Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

McKenzie was relying on Johnston having done his job. Daly offered an off-the-cuff comment without knowing that O'Reilly had played overseas, and it's entirely possible that he didn't check the text of the rules before answering. Keep in mind two things: the CBA is nearly 500 pages long, and under the old CBA the rules would clearly have meant O'Reilly had to pass through waivers.

So yes: Johnston needs to do his job, and should have made sure that the NHL agreed with his interpretation AFTER it became clear that it applied to O'Reilly. The fact that the NHL has since backed away slightly from his statement indicates Daly should probably be more careful too.

I very much doubt that Daly gave that answer to TSN so lightly, but even if the NHL "has since slightly backed away from his statement," doesn't it strongly suggest that it is an issue that people had not thought through before? And therefore you can't blame a journalist for raising it. And it makes the claim that the Flames had discussed it with the NHL dubious.

If it was all made certain beforehand, we would not be having this conversation. There would not be conflicting stories, changing interpretations, and so on. Feaster would say they checked and the NHL would confirm that, end of story.

It's still a little strange how you admit that there's room for interpretation and say that the NHL seems to have "slightly" backed away from Daly's statement, all of which implies that there are many open questions, yet at the same time you think that with regard to Feaster, we should move on because there's nothing to see here. And at the same time you're adamant that the journalist should be held accountable for bringing up the issue that no one so far has been able to fully clarify.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Like him or not, but the fact is he will have a MUCH better handle on CBA issues and such than anyone here will.

It was a certainty that someone would make this argument.

Yes, Gillis knows more about the CBA than we do. But so does Feaster , O'Reilly's agent, and everyone else involved.

And yet there is disagreement and uncertainty.

There is no more reason to think Gillis is right than there is to think Feaster is right.

I want to hear it from the league

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by browna

Agreed.
I think with the comments Gillis just made about "yes, he played in Europe", as why he knew about the waiver requirement, speaks volumes.

Although not 100% addressing the wording of the issue that Feaster is (potentially and assumeably) arguing as his defense, demonstrates that Gillis is applying the spirit of his understanding of why the clause was altered from the old rule.

Actually, he referred to playing in Europe, which is the rule from the prior CBA. It is the exemption that determines the spirit of why the clause was altered

[photon]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm bitter because I love my team and hate everyone running it. I can't help but spew vitriol sometimes.

It happens, there's 30 GMs, sometimes you have good ones, sometimes not so much. Sometimes good players, sometimes not. Sometimes you draft Peter Bondra in the 8th round, sometimes you strike out for years at a time at the draft.

I just always see a positive side to things... They stunk up the draft for so long (so much so I think that's actually the key thing that's wrong with this team) but seem to be making progress in that area. The worse the team is on the ice the faster changes will come, and change is at least interesting. I'm always fascinated by the higher level of things and wonder what the team will do next to try and respond to their challenges.

In a 30 team league, it's unreasonable of me to expect to be in the top all the time.

And if it's the owners setting the mandate (which I suspect it is, I always thought Sutters bad deadline deals were driven by that), then either they'll eventually decide to approve a full rebuild, or they won't, but that's not something I can change, so might as well just get the entertainment I can.. winning is nice, but I don't have to win to be entertained.

[sun]

Of course it's very easy for Gillis to say he 'knew' O'Reilly would pass through waivers. What else is he going to say? He's not going to admit to not knowing something that another GM is getting raked over the coals for not knowing. Especially after (apparently false) rumours that the canucks also tendered an offer sheet to O'Reilly.

I don't think we can infer anything from his response to the question.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...but the way he answered without even thinking there could be another way for things to play out was very very telling. He simply could have said "i would have to read things again and get clarification from the league"...he didnt.

I dont know....if i just take all the parts and pieces of the last couple days and add them all up...its hard not to come to a conclusion that really is not good for feaster and company...as much as it pains me to say.

Agreed. And to me it suggested that he was referring to Rule 13.23, not the exemption, becasue the original rule is very clear

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I want to hear it from the league

We have heard it from the league. It's likely they change the wording, but the intention of the rule has been clarified.

