Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[photon]

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.

"This morning" though referred to after it had all gone down and it was reported that ROR would have to go on waivers.

Even if they had called the NHL and got a different response than the reporter had (possible because it's possible the GMs have a different set of #'s they can call vs. a reporter), I don't know if the team would or wouldn't have basically said "the NHL mislead us" in a press release.

But you basically answered my question in that no we don't know for sure (it kind of looks like they didn't, but making conclusions based on insufficient information isn't something I want to do).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

I think that's right. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that was the first time they discussed it with someone at the NHL--but if Feaster did discuss it with them earlier, that would have been a great time to mention it.

[Enoch Root]

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.

The whole purpose of "arguing the finer details of the CBA" (MOU) is to determine whether or not Feaster was in fact taking those risks.

Simply accepting a reportor's word, who believes that the Flames took undo risk and condemning the Flames for it is unfair and pretty pathetic.

However, attempting to understand exactly what is going on so that we can, in a more educated manner, assess ourselves whether or not Feaster took an irresponsible risk, seems like a worthwhile exercise to some of us.

Feel free to not participate if you disagree.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is there any other kind?

Well, there's also "drunk hockey dad," "talks-on-cellphone hockey dad" and "fights referee in parking lot hockey dad."

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

This is where we differ.

I believe you have to be exceedingly incompetent, or exceedingly desperate to keep your job (which is more dangerous) to attempt to move a top 5 pick.

Further exacerbated by the fact the pick is your own and your team is downright terrible.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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.

Imagine if it was enforcable? Forgot if it changed in the new CBA but under the 2005 CBA, teams can't walk away from team initiated salary arbitration rulings.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

He may have been correct in his interpretation, but I don't get the criticism of Johnston that the NHL communicated to him, TSN, and apparently Feaster that they believed O'Reilly would've been waiver eligible.

Why should he apologize just because Feaster likely didn't do his due diligence? If Feaster's interpretation is correct he could've easily tried to convince the league prior to staking his team's 1st round pick on his belief.

[photon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

"different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning." could suggest an implied "vs. the NHL's previous interpretation as articulated to us yesterday" that was left out to not throw the NHL under the bus too. I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying it's easy to see what one wants to see when reading in between the lines.

Originally Posted by nik-

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

Is there another statement that I haven't seen that supports that?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Imagine if it was enforcable? Forgot if it changed in the new CBA but under the 2005 CBA, teams can't walk away from team initiated salary arbitration.

It would never be enforceable because the league would never enforce and would arbitrarily change their regulations to support their opinion just like they did with contracts or that goal Brett Hull scored.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

That is the whole crux of the issue, what did the league and PA intend for RFAs that played in europe after the season started? and did they capture what they intended with the proper language in the CBA and MOU.

Well it's the crux of the confusion.

The issue for the flames is whether anyone knew or ought to have known they were taking a risk. If there was no risk, or any reason the believe there was a risk, there is really no problem.

It's possible to read the clause and think it is so bloody obvious this is allowed there is no reason at all to seek clarity. In that case the nhl's confusion would be a holy #### moment, but not any kind of error.

Of course it's possible there was a risk people saw and went ahead anyway, which is what has fans grabbing pitchforks.

The first scenario has a whole host of smart people making a call that they were totally fine with.

The second has a whole host of people in the flames camp, the players camp, and even the avs camp being absolute morons. Not just incompetent, or meddling, or pig headed, but morons. All of them to a man. It's just so unlikely.

Everyone will have their own opinion, but only one seems reasonable to me.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

Ah yes, they submitted it Thursday, didn't they? Interesting, and pretty damning.

However, to be fair, it says "was, and continues to be... as articulated this morning"

That doesn't necessarily proclude prior conversations.

Just saying - I am not trying to propose that. But it too, is ambiguous.

[Corral]

The amount of attention CBA issues get from fans and the media is a head scratcher for me. This thread is case in point. Really. Who cares about this in the overall scheme of things concerning the Flames. Tried to obtain a coveted young centre. Didn't work out. The post-mortem is frankly very nauseating.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

"different than the NHL’s current interpretation as articulated to us this morning." could suggest an implied "vs. the NHL's previous interpretation as articulated to us yesterday" that was left out to not throw the NHL under the bus too. I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying it's easy to see what one wants to see when reading in between the lines.



Is there another statement that I haven't seen that supports that?

The statement was released Friday. In the statement he addresses "this morning", he also states in the statement that he spoke on the interpretation with the "player's representative" (which one I'd like to know, since Pat Morris doesn't recall this judging by his not even being aware) and no mention of speaking to the NHL.

My feeling is that they legitimately never even knew about this rule, or forgot it, and the whole "our interpretation" thing was their spin. THAT is speculation. However, them not talking to the NHL prior to the offer is based on their statements. I feel there is no way he'd leave out talking to them prior to submission of the offer sheet to not throw them under the bus. He'd offer that immediately if he'd done it.

[Flash Walken]

Jay Feaster ambiguous?

That doesn't scream intellectual honesty to me.

[timbit]

Just want to commemd the participants in this discussion over the last few pages for arguing their points with intelligence and civility. The best of CP on display.
Very interesting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by nik-

and no mention of speaking to the NHL.

Absence of evidence is almost always not evidence of absence.

Originally Posted by nik-

However, them not talking to the NHL prior to the offer is based on their statements.

It doesn't follow though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Corral

The amount of attention CBA issues get from fans and the media is a head scratcher for me. This thread is case in point. Really. Who cares about this in the overall scheme of things concerning the Flames. Tried to obtain a coveted young centre. Didn't work out. The post-mortem is frankly very nauseating.

Even though I have been active in this thread, I also totally agree with this. I don't why I care so much. Let's just all agree that Colorado are idiots and maybe the media will catch on to that. Let's focus our attention there.

[JazzyFlame]

Fire feaster

[transplant99]

Also, am I the only one scratching my head on the lack of action on the Flames part about this whole fiasco?

Sure...yesterday they were trying to put it to bed by saying what they did and that because the Avs matched, there was no point in discussing it further.

But this became a national firestorm with every media outlet including their own local love in station trying to figure out what would have happened. In that case it should have become AUTOMATIC for Feaster to get in front of the whole thing if he had a well reasoned and factual explanation. The optics on this are so friggin horrible for a team that simply doesnt need such nonsense, that for a guy like him and his mantra of doing things the right way to dodge every media outlet for 2 days afterwards, reeks of "whoops" to me.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

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.

Well, it's important to note that "a Club" can only elect arbitration in accordance with Article 12, which (because it refers to the terms of the SPC which permit the Club election) make it clear that only the Club that owns that player's rights can make the election.

I do take your point--but in the absence of any clarifying language I would still insist that "a Club" in the new Rule 13 is different from "the Club." For comparison, here is the old rule:

13.23: In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside
North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)
only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.

That language is VERY different. Also, there is no exemption to this rule.

For clarity: those who think Feaster is wrong here also think that the above language means exactly the same thing as the language in the MOU. If that's true, why did they change it?