Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 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.

Especially when he's seemingly on speed dial whenever someone needs a quote.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed, it's been a very good discussion.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

Absence of evidence is almost always not evidence of absence.



It doesn't follow though.

It's not evidence, but if you took a step prior to making a colossal mistake and informing people of it could completely eliminate blame, you'd include that. There is no reason for Feaster to cover for the NHL in this case. It's his job on the line.

The answer that makes the most sense is that he didn't know, and this was the "cover my ass" explanation. Because if he did know ahead of time, why wouldn't he talk to them, and if he did talk to them, why would he not include that in the statement. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by transplant99

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

You mean saying they're not going to address it further wasn't enough for you? How unreasonable of you.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

True.

But I make the exact same claim against the league (and I really think it's in their court).

I think the delay is due to the fact that they are scrambling to determine exactly what the answer is. And I doubt that we here from the Flames, or any other official party in this, until it has been ironed out for certainty from New York.

I would think that there is a very good chance that there have been conversations between Edwards and Bettman in the last 36 hours.

[Flash Walken]

I'd like him to discuss how he explains a press release stating he discussed the matter with the player in question's representative, only for said rep to immediately deny those claims.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, this is the first time that Feaster's media management has not been very good. I'm not sure why he hasn't made more comments other than maybe they've made the judgment that it's better to wait for this to blow over.

I highly doubt he's on the cusp of being fired--it's likelier to me that he's been advised to keep his mouth shut until there's a questionable hit or a trade and everyone forgets about this.

[nik-]

The one thing that gets me is why no one in the media is chasing the "player's representative" angle when O'Reilly's agent doesn't seem to be the one they conferred with. I know some think it's just the agent covering himself, and that's definitely possible. But I don't know if I buy it.

This is a large part of what makes me feel that this whole "our interpretation" stance is BS.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is interesting. Even the 150 word release was vague.

I think it is because the only way to clarify now is to get into a pissing match with league. Neither side would want that.

[browna]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. The press release itself seemed quite terse and abrupt. Even the way it was signed just seemed odd to me for some reason "Jay Feaster - General Manager" not "General Manager, Calgary Flames Hockey Club" (ok, that may be splitting hairs, but it just looked odd)...as if Feaster really didn't write it and it was put together quickly...almost as if someone else was cleaning up the mess that Feaster made. Which, as you say, seems like a whoops.

My personal opinion is it was in a tone that intended to sweep things under the rug as soon as possible and avoid Feaster getting himself into more trouble then he was in (internally) by discussing it externally. Also, closing the door shut, which isn't the MO with Feaster, making sure that its clear that the press will not be given access to Feaster for any contact with him about it, including those press who text him back and forth.

Just my opinion, but yeah, I agree Tranny; a statement had to be made right away yesterday ASAP to try and quell the storm, but if the Flames as an organization were standing fully behind the notion that Feaster had done all the dilligenece in the matter and was ready for a showdown with the NHL, you figured the Flames may have come to the defense of the GM as he gets roasted by most every media outlet in North America, on a day like today, or later in the day yesterday.

Maybe reading to much into it, but the statement yesterday shutting the door, doesn't sound like the way Feaster usually operates, given how much he likes to chat.

[Enoch Root]

again, to me, silence seems appropriate until they 'know' whether they were right or wrong. In other words, the ball is in the league's court

[photon]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not evidence, but if you took a step prior to making a colossal mistake and informing people of it could completely eliminate blame, you'd include that.

That's an assumption, there's at least one reason not to, plus other possible reasons we haven't thought of. That's why they have a saying about assuming things.

Originally Posted by nik-

There is no reason for Feaster to cover for the NHL in this case. It's his job on the line.

It's not his job on the line if his boss knows it wasn't his mistake.

If you want to use assumptions and speculations to support things, the fact that Feaster hasn't been fired for risking $2.5M and a 1st and 3rd round pick on a presumed roll of the dice (roll 2d6, oohhh critical miss) "suggests" that he wasn't actually taking any risk.

If you stick with your conclusion based on what was said but ignore what actually happened (Feaster not being fired), then that's confirmation bias isn't it?

Originally Posted by nik-

why would he not include that in the statement. It makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you (EDIT: not saying it makes sense to me), and you are in a position where you have to admit you just might lack all the relevant information.

No problem discussing things in the absence of all relevant information, but drawing firm conclusions doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by nik-

You mean saying they're not going to address it further wasn't enough for you? How unreasonable of you.

