.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Far from certain, but to me, "as articulated to us this morning" would imply that they had in fact spoken to the NHL.

A day after the offer sheet was tendered though. Which suggests to me that they didn't seek clarification from the league prior to making the offer if Friday morning was when the league communicated their interpretation of the rule.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have been meaning to address this but haven't gotten around to it yet.

From what I have seen, Feaster said that the Flames didn't agree with the NHL's interpretation of the rule (I will dig up the quote)

Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.
Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.
While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process

Far from certain, but to me, "as articulated to us this morning" would imply that they had in fact spoken to the NHL.

Yes, articulated to them in the morning, which was the day after the Avs matched. He didn't speak to them before the fact.

[CaramonLS]

nm, posted.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Trying to find in the 2005 CBA if there are any quirks with "a club" vs "the club":

Found this in 10.2:
So apparently any club can invoke salary arbitration between a player and his team, even if that player is not on their team. Not sure how that is useful, but interesting.

What do you think the league's reaction would be if the Flames tried to force salary arbitration on the oilers?

I predict it would be laughter.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have been meaning to address this but haven't gotten around to it yet.

From what I have seen, Feaster said that the Flames didn't agree with the NHL's interpretation of the rule (I will dig up the quote)

Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.
Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.
While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process

Far from certain, but to me, "as articulated to us this morning" would imply that they had in fact spoken to the NHL.

Considering that statement was released Friday afternoon (This morning refers to FRIDAY MORNING), it is certainly NOT clear.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have been meaning to address this but haven't gotten around to it yet.

From what I have seen, Feaster said that the Flames didn't agree with the NHL's interpretation of the rule (I will dig up the quote)

Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.
Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA’s was, and continues to be, different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player’s representative shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.
While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process

Far from certain, but to me, "as articulated to us this morning" would imply that they had in fact spoken to the NHL.

Just for clarification...was this not yesterday morning after the OS was signed on Thursday?

That's what I got out of it yesterday when Feaster released his statement to the media.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I do see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty dumb to be arguing that the explanation of a rule in the MOU is ambiguous to the point of completely negating the ruling it's trying to explain in the first place which is essentially what I believe this argument to be.

I'm not sure I understand this: what "ruling" are you talking about?

In any case, my argument is not that the language is "ambiguous"--I think that's a polite way of saying that Chris Johnston went off half-cocked and now owes Feaster an apology. My argument is that Feaster is right about the interpretation of the rule.

On the other hand, he was wrong in his judgement that the Flames should be giving up their #1 draft pick in a year where they may well draft top 5. This could have been a big disaster--but in the end, it wasn't. It doesn't convince me that Feaster is particularly competent as a GM, but I don't think he's an incompetent fool either. Nor do I think for a second that they didn't have their lawyers examine this language before the deal was concluded with O'Reilly--my guess is that's standard practice in the industry. It doesn't hurt that Feaster is himself a lawyer.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

Don't forget about ROR's dbag hockey dad.

Is there any other kind?

[Ryan Coke]

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, after having time today to go through all the facts of this, after being out of touch for the last few days. For me it seems that the exception would apply, and that Feaster had very strong footing to make this offer sheet without risk of waivers. Everything else is driven by media, and in their usual way of going off of half fact and half fiction.

I'm not sure i wanted to lose our first rounder this year for ROR, but I don't think he was wrong in his interpretation.