[browna]

Originally Posted by sun

Of course it's very easy for Gillis to say he 'knew' O'Reilly would pass through waivers. What else is he going to say? He's not going to admit to not knowing something that another GM is getting raked over the coals for not knowing. Especially after (apparently false) rumours that the canucks also tendered an offer sheet to O'Reilly.

I don't think we can infer anything from his response to the question.

What he could've said if he really wasn't aware, was that he wasn't aware of the technicalities of the rule/exemption, but that as he wasn't planning to sign any RFA's from other teams, and thus he hadn't investigated all the details involved.

If he wanted to stick it to Feaster from there, he would've added that "but before I would move ahead on that situation, I would've gotten clarification before proceeding if the organization had any doubt of the interpretation"

[Enoch Root]

night all - thanks for the good discussions

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by nik-

We have heard it from the league. It's likely they change the wording, but the intention of the rule has been clarified.

I'll definitely be interested to read the rule in the final draft. Assuming the NHL and the Flames stick to their word and not comment on the matter further, I think that'll be the best way to see what the true intent of the rule is.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...but the way he answered without even thinking there could be another way for things to play out was very very telling. He simply could have said "i would have to read things again and get clarification from the league"...he didnt.

Well it's Gillis, so I'll just assume that he responded based off of the previous CBA

Originally Posted by transplant99

I dont know....if i just take all the parts and pieces of the last couple days and add them all up...its hard not to come to a conclusion that really is not good for feaster and company...as much as it pains me to say.

Yup, no matter which way you slice it the Flames come out of it looking foolish to some degree (the agent even moreso).

[sun]

Originally Posted by photon

And if it's the owners setting the mandate (which I suspect it is, I always thought Sutters bad deadline deals were driven by that), then either they'll eventually decide to approve a full rebuild, or they won't, but that's not something I can change, so might as well just get the entertainment I can.. winning is nice, but I don't have to win to be entertained.

Off topic, but... this talk of After Hours and the owners "setting the mandate" reminds me of when Hartley was on After Hours. He said that when he was flown out to Calgary to interview for the job, he had dinner with the owners and "one of the owners" (Edwards?) told him that there was no flight home for him to Montreal until it was a done deal AKA: the job was his. He said he was flattered that the owners wanted him and that he was their guy.

I'm paraphrasing obviously, but I remember it pretty clearly and wondered why it was never brought up on CP. Maybe other teams' owners meet with potential coaches too and tell them they have the job? I dunno, just thought it was interesting.

Edit: maybe for another thread, but here's the video: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Sports/CBC'...ID/2329436516/
Starts around the 3:00 mark

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by sun

Off topic, but... this talk of After Hours and the owners "setting the mandate" reminds me of when Hartley was on After Hours. He said that when he was flown out to Calgary to interview for the job, he had dinner with the owners and "one of the owners" (Edwards?) told him that there was no flight home for him to Montreal until it was a done deal AKA: the job was his. He said he was flattered that the owners wanted him and that he was their guy.

I'm paraphrasing obviously, but I remember it pretty clearly and wondered why it was never brought up on CP. Maybe other teams' owners meet with potential coaches too and tell them they have the job? I dunno, just thought it was interesting.

Much like their explanation for when Feaster was hired, there was a less than extensive hiring process.

When Feaster said he wasn't in the room when Conroy and Weisbrod interviewed Hartley, I believe him. Why bother being there when your bosses have already told you he's hired.

[photon]

Originally Posted by sun

I'm paraphrasing obviously, but I remember it pretty clearly and wondered why it was never brought up on CP. Maybe other teams' owners meet with potential coaches too and tell them they have the job? I dunno, just thought it was interesting.

I think that could be pretty standard, at least in this part of NA.

My current job I could say almost the same thing happened. The guy who recruited me (we have a history) convinced the owner I was the guy for the job, and the job was high enough level to be important to the company (a couch would be more important than me to my company, but similar idea) that the owner personally met with me and made me feel like I was their guy. I knew it was probably mostly based on the recommendation to him, but that's how owners are.

Most places I've worked the owners have been quite interactive in the high level decisions. And most times it's not in a bad way, the guy probably doesn't even understand half of what I'm talking about, but he doesn't care what I decide, he cares how I've come to my decision and how I justify my decision, then he goes out and tells everyone his decision makes us the best company around

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The NHL's OFFICIAL POSITION is that Ryan O'Reilly would have had to go through waivers if the Colorado Avalanche did not match Calgary's offer sheet.

