Timhunter54 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I say get rid of him asap thats the first step of a rebuild!!!!! hes a joke!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBojangles Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 If what is said is true, then what he did is NUTS. Can you imagine what would have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timhunter54 Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Its crazy!!! he has no hockey background there are more credible names out there who no what there doing,the rest of the nhl and fans are laughing at us!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Feaster just made a statement and will refuse to discuss it further. He said he feels the decision to offer was correct. He feels that their(Flames) interpretation of RFA's and offers is correct and the NHL's and the News media interpretation from today is incorrect. In fairness this isn't Feasters bad. It is the people who's job it is to study and understand all this. Feaster can only be blamed for trusting his inept people. The NHL apparently didn't even know yesterday that this situation would have happened. Rather than point fingers at the real problems higher up, where these situations are allowed to exist, I will leave this thread on topic which is Feaster and whether he should be fired. “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.” Jay Feaster General Manager http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=658072 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis23 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 YOUR interpretation doesn't mean elbowing. It's boardinging law. Feaster is a FREAKEN lawyer, he should NEVER BE ALLOWED to make mistakes on law issues and contract issues. He is a lawyer. Unbelievable. I agree we look RIDICULOUS and he should be fired. This is embarassing, how terrible. Guy is a freaken lawyer and he can't even get the laws right. I'm stunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Yes, he should be fired. Last season guarantees a playoff spot to the fans. By the end admits they weren't even close. Last season promises change at the deadline if the team didn't improve. It didn't. No change. Last season when asked if he thinks he could find a C says yes. He didn't. This off season he is finally out of the shackles left from Sutter. Builds his team. Selects his staff. Gets his coach. It is currently in second last place in the West and showing no signs of improvement. He was a Colorado decision away from throwing away a potential top 5 pick and our only other top 90 pick on a technicality. He dodged the bullet thanks to Colorado but is still left eating a plateful of crow and has severely embarrassed the franchise. I appreciate that the language isn't clear and is open to interpretation. But the fact it was unclear is an admission that Feaster was taking a gamble and failed to use due diligence prior to making the move (like he didn't have time). Telling us he interprets the rule different then the governing body (NHL) isn't a defense at all. I also appreciate that there are other people in the room. But Feaster is the boss. He is accountable. He is also not a hockey person. He is a lawyer. He is the GM that should have seen this as a risk and a possibility. No excuses. (It is odd that the players and coaches can't use injuries etc as an excuse. Because he is full of them) . It is a VERY unfortunate time to fire the GM given the decisions that need to be made in the next month or so. But if the Flames have faith in Weisbrod or have another GM in mind then they should fire him immediately. If not he needs to be fired immediately following the trade deadline. Or in the off chance they are still in contention then once the playoffs begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timhunter54 Posted March 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 I agree feaster is trying to use others as scapegoats!!!!!! send him packing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Imagine it was Columbus that we tried to sign an RFA to an offer sheet. They would've took the draft picks, waited for that player to go on waivers, and then claim that player back since they have #1 waiver priority for being last place in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis23 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Imagine it was Columbus that we tried to sign an RFA to an offer sheet. They would've took the draft picks, waited for that player to go on waivers, and then claim that player back since they have #1 waiver priority for being last place in the NHL. Yeah I thought about it too. Colorado is close to last but not last. At least... lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutz13 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 To say there will be no further comment on the matter is a bit ridiculous ... surely the used and abused Flames fan-base deserve a detailed explanation of what the strategy was, had the Avs not matched. If Feaster thinks he can go head to head against the NHL brain-trust (who formulated the CBA), on the offer sheet interpretation and come out a winner he must be a bit delusional. The press release seems like an attempt to save face after the fact and has little merit. A laughing stock on the ice and now in the front office ... seems like an opportune time to make some long overdue changes in an organization that has been spinning tires for several painful seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stranger Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Yipes... theres way too many savy flames fans to let this slip by.Being a lawyer this should of been right down his alley... Feasters gone along with his brother-in-law Hartley...Wonder what Lindy Ruff is doing.