Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

What could have been his calculation, that he thought a 1st, 3rd and $2.5M wasn't worth a 5 minute phone call?

I know in my job, where I deal with a lot less than $2.5M mistakes, my calculated gamble is 110% sure (100% sure, plus mitigation plans for in the most ridiculous cases possible that will likely never occur)... and even if a mistake does happen that out of my control (i.e. ROR signed and comes to Calgary no problems, but gets aids on the flight in), that shows up on my annual review.

Do you think Feaster has the authority to authorize a single instance, 2.5 million dollar bonus payout mid season?

I can all but guarantee Feaster would have had to have gone through several chains of command to get that approval.

With Eric D explicitly stating as recently as this week that, "Ken King basically runs hockey operations," I think the time for debating whether it is Feaster's head that should roll or whether it's the Hockey Operations department that is reckless and foolish is pretty much over.

This is what happens when a guy negotiates contracts on horseback and gives out trade-limiting clauses like candy to, in some instances, borderline NHL players.

[MolsonInBothHands]

I don't buy the thinking that he was willing to lose the picks, and it isn't surprising those quips are mostly coming from posters who would have like to have seen Feaster removed before the offer sheet was made in the first place.

I still contend it was EITHER they had no idea waivers was a possibility because they didn't know about ROR playing after the season started OR they had considered it a possiblity, but were very confident the MOU protected them from that outcome. In my opinion the spirit of the agreement very much comes into play here, due to the awkward wording of the clauses in question. I also think Feaster had a pretty good resource available to reveal the intent of the applicable MOU clause: Murray Edwards. Feaster has successfully interpreted the rules before to his advantage - getting to Cervenka, before other teams thought it was allowed. I don't think Feaster ever thought the picks were at risk. It looked like a much bigger gamble from the outside looking in, but we have no idea what the discussion went like on the inside.

For that reason, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. It isn't with 100% certainty, but it is a black and white question, fire or don't fire. Right now I am leaning towards don't fire.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do you think Feaster has the authority to authorize a single instance, 2.5 million dollar bonus payout mid season?

I can all but guarantee Feaster would have had to have gone through several chains of command to get that approval...

Totally agree. Plus, with this move Feaster essentially signaled to all of the GM's and players' agents the order of magnitude of what this team is willing to offer for a franchise centre. No matter if we agree or not with the strategy of buying now, if the owners believe in it, he had conveyed the message rather well, I think.

P.S. BTW, purposely misspelled names is a known thing in the music and movie industry that is intended to disassociate a performer from a contract for his name rights.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

So you are saying Feaster on purpose, risked losing a 1st and a 3rd for nothing just to try and challenge a "loop hole" that the league may or may not take a hardline stance on?

Seems like an asinine strategy for a team that has few assets already.

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I don't buy the thinking that he was willing to lose the picks, and it isn't surprising those quips are mostly coming from posters who would have like to have seen Feaster removed before the offer sheet was made in the first place.

I still contend it was EITHER they had no idea waivers was a possibility because they didn't know about ROR playing after the season started OR they had considered it a possiblity, but were very confident the MOU protected them from that outcome. In my opinion the spirit of the agreement very much comes into play here, due to the awkward wording of the clauses in question. I also think Feaster had a pretty good resource available to reveal the intent of the applicable MOU clause: Murray Edwards. Feaster has successfully interpreted the rules before to his advantage - getting to Cervenka, before other teams thought it was allowed. I don't think Feaster ever thought the picks were at risk. It looked like a much bigger gamble from the outside looking in, but we have no idea what the discussion went like on the inside.

For that reason, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. It isn't with 100% certainty, but it is a black and white question, fire or don't fire. Right now I am leaning towards don't fire.

Which rules did he interpret differently from other GM's that got him this special advantage?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Totally agree. Plus, with this move Feaster essentially signaled to all of the GM's and players' agents the order of magnitude of what this team is willing to offer for a franchise centre. No matter if we agree or not with the strategy of buying now, if the owners believe in it, he had conveyed the message rather well, I think.

P.S. BTW, purposely misspelled names is a known thing in the music and movie industry that is intended to disassociate a performer from a contract for his name rights.

"Open for business" ?

When was the last time I heard fans talk about their GM like that? I think it was 2007... Oiler fans on Kevin Lowe... please don't turn us into Oiler Fans 2.0

Nor do I want to think of Jay Feaster as Kevin Lowe 2.0

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

"Open for business" ?

When was the last time I heard fans talk about their GM like that? I think it was 2007... Oiler fans on Kevin Lowe... please don't turn us into Oiler Fans 2.0

Nor do I want to think of Jay Feaster as Kevin Lowe 2.0

I didn't say I like it. Just don't believe this was a fluke.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

"Open for business" ?

When was the last time I heard fans talk about their GM like that? I think it was 2007... Oiler fans on Kevin Lowe... please don't turn us into Oiler Fans 2.0

Nor do I want to think of Jay Feaster as Kevin Lowe 2.0

Ken King is Kevin Lowe.

Feaster is Tambellini.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

What could have been his calculation, that he thought a 1st, 3rd and $2.5M wasn't worth a 5 minute phone call?

I know in my job, where I deal with a lot less than $2.5M mistakes, my calculated gamble is 110% sure (100% sure, plus mitigation plans for in the most ridiculous cases possible that will likely never occur)... and even if a mistake does happen that out of my control (i.e. ROR signed and comes to Calgary no problems, but gets aids on the flight in), that shows up on my annual review.