That was their opinion weeks ago, it's was their opinion thursday morning, thursday afternoon and thursday night, was re-iterated to the Flames the following morning and as of writing this message, has not been redacted or contradicted in any way.

Is it their official position or their opinion? I'm not sure it's either just yet.

I don't think you can say it's an official position as they haven't had to make a ruling on it and even suggest they won't on something that is now academic since Colorado signed ROR. If they had to make a ruling on it, I think there would be more discussion and review than if a reporter hounds Daly for a quick question on some CBA stuff.

I also don't think you can say it's their opinion. They've been awfully quiet since the initial matter of fact response. We don't know the context with which the original reporter conferred with Daly. Was Daly in his office with the documents in front and fully reviewed with the NHL legal team before he responded? Was he just getting out of the shower and thought... "oh yeah, he played in Europe, so [going from memory] I think he needs to clear wavers." Maybe he was on Bluetooth driving back to the office after an early morning spa treatment and thought... who is this annoying Sportsnet reporter calling me... "YES, waivers, now beat it!"

The NHL has more than Daly as part of the vetting process on CBA matters. he may be the guy who has to put his name on decisions, but he's not the only guy teams call for opinions. ROR's agent says multiple teams were considering offers and had been consulting with the league and the waivers piece was not brought forward as an issue. For all we know, the NHL lawyers/CBA people have been advising teams that waivers wouldn't apply. The NHL is a big organization... it's not like their lawyers/CBA people are sitting in Bills office giving him updates on every CBA clarification call they took. I'm guessing that's why everyone is being so quiet. The league may have been giving advice in one direction and then Daly blurts out something else without knowing where the train was headed. Now it's academic so no one wants to talk about it.

[nik-]

Well it's not like the NHL has a tribunal for this stuff, I'd say the deputy commissioner confirming he'd have to go through waivers is pretty official.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Much like their explanation for when Feaster was hired, there was a less than extensive hiring process.

When Feaster said he wasn't in the room when Conroy and Weisbrod interviewed Hartley, I believe him. Why bother being there when your bosses have already told you he's hired.

Well, Feaster is Hartley's son's godfather (or other way around) and they have been close for years so I am sure it was Feaster that sold the owners on Hartley in the first place.

Harltley was Feaster's guy from the start (even before last season he wanted to get Hartley out of Switzerland, isn't that how it went?) No reason for Feaster to be in the room with Conroy, or, when out for dinner with whichever owner it was.

They're a bit of a package deal (I think Feaster also joked that when Hartley goes, it'll be right with him), making any decision on Feaster, now, or in the future, with that in consideration.

I too have had second "interviews" with my bosses' boss, just more as a formality so that they can meet you, make sure you didn't pull a fast one on your boss in the first interview, and as sign off on you to your boss so he can cover his a$$ if you turn out to be a dud.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...but the way he answered without even thinking there could be another way for things to play out was very very telling. He simply could have said "i would have to read things again and get clarification from the league"...he didnt.

I dont know....if i just take all the parts and pieces of the last couple days and add them all up...its hard not to come to a conclusion that really is not good for feaster and company...as much as it pains me to say.

Gillis is lying, you really think he would have answered thre same before all this came out? Answered without thinking it could play out any other way? That shows how stupid Gillis is because it could certainly play out different ways.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Is it their official position or their opinion? I'm not sure it's either just yet.

From the Flames press release:

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.

Articulated is a strong word, it implies the NHL clearly and distinctly told the Flames their interpretation (i.e opinion).

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Daly offered an off-the-cuff comment without knowing that O'Reilly had played overseas, and it's entirely possible that he didn't check the text of the rules before answering.

As per Flames statement, NHL had officially told to the Flames (not some journalist) that O'Reilly would have to clear waivers. I'm confident that NHL did check the rules before articulating such things to the franchise.

Given that there's nothing coming from NHLPA side, I could assume that the issue is actually clarified as one side (NHL) did a clear and official explanation and another one (NHLPA) seems to say nothing against it (except that, according to Feaster, player's rep thought the same as him, but it is not NHLPA's official stance by any means).