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FueltheFlames1075 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 To say there will be no further comment on the matter is a bit ridiculous ... surely the used and abused Flames fan-base deserve a detailed explanation of what the strategy was, had the Avs not matched. If Feaster thinks he can go head to head against the NHL brain-trust (who formulated the CBA), on the offer sheet interpretation and come out a winner he must be a bit delusional. The press release seems like an attempt to save face after the fact and has little merit. A laughing stock on the ice and now in the front office ... seems like an opportune time to make some long overdue changes in an organization that has been spinning tires for several painful seasons. Exactly! It does not matter what Feaster and the Flames' "interpretation" of the rule in question is. It only matters what the NHL says it is and it is not like they are making this up on the fly. There is precedence set of this happening with a few players as mentioned in the original article. This statement oozes of false bravado in my opinion. It is easy to say that "we have a different interpretation than the NHL and will continue to believe our own interepretation", now that they cannot be proven wrong through the necessity of appealing O'Reilly having to go on waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtrooper Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 This was a very bad move. I dont think anyone can find a good reason to defend this. Good thing Colorado didnt take their time and look into this. Enough is enough with the promises he cant keep and the fool me twice crap, think its time for a new GM. Couldnt agree more with louis23 and kehatch posts above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echoison Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 New CBA = different rules. Interpretation is why there is court and lawyers. If you always take the side of the organization that created the rules there would be no need for court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FueltheFlames1075 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 New CBA = different rules. Interpretation is why there is court and lawyers. If you always take the side of the organization that created the rules there would be no need for court. The only problem with that though is that the only change from the old CBA to the new one for the rule in question, is that the team who has the player on their reserve list or holds the players RFA rights (Colorado in this case) is the only team with which that player does not have to clear waivers to play for. The rule has not changed outside of this so it does not need to be challenged in court. It seems to be pretty clear cut. The only other exemption is if the player is traded from team A (Colorado) to team B (Calgary) in which case team B would be the holder of the players RFA rights. That is not the case here. I am not sure how I feel about them firing Feaster because I stand by my earlier comments in another thread that Feaster and co. have done a decent job with other transactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 New CBA = different rules. Interpretation is why there is court and lawyers. If you always take the side of the organization that created the rules there would be no need for court. Sure. Except the Flames aren't in the position to take a gamble on our 1st and 3rd to help the NHL define a precedence on the rule. Plus, this isn't something managed by traditional court's and lawyers. The NHL and NHL PA define the CBA. If Feaster really wants us to believe they understood this may have to be challenged via an appeal then he is asking us to understand he is incompetent. That is an inappropriate gamble to take. If he is telling us that they had no idea O'Reilly was at risk of going on waivers then he is incompetent and didn't use appropriate diligence. A no risk signing like the Nabakov signing would have been a good way to challenge the precedence A 5-million dollar offer sheet involving a 1st and a 3rd is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 This is a fiasco... If it is true that the NHL did not believe that O'reilly had played in Russia after the season started, then they also share some culpability... But in the end it is still Feasters responsibility to have done his due diligence on the matter... A simple google search could have prevented this, it is actually easily accessible information... From Jan. 24th... "In early December, O'reilly signed a 2 year deal with Metallurg Magnitogork of the KHL and stayed there, unsigned as a restricted free agent, once the lockout ended earlier this month. The contract included a clause allowing O'Reilly to terminate the deal should he reach an agreement with the Avalanche. On Thursday, it was announced that via mutual agreement, O'Reilly's contract with Metallurg would be terminated, citing the upcoming transfer window and an injury he suffered earlier this month." http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ryan-o-reilly-metallurg-terminate-khl-contract-deal-152840344--nhl.html "Despite an end to NHL lockout announced on January 12, 2013, O'Reilly was still unable to come to terms with the Avalanche and initially continued to play in Russia to miss the opening of the shortened 2012-13 NHL season. On January 24, citing an ankle injury suffered through his 12 games with Metallurg, O'Reilly mutually terminated his contract in Russia and returned for rehabilitation to North America" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_O%27Reilly_(ice_hockey) Just seeing the termination date of O'rielly's contract was after the beginning of the season should have prompted further investigation... If the information that has been being released today is correct, this looks bad... Really bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordxan Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Has anyone considered a very real possibility that if Col did not match because they believed the price for O'Riley was too high that most other teams would have probably followed suit and he would have claimed waivers? Consider, Col elects not to match, he's their player and may other teams had submitted offers, but he opted to go with the Flames offer. This is probably because the pay day, particularly on the back end was very large. Therefore most probable he'd pass by the waiver wire based on these reasons. Having said that, is there no good faith clauses in the CBA? I do not know contract/tort law rather, criminal so I wonder if there are no negotiating in good faith clauses? I only mention this as even the NHL and Col were unaware of his having played 2-3 in the K after the start of this NHL season, Seems to me there are very reasonable rounds to argue the other way on this waiver issue. On to the Hockey side of things, not withstanding the Waiver technicality BS, seems to me a 1st and 3rd for a proven guy is quite reasonable and the average price for O'Riley would have been decent. Many argue he's not as good as Duchene, but consider this he had 55 pts to Duchene's 28. Possible O\Riley may have done