And people were just complementing on how reasonable people were being in the thread.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

That's an assumption, there's at least one reason not to, plus other possible reasons we haven't thought of. That's why they have a saying about assuming things.



It's not his job on the line if his boss knows it wasn't his mistake.

If you want to use assumptions and speculations to support things, the fact that Feaster hasn't been fired for risking $2.5M and a 1st and 3rd round pick on a presumed roll of the dice (roll 2d6, oohhh critical miss) "suggests" that he wasn't actually taking any risk.

If you stick with your conclusion based on what was said but ignore what actually happened (Feaster not being fired), then that's confirmation bias isn't it?



Makes no sense to you, and you are in a position where you have to admit you just might lack all the relevant information.

No problem discussing things in the absence of all relevant information, but drawing firm conclusions doesn't follow.





And people were just complementing on how reasonable people were being in the thread.

Well 80% of this thread is based on speculation and perception since not a single person here has all the information. Everyone is stating speculation as a result.

As far as the last comment, I find the "we're not going to address this again" as borderline childish. People have questions, the media will have questions and rightfully so. Judging but the post I quoted, I'm not alone.

[Flash Walken]

Agreed Photon, it's pretty shoddy logic to believe Feaster is the one making decisions at this point

[Henry Fool]

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.
[...]

You're still arguing like it's just Johnston who made the argument. Should Bob McKenzie apologise for Feaster as well - or should McKenzie be outright fired for "irresponsible journalism" like you suggested should happen to Johnston?

Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly told TSN on friday that O'Reilly would have to go through waivers. Clearly it was entirely appropriate to bring up this issue. You've been arguing the issue all night yet you still think that it was bad journalism.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by nik-

The one thing that gets me is why no one in the media is chasing the "player's representative" angle when O'Reilly's agent doesn't seem to be the one they conferred with. I know some think it's just the agent covering himself, and that's definitely possible. But I don't know if I buy it.

This is a large part of what makes me feel that this whole "our interpretation" stance is BS.

they talked to the agent. They did a deal together.

I don't think anyone is covering. They both did a deal in good faith thinking it was all on the up and up. There are probably a lot of clauses in the cba they never talked about because they all clearly had the same understanding.

If the flames and player representatives talked at all about ROR legitimately coming to Calgary then they all had the same interpretation, whether it was explicitly discussed or not.

[transplant99]

Gillis just said that he knew that ROR had to clear waivers because the player had played in europe after the start of the season...seems rather cut and dried from his point of view.

[photon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well 80% of this thread is based on speculation and perception since not a single person here has all the information. Everyone is stating speculation as a result.

That's what I said, discussion around speculation is fine (exploring possibilities can be fun) but drawing conclusions based on speculations is.. well the thread stands for itself as a testament to other teams fans what that looks like.

Originally Posted by nik-

As far as the last comment, I find the "we're not going to address this again" as borderline childish. People have questions, the media will have questions and rightfully so. Judging but the post I quoted, I'm not alone.

I never said that people don't have questions or shouldn't have questions (I in fact implied the opposite talking about insufficient information). I don't think anyone else said that either. So the sarcasm and hyperbole seem to be misdirected as well as going past the level of reasonable discussion.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

I think we can all agree there was some risk, my point is regardless of how much risk there was, and none of us can be sure because in the end this is the leagues call, the payoff, a 2 year deal at 5 mill a year plus the picks for a decent center who doesn't seem likely to ever sign a cheap deal or show much loyalty to a club, was barely worth the first offer, is not worth any risk and, as the thread header is 'Should Feaster get fired' shows either a basic lack of competance or moronic level of desperation to fill a gap in the team.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Agreed Photon, it's pretty shoddy logic to believe Feaster is the one making decisions at this point

Heh, well I certainly wouldn't find it improbable that he's been told to zip it by either the owners, or by the NHL and owners together (depending on what happened). In any scenario it looks bad on the Flames and the best way to deal with that is to just wait it out.

[Enoch Root]

Gillis just said flat out that O'Reilly would be subject to waivers.

"You knew that?" "Yes - he played in Europe"

Fascinating. I cannot wait to hear what the league has to say. Either the Flames, or a whole lot of others, will have some apologizing to do.

With respect to Gillis' comments, they are particularly interesting because the reason he gave "he played in Europe" doesn't actually address the situation. They're not 'wrong' but they're not 'right' either