Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[SportsJunky]

ROR looks to be in the lineup today against the Red Wings.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah I wish we could just all agree we don't know how this would have played out and trying to find any proof that one side or the other is correct, is a waste of time. There are far too may unknowns, assumptions and other types of guess work happening.
[...].

This is an odd comment, calling it a waste of time. Trying to find proof for an argument is just the nature of debating anything even if you can't achieve absolute certainty. It's not all guess work, either, there are plenty of facts and their implications to consider.

I also think that the fact that there is so much that is unknown is a argument against Feaster in itself. We shouldn't have to speculate at all.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah I wish we could just all agree we don't know how this would have played out and trying to find any proof that one side or the other is correct, is a waste of time. There are far too may unknowns, assumptions and other types of guess work happening.

And likely that's the way all parties involved (NHL, Flames, the agent, etc) want to keep it to try and save face.

That is correct. We have no idea how this would have played out but the issue I have is that neither did the Flames when they released their 1st and 3rd round picks to the Avalanche. It sounds to me that the Flames interpretation alone was good enough to risk those picks without consulting the league and getting 100% approval prior to putting in the offer sheet. It's almost like those draft picks were burning a hole in Feaster's/King's pockets.

I don't know about you but I don't have a lot of faith in this management group handling Flames assets going forward as it's pretty obvious that this organization doesn't have a lot of respect for 1st round draft picks or 2nd round picks for that matter. Nothing more than currency to bring in more quick fixes and to be used on players only if there is no other alternative.

[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.

I know this is from last night and was discussed last night, but after more thought, I do think the Flames have to respond again in some manner around this if they or Feaster do in fact truly believe they're right/were right from the start. The longer the silence, the more it looks like it was a whoops and then them/Feaster not owning up to it.

That, or Feaster admits a mistake in judgement/not checking with the league/whatever, to put some more closure behind this and take the accountability for it.

The Flames owe nothing more of a statement as the situation, or do they need to throw out their whole case they were ready to go forward with a fight to the league (if that was the case) but you think with the "accountability" that was supposed to be top to bottom mantra within the organization, that some more of an explanation or apology would be a proper thing to do, optics wise given the media storm around this.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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. For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC, such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23

'All players on a club's reserve list' to me refers to a specific team, IMO (i.e. Colorado, in this case).

Originally Posted by 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"...

I ain't no lawyer, but the official wording from the NHL CBA doesn't seem that difficult to grasp when they include the "trade player from A to B" line. It seems pretty implied that if the Flames traded for ROR, then they have the RFA rights over him so wouldn't have to worry about the mid-season wavier issue since he is Flames property.

I'm surprised so many people seemed confused by what's written. The first sentence could've been done much better with it being more direct and straightforward, but seems to outline the rules pretty clearly. If the trade part was absent, then it would make sense since it would be extremely ambiguous at that point.

Feaster as a lawyer should've caught on this, or at the very least clarify with the NHL prior to make this move. Really inexcusable when he could've avoided this messy situation that thankfully didn't muster into anything.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I ain't no lawyer, but the official wording from the NHL CBA doesn't seem that difficult to grasp when they include the "trade player from A to B" line. It seems pretty implied that if the Flames traded for ROR, then they have the RFA rights over him so wouldn't have to worry about the mid-season wavier issue since he is Flames property.

I'm surprised so many people seemed confused by what's written. The first sentence could've been done much better with it being more direct and straightforward, but seems to outline the rules pretty clearly. If the trade part was absent, then it would make sense since it would be extremely ambiguous at that point.

Feaster as a lawyer should've caught on this, or at the very least clarify with the NHL prior to make this move. Really inexcusable when he could've avoided this messy situation that thankfully didn't muster into anything.

You're right, you ain't no lawyer.



Sorry, not trying to be a ****, just making the joke that was sitting there.

It is not as obvious as you think it appears.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're right, you ain't no lawyer.



Sorry, not trying to be a ****, just making the joke that was sitting there.

It is not as obvious as you think it appears.

Why would they include that trading part then though as an example? The first sentence I agree that's it's not obvious, but with the second, I comprehend it as clarifying it up.

[Flamescat]

Is feaster's background a lawyer? Aren't their strongest skills reading contracts and seeing loopholes? Feaster is starting to worry me as a GM.

Seems like we avoided a major f up and Feaster ought to be called on it.

[sa226]

Its so important, yet difficult to look at this in an unbiased manner.

If you want to believe Feaster was on to something, you can make a decent argument that he was.

If you want to believe that he took a gigantic risk, you can make a decent argument for that.