Or, that the worst case scenario is that the NHL and NHLPA clarify the language and void the offer sheet, which is exactly what I expect would have happened.

I don't see any way that the horror situation people have created of losing the picks and the cash would have come to pass given the lack of clarity in the language. The NHL would prefer not to see its franchises crippled, particularly one with fairly significant clout, and the NHLPA doesn't want the clause interpreted in a manner that restricts players. The Flames clearly would have at minimum had a strong case for a contrary interpretation, and it would likely have been fully supported by the NHLPA. If the NHL voids the deal and works with the PA to clarify the intent they are much more likely to get a result that please everyone. If they dig in their heels they're going to piss off a valued ownership group, the PA and risk an arbitrator ruling against them. I know which one I'd say is more likely to occur.

[oldschoolcalgary]

totally disagree after rereading the CBA Article and the new caveat in the MOU...

The MOU is poorly worded, and really the word in question is "a" rather than "the". The MOU contradicts the spirit of the existing Article - which is still in place...

To roll the dice on a grammatical error, when the spirit the Article being clarified is black and white is fool hardy...

It's akin to mistaking "Thou shall kill" as a change from "Thou shall not kill" - the spirit or intent is understood, and a grammatical error or oversight doesn't change that.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Totally agree. Plus, with this move Feaster essentially signaled to all of the GM's and players' agents the order of magnitude of what this team is willing to offer for a franchise centre. No matter if we agree or not with the strategy of buying now, if the owners believe in it, he had conveyed the message rather well, I think.

P.S. BTW, purposely misspelled names is a known thing in the music and movie industry that is intended to disassociate a performer from a contract for his name rights.

I would have to think that he had all ready called every GM in the NHL to tell them he was open for business. The only thing this did was tell the fans of Calgary what he is willing to give up. I am not sure with the bad PR that they got that it was worth it.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ken King is Kevin Lowe.

Feaster is Tambellini.

At lest Kevin Lowe has a background in hockey. Ken King has no business handling hockey operations compare to the available service out there, and it's extremely disappointing to hear all the smoke of how hands on he is. No wonder Flames don't know the meaning of on ice success.

[GoFlamesGo1989]

Feasted should totally be canned for that debacle of a offer sheet that would have lost all our assets in the transaction. IDIOT!!!!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Joborule

At lest Kevin Lowe has a background in hockey. Ken King has no business handling hockey operations compare to the available service out there, and it's extremely disappointing to hear all the smoke of how hands on he is. No wonder Flames don't know the meaning of on ice success.

Yep.

I think it's prudent to no longer refer to it as 'smoke', either. Bob McKenzie last year stated on national television that the Flames have maybe the most hands on ownership of any team in the league, and Eric Duhatschek said 2 or 3 days ago on local Calgary radio that King, "basically runs hockey operations,".

When two of the most respected journalists in hockey are telling you something, you'd have to be a child with your fingers in your ears not to accept it.

It's not smoke, it's a full blown 5 alarm'er.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Joborule

At lest Kevin Lowe has a background in hockey. ...

That served the Oilers pretty well so far...

Ken King is a business guy, a politics guy, a liaison guy. He probably knows when to meddle and when to let "hockey things" be handled by the hockey staff, I'm sure.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Joborule

At lest Kevin Lowe has a background in hockey. Ken King has no business handling hockey operations compare to the available service out there, and it's extremely disappointing to hear all the smoke of how hands on he is. No wonder Flames don't know the meaning of on ice success.

And Lowes hockey background seems to be working wonders up there, I'll take Kings business background thanks

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Watching the lynchmobs roll down the street in this thread is starting to become entertaining.

NHL makes surprising claims about ROR and waivers that are contrary to the impression of the flames, ROR's team, and Avs ....

"Feaster is an idiot - fire him'

Wait, whats more plausible, everyone involved is stupid or there is more to the story?

'Feaster must have been told what to do - fire King and burn the owners'

Wonder who's door some people will be banging down when the illogic of that position becomes obvious.

personally I think it was the CIA.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...and Eric Duhatschek said 2 or 3 days ago on local Calgary radio that King, "basically runs hockey operations,".

Well then K. King is horrible at this job.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Watching the lynchmobs roll down the street in this thread is starting to become entertaining.

NHL makes surprising claims about ROR and waivers that are contrary to the impression of the flames, ROR's team, and Avs ....

"Feaster is an idiot - fire him'

Wait, whats more plausible, everyone involved is stupid or there is more to the story?

If everyone means the Flames management, Avs management and ROR agents then I think that "everyone is stupid" is certainly a very good possibility.

[Itse]

I don't think you can make a fair comparison of other GM's "not knowing" of the ROR situation.

Only GM's that were considering making an offer sheet would have had a need to check the fine print on O'Reillys waiver issues, and offer sheets are very rare. Most propably every other GM in the league abandoned the idea of throwing that offer sheet to O'Reilly well before it got down to issues of legalese. Especially since the only effect of O'Reilly now playing for the Avs was very much expected.

It was a dumb offer sheet even without the potential waiver disaster.

[North East Goon]

I cringe at what the trade deadline will bring for this organization. I have lost total faith in the braintrust.