HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Fire Feaster?

View Poll Results: Should Jay Feaster Be Fired?
Yes 288 81.36%
No 66 18.64%
Voters: 354. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2013, 02:12 AM
  #101
Av-merican
@Av_merican
 
Av-merican's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Frozen Wasteland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
No one wants to give Weisbrod a shot? Dude's been waiting for seven years ever since he walked away from the NBA to get a legitimate shot as an NHL GM. He'll be dedicated and hard-working if nothing else.

This whole fiasco stunk for everyone. I'm glad O'Reilly is still on my team, but I'm royally pissed at Sherman/Lacroix for the way they've mishandled this horrid situation from the beginning.

Av-merican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 02:54 AM
  #102
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,794
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameaholic View Post
Flames fans are bipolar. We demand that Feaster go out and acquire a #1 center, so he makes a bold play for ROR, now we're calling for his head.

I have to give Feaster credit for making such a ballsy move, and not just for Ryan O'Reilly. He's also at one point tried to acquire Brad Richards and Kyle Turris. It's certainly not for a lack of effort that we still don't have a #1 center.
You really think ROR is a number one centre?

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 03:05 AM
  #103
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,246
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av-merican View Post
No one wants to give Weisbrod a shot? Dude's been waiting for seven years ever since he walked away from the NBA to get a legitimate shot as an NHL GM. He'll be dedicated and hard-working if nothing else.
I had actually hoped Weisbrod would succeed Feaster as the GM in a couple of seasons but this whole offer sheet fiasco has soured me on him too. He's part of the front office that was either too incompetent or too arrogant to pick up the phone and call the league to clarify a vague MOU position.

I can give a guy like Conroy a pass since he's not a lawyer or expected to have a thorough understanding of all the technical and minute details of a CBA, but that same excuse can't be extended to an assistant GM like Weisbrod who should have known better. This utter embarrassment is on him too.

At this point, the best option for a new GM would have to be someone like Burke, as weird as they may seem.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:53 AM
  #104
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,909
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodangles View Post
Luke Schenn was drafted by Cliff Fletcher.

Tyler Biggs is a gamer. I watch this kid in the O all the time. This kid is not your average grinder-type. He will play in the NHL and be an impact player. We traded up to get him too. A realistic ceiling for Biggs is a David Backes type player -- top six, big body, for whom points are not the major concern but will come in droves nevertheless. His bottoming out for me is a Ryane Clowe type player. I know that doesn't give a lot of wiggle room but that's because I know what I'm talking about and am positive Biggs isn't a 'throwaway' draft pick on some grinder plug.

EDIT: AND... AND... Biggs is way better than... who was it you drafted again... Jankowski???
I agree with alot of what your saying but this simply isn't true. Watch Janko play he looks like a young Joe Thorton he has amazing stick handling, great vision, and a great shot. Biggs is a grinder with skill he is at best a Glencross type player.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:55 AM
  #105
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,909
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
You really think ROR is a number one centre?
He was top 30 in points by centermen last year, played on the pk and was a top defensive center last year he is a #1 centermen just on the low end but he is only 22.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 09:00 AM
  #106
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames rebuilder View Post
Conroy would be the absolute worst GM for the Flames! Horrible situation to even consider putting him in, having to deal away his buddies.
I agree. Conroy is too new to the head office and needs time to learn how the "Back of the house" operates. From what I've read lately I'm even wondering if he's moving more to the coaching side of the team anyway.

I wonder if a new thread should be set up so that we can keep on topic here and discuss possible replacements elsewhere.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 09:48 AM
  #107
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,133
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
You really think ROR is a number one centre?
For the Flames? Yes.


Perspective...

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 12:50 PM
  #108
King In The North
Sean Bennett
 
King In The North's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamilton, On
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
You really think ROR is a number one centre?
Avs wouldn't have matched otherwise, and that is the general consensus yes

King In The North is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 01:07 PM
  #109
flameaholic
Registered User
 
flameaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallsviewafro View Post
The issue is not that he signed ROR to an offer sheet.

The issue is that he signed ROR to an offer sheet under the assumption that his own interpretation of the CBA's waiver provisions would super-cede the league's interpretation and hence would have lost a 1st and a 3rd round pick for absolutely nothing, not to mention not even landing ROR.

Its not about an offer sheet. Its about gross incompetence.
There was no assumption. He simply didn't know that O'Reilly would have to go on waivers, neither did the 4 other GMs that put in an offer. That statement was just a lame attempt at saving face.

Besides, you can bet the Flames and PA would have fought to keep him off waivers. Worse comes to worse, they would have sat him for the remainder of the season. RO'R would have still been a Flame.

Ballsy move, but it backfired.

flameaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 01:35 PM
  #110
Flamesfan13
Registered User
 
Flamesfan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 396
vCash: 500
Yeah its not about ROR, its about the process. I also think the NHL would have given us an out-clause which allowed his to withdraw our offer.

Flamesfan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 02:01 PM
  #111
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,794
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
He was top 30 in points by centermen last year, played on the pk and was a top defensive center last year he is a #1 centermen just on the low end but he is only 22.
Time will tell I guess. I would have been more at ease with this attempt, idiocy notwithstanding, had ROR had a few years of producing decent numbers like last season. I like him, but a bit of a stretch to say he is a number one. He would be at the low end on number ones with great potential.

He is supposed to be a real good leader type. That is always good. It would have been a good pick up, but I am not sure his numbers will get much better, but agreed, he is only 22.

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 03:06 PM
  #112
fallsviewafro*
truculent
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flameaholic View Post
There was no assumption. He simply didn't know that O'Reilly would have to go on waivers, neither did the 4 other GMs that put in an offer. That statement was just a lame attempt at saving face.

Besides, you can bet the Flames and PA would have fought to keep him off waivers. Worse comes to worse, they would have sat him for the remainder of the season. RO'R would have still been a Flame.

Ballsy move, but it backfired.
First off, there aren't four other GMs making offers, just Feaster.

Second, if you're in a multimillion dollar business, "not knowing he would have to go on waivers" is a piss poor excuse. Even if the CBA wording is foggy - which it is - you still do NOT make that kind of bet with 1st round picks and have the future of your franchise be at the mercy of a judicial decision.

Its irresponsible at the absolute very least, even if there is a legal grey area. This isn't trading hockey cards; he's the GM of an NHL franchise. It should be offensive to anyone with a brain that he'd chance a high first on something like this.

Even if ROR sits for the season - which I'm sure the PA and his agent would have something to say about that - then what? You pay him to do nothing while Iggy and Kipper get another year older? Yep, brilliant move and it will certainly bring us closer to a cup...

There's no framing this situation in a positive manner. Failure in every sense of the word.

fallsviewafro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 03:27 PM
  #113
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,909
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
Time will tell I guess. I would have been more at ease with this attempt, idiocy notwithstanding, had ROR had a few years of producing decent numbers like last season. I like him, but a bit of a stretch to say he is a number one. He would be at the low end on number ones with great potential.

He is supposed to be a real good leader type. That is always good. It would have been a good pick up, but I am not sure his numbers will get much better, but agreed, he is only 22.
It sounds as if Feaster may have been right about the rule after all, there are several blogs posting that Feaster actually has a case and would most likely have won his case. It may be the case that Sportsnet is indeed a sub par source.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 03:35 PM
  #114
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Dust Buster
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,583
vCash: 50
Weisbrod definitely needs to shoulder some blame here. But, this falls more so on Feaster. At the end of the day, Feaster is the man in charge. I'm a general manager to, if I make a poor decision at work I don't blame my staff. I'm the one in charge, and everyone is relying on me to make sure I have all my basis's covered.

I like Weisbrod, if Feaster goes I would expect either him or Burke to be named our GM.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 03:42 PM
  #115
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,909
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
Weisbrod definitely needs to shoulder some blame here. But, this falls more so on Feaster. At the end of the day, Feaster is the man in charge. I'm a general manager to, if I make a poor decision at work I don't blame my staff. I'm the one in charge, and everyone is relying on me to make sure I have all my basis's covered.

I like Weisbrod, if Feaster goes I would expect either him or Burke to be named our GM.
There have been some very interesting articles written and many believe Feaster and his team if not right had a very good case to win this in court.

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...l-this-season/

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...is-also-wrong/

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...-feaster-righ/

http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/...s-false-scoop/

Quote:
This is a weird paragraph. It says if a player is already signed, but plays in Europe after the start of the NHL season, then 13.23 applies. But if he’s an unsigned RFA, plays in Europe after the start of the season, and then signs in the middle of the season, then 13.23 doesn’t apply. Why prevent the signed player from returning, but not the freshly signed player? Is that really what the 2013 clause is trying to say? Who knows. But that is literally what it says and it’s not ambiguous. (Why they changed the rule in this way is another question, and not at all clear; but the literal meaning of the rule is clear. O’Reilly doesn’t have to clear waivers, because he was a mid-season signing.)
If true then Feaster and Weisbrod both deserve the same amount of praise as **** they got from many of us including myself.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:07 PM
  #116
Gary83*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
Nhlpa would have fought this to the death and won.

Gary83* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:08 PM
  #117
Savoie16
Registered User
 
Savoie16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bathurst, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Before anyone start freaking out about this post think about it first.

Feaster could't have been stupid enough to "misread" the rule. As an established lawyer they are supposed to find the loop-holes to these kind of thing. And Colorado just conveniently matching the offer sheet so quickly.

What I think happened was something in the likes of Sherman getting very frustrated with the fact RoR wont sign a contract that they want (i.e. RoR wanting 5 years @5mil per). With all the pressure building up because of RoR sitting makes Sherman look real bad. So Sherman calls up Feaster and says something like offer RoR 2 years 10million dollar contract and I'll match that within a few hours. This way they get RoR for 2 years @ 5mil per (cap hit) and then being able to re-evaluate him after those 2 years compared to 5 years RoR is after. Then with this being said Sherman would owe Feaster a favor. So maybe a trade for someone at a very minimal price where Feaster would be coming out like a bandit. And then everyone says they knew nothing about that rule (they play dumb) so they don't get in trouble for conspiring.

Thats my two cents take it for what you want but i think it makes a lot more sense then Feaster losing his mind "misreading" the CBA.

Savoie16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:13 PM
  #118
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,909
vCash: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoie16 View Post
Before anyone start freaking out about this post think about it first.

Feaster could't have been stupid enough to "misread" the rule. As an established lawyer they are supposed to find the loop-holes to these kind of thing. And Colorado just conveniently matching the offer sheet so quickly.

What I think happened was something in the likes of Sherman getting very frustrated with the fact RoR wont sign a contract that they want (i.e. RoR wanting 5 years @5mil per). With all the pressure building up because of RoR sitting makes Sherman look real bad. So Sherman calls up Feaster and says something like offer RoR 2 years 10million dollar contract and I'll match that within a few hours. This way they get RoR for 2 years @ 5mil per (cap hit) and then being able to re-evaluate him after those 2 years compared to 5 years RoR is after. Then with this being said Sherman would owe Feaster a favor. So maybe a trade for someone at a very minimal price where Feaster would be coming out like a bandit. And then everyone says they knew nothing about that rule (they play dumb) so they don't get in trouble for conspiring.

Thats my two cents take it for what you want but i think it makes a lot more sense then Feaster losing his mind "misreading" the CBA.
I highly doubt it as Colorado could have offered him a better structured contract as it is in 2 years (if he isn't signed and I doubt he will be) they have to offer him 6.5 just to keep him as an RFA. So if he never becomes anything more than a 50 point center they have to pay 6.5 to him or loss him for nothing. Sounds terrible from them if Calgary had offered a contract like 5 million both years then I would agree but as it is, given the fact he is only playing 37% of a normal season he is basically only making 3.7 million for this year versus next year when he gets his 6.5 million.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:17 PM
  #119
Flames92
Registered User
 
Flames92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoie16 View Post
Before anyone start freaking out about this post think about it first.

Feaster could't have been stupid enough to "misread" the rule. As an established lawyer they are supposed to find the loop