even better here with greater ice time, responsibility and role? Has anyone considered a very real possibility that if Col did not match because they believed the price for O'Riley was too high that most other teams would have probably followed suit and he would have claimed waivers? Consider, Col elects not to match, he's their player and may other teams had submitted offers, but he opted to go with the Flames offer. This is probably because the pay day, particularly on the back end was very large. Therefore most probable he'd pass by the waiver wire based on these reasons. Having said that, is there no good faith clauses in the CBA? I do not know contract/tort law rather, criminal so I wonder if there are no negotiating in good faith clauses? I only mention this as even the NHL and Col were unaware of his having played 2-3 in the K after the start of this NHL season, Seems to me there are very reasonable rounds to argue the other way on this waiver issue. On to the Hockey side of things, not withstanding the Waiver technicality BS, seems to me a 1st and 3rd for a proven guy is quite reasonable and the average price for O'Riley would have been decent. Many argue he's not as good as Duchene, but consider this he had 55 pts to Duchene's 28. Possible O\Riley may have done even better here with greater ice time, responsibility and role? Awe poo! 1st para meant to say: would have NOT been claimed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Has anyone considered a very real possibility that if Col did not match because they believed the price for O'Riley was too high that most other teams would have probably followed suit and he would have claimed waivers? Consider, Col elects not to match, he's their player and may other teams had submitted offers, but he opted to go with the Flames offer. This is probably because the pay day, particularly on the back end was very large. Therefore most probable he'd pass by the waiver wire based on these reasons. The chances of O'Reilly not being claimed is between zero and none. Especially with only a year and a quarter left on his contract. Any team picking him up wouldn't have had to give up the picks and would get him for nothing. Heck, Colorado could have picked him up and kept the picks. What team wouldn't take a shot at a (basically) 1-year contract for a 22 yo 2-way C coming off a 55 point season? You yourself argue later down in your post that you feel that a 1st and 3rd is fair value but you are also arguing that a team wouldn't take the 1-year contract for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 One other important thing that has been overlooked is that Ryan O'Reilly was doing just fine sitting at home eating donuts all day. Thanks to Feaster though, he's now playing for the Avs, a team fighting for a playoff spot with the Flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 If and buts what if and what could have been. Facts are offer sheet was given team matched hours after wards, end of story. Grey areas misinterutaions, who really cares what did we lose, dignity, respect or honour please! If any thing this just a diversion from the really issue of a poor hockey club and their performance. Less than 24 hrs ago Feaster was a rock star now he should be kicked down the road on a what if scenario. Personally, this has now shed light on an obvisous grey area, which is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 If and buts what if and what could have been. Facts are offer sheet was given team matched hours after wards, end of story. Grey areas misinterutaions, who really cares what did we lose, dignity, respect or honour please! If any thing this just a diversion from the really issue of a poor hockey club and their performance. Less than 24 hrs ago Feaster was a rock star now he should be kicked down the road on a what if scenario. Personally, this has now shed light on an obvisous grey area, which is a good thing. It's a big deal bro. This whole ordeal is grounds for a vote of non-confidence from the fanbase and Feaster fanboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Has anyone considered a very real possibility that if Col did not match because they believed the price for O'Riley was too high that most other teams would have probably followed suit and he would have claimed waivers? Consider, Col elects not to match, he's their player and may other teams had submitted offers, but he opted to go with the Flames offer. This is probably because the pay day, particularly on the back end was very large. Therefore most probable he'd pass by the waiver wire based on these reasons. If Col did pass, they would of done so walking away with 1st and a 3rd. No other teams would of had such incentive. There was a likely 99% chance he would not of got by the 1st team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Just about everyone did not know that this would have happened. ROR's agent said there were other offers besides the Calgary offer and he chose Calgary. Should they(other clubs who put in offers) be admitting they made a mistake and firing their GM's too? The interview with the SNet reporter(Chris Johnston) who broke the story also indicated the NHL weren't aware about the "having to pass through waivers" until he talked to them to confirm it. We don't know if the NHL would have put ROR on waivers had the Reporter not made enquiries. The Feaster statement indicated they didn't believe/know they would have had that problem and today said they would have issues with that interpretation. It isn't like we actually lost our draft picks. I suppose you could say we almost lost our pick so Feaster should almost lose his job. The press release is obvious bury your head in the sand mode, lets sweep it under the rug and let things simmer down. The people whose jobs are to know this stuff and interpret this stuff aren't named Feaster. Simply firing Feaster wouldn't solve any of the much deeper problems with the structure of the Flames & pecking order from Owners on down through Ken King.. Don't hold your breath on any of that happening..... Feaster the puppet would be the first to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy-c Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Finally there's a NHL GM worse than Kevin Lowe. Can you imagine if Calgary was forced to put O'Rielly in waivers and then Colorado pick him off waivers (if still available) with 3 draft picks in tow? Mute point now I suppose but it gives you the shivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.