I think it is of importance to at least acknowledge that this is a MOU, not a fully drafted CBA. Further clarification is needed.

As stated before, "a" and "the" statements are incredibly important. I think people are putting too much weight on the "for further clarification" statement, they are typically meant to whittle down interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous clause. What I mean is that its important to understand what exactly what the clarification clause is meant to clarify. In my opinion it is there to clarify the use of the "a" statement.

The clarification statement, in my mind simply clarifies that the RA or Reserve status links the player and the club, but that link can be transferred from club to club. It isn't explicitly attached to the player. If it was then even further clarification is needed.

I don't have much experience with "a\the" clauses, but I do with "and\or" as well as "shall\should". Usually it is good practice to insert the other word in there and see how it changes the statement. If you insert "the" in this statement, it kind of makes the whole sentence read funny, "a" was needed in this case, and clarification of its use was essential.

Thats how I see it.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't know about you but I don't have a lot of faith in this management group handling Flames assets going forward as it's pretty obvious that this organization doesn't have a lot of respect for 1st round draft picks or 2nd round picks for that matter. Nothing more than currency to bring in more quick fixes and to be used on players only if there is no other alternative.

I never had much faith in Jay Feaster, but I don't think it's fair to pass this judgment based on the offer sheet to O'Reilly. FWIW, O'Reilly is a only 22 years old who seems more of a sure thing than Turris was before he left Phoenix. Outside of a top 3 pick, a 1st round pick plus 3rd round pick is hardly an unreasonable price.

Still, I've said this before that while I don't think Feaster and Weisbrod would trade a 1st round pick for a rental, I do think management will trade for someone like Brad Richards, a 30+ year old with several years of productivity left. But ya, first round picks and 2nd round picks are currency, valuable currency that Feaster and Weisbrod are more than willing to use to acquire NHL-ready players.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Why would they include that trading part then though as an example? The first sentence I agree that's it's not obvious, but with the second, I comprehend it as clarifying it up.

People with opinions on both sides have hashed through this for pages already.

But briefly, 'for clarity' terms are often used as an example as a way to further demonstrate the original point (in this case being that the player is exempt even if they change teams).

It gives an example of a traded player still maintaining their exemption.

The important part of that, IMO, is that there is no reference of any kind that there might be ways in which the exemption would no longer apply.

If it were a situation whereby the exemption transfered in some circumstances but not others, there would be examples of both. There is no mention of the player losing the exemption. Also note that the exemption is in fact a right of the player, not the team.

You say that it looks pretty obvious what the intent is. Well I would also argue that it looks pretty clear what the intent is.

Keep in mind, that the purpose of this exemption would appear to be (we can't be certain until the parties that negotiated it into the deal clarify), to allow players who are in Europe at the start of the CBA-negotiation-shortened season to be exempt from rule 13.23 and be allowed to get back to the NHL.

That is how I see the intent. And with the intent viewed as such (remember, it is entirely possible that ME was involved in conversations on this issue), it looks clear to me that the exemption is there to get players like O'Reilly (i.e. players on Reserve lists and RFAs) back to the NHL.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

This is an odd comment, calling it a waste of time. Trying to find proof for an argument is just the nature of debating anything even if you can't achieve absolute certainty. It's not all guess work, either, there are plenty of facts and their implications to consider.

I also think that the fact that there is so much that is unknown is a argument against Feaster in itself. We shouldn't have to speculate at all.

I guess the point I'm making is that those on either extreme of this debate seem to be only looking at the quotes/interpretations/assumptions that support their position. My stance on it is there is too much stuff we don't know to make a judgement. Unless new information emerges - that lack of knowledge makes it difficult to really draw any conclusions.

Your post is a great illustration - you are seemingly assigning blame on the basis of what we don't know.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Sigh.

...you think he would come out and clear the waters, because the longer it is left to feaster, the more fan resentment and distrust there is going to be of management.....

I am sure this is what you meant, no?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by FAN

I never had much faith in Jay Feaster, but I don't think it's fair to pass this judgment based on the offer sheet to O'Reilly. FWIW, O'Reilly is a only 22 years old who seems more of a sure thing than Turris was before he left Phoenix. Outside of a top 3 pick, a 1st round pick plus 3rd round pick is hardly an unreasonable price.

Still, I've said this before that while I don't think Feaster and Weisbrod would trade a 1st round pick for a rental, I do think management will trade for someone like Brad Richards, a 30+ year old with several years of productivity left. But ya, first round picks and 2nd round picks are currency, valuable currency that Feaster and Weisbrod are more than willing to use to acquire NHL-ready players.

The lack of respect to draft picks (primarily 2nd rounders) dates back to Darryl Sutter but we have seen Feaster give up two now (Kotalik and Cammalleri). It's pretty clear that the organization as a whole considers draft picks currency and that there isn't much of an appetite to build a team from within. ROR may have turned out to be a great player but in supposedly a very solid draft the Flames would have left themselves with no picks until the 4th round which puts any chances of building a quality team from within into question.

I'm scared. Scared that they are going to now dangle more draft picks for more quick fix players as indications are that the Flames are calling teams looking for a deal. There seems to be zero patience or vision. It's a hopeless feeling as a fan to realize that your team has become the prime example of how not to run your NHL team.

[FAN]

You know, after giving this whole "fiasco" some thought, I am willing to forgive Feaster, Weisbrod, & co. for not being aware of the rule since the new CBA hasn't been finalized in written form yet, and there does seem to be a lot of hockey people, including GMs, who were not fully aware of the waiver rule.

With that said, I am not ready to forgive Feaster for being so ignorant of the fact that there may indeed be another interpretation of the rule and not checking in with league office. I am also not ready to forgive Feaster for being so stubborn and cocky to reject the interpretation of the league office and risk the assets of the Calgary Flames.

[Titan]

I would suggest that Feaster, the Flames, the NHL and the NHLPA are all trying to come to terms with this issue. We won't see an official statement until they have all agreed on the proper interpretation and have fixed the wording. I think that out of respect for that process, or because he has been told, Feaster is not commenting further. Also, were he to come out now he would be inundated with half baked theories based on the partial information most people, other than those mentioned above, have at their disposal. Unfcomfortable and frustrating for fans but probably the right course of action. All IMHO of course.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm scared. Scared that they are going to now dangle more draft picks for more quick fix players as indications are that the Flames are calling teams looking for a deal. There seems to be zero patience or vision. It's a hopeless feeling as a fan to realize that your team has become the prime example of how not to run your NHL team.

I agree 100%. If the last 4 or 5 years were tough, they are going to look like the glory years over the next 5 once the feast peddles 2 or 3 high picks for a Derek Stepan type and tries to convince us all he's a number 1 centre when all he's trying to do is save his job after probably guaranteeing playoffs to ownership.

I'd cut the guy a break if he didn't have a track record of going all in with the team in 6-10th slots and spouting off about being intellectually honest with teams that have no shot at the cup.

There are 10 year olds out there with more unbiased and intellectually honest views on the team who would make better GMs. He's convinced himself that this is a cup winning team and in my mind that's more damning than any one mistake because no matter how good your eye for talent is, lack of bias and awareness of where the team is at in the bigger picture undermines that.

[Badgers Nose]

I don't think he will be fired because there were a lot of fingers in this pie. If feaster were fired he would probably tell everyone what really happened and people with a lot more to lose than feaster would be embarrassed. That, or I suppose they could just pay to shut him up.

Frankly I don't think you can point him out as the culprit for the mess the flames are in right now. There's plenty of blame to go around and I think if firings were to start they would have to be deeper and more broad-based and just getting rid of the general manager.

But I can envision a scenario where they get him to do the dirty deed of trading the franchise player before bringing in a brand-new general manager. Maybe They would pay a little extra for that.

Right now I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing.

[Robbob]

tried reading through a bunch of posts (got to about page 60) and people keep saying that if feaster was wrong we would have lost O'Reilly through waivers. I am pretty sure if that was the NHL decision the they wouldn't put him through waivers and he would have joined the team next year. Just would have lost his services for the remaining 28 games this year. Depending on our draft pick I might still make that.

might be interesting to revisit this at the draft and see what might have happened in an alternate reality where Colorado did not match. Might make for some interesting summer fodder.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I guess the point I'm making is that those on either extreme of this debate seem to be only looking at the quotes/interpretations/assumptions that support their position. My stance on it is there is too much stuff we don't know to make a judgement. Unless new information emerges - that lack of knowledge makes it difficult to really draw any conclusions.

Your post is a great illustration - you are seemingly assigning blame on the basis of what we don't know.

But that doesn't make the discussion a waste of time. Debate leads to greater clarification of the issues even if the final judgment will have to be left open. There's no final word. I don't get to choose that and neither do you. But that doesn't mean that a person can't express their own conclusions based on what we know. There is nothing problematic about a discussion moving forward in this way.

If your stance is different from mine, that's fine, and I don't see how that means that the debate itself is useless or unhealthy. Your stance that there aren't enough facts to draw any conclusions isn't self-evident either - it's just one more point of view among many in the thread and needs to be argued for and evaluated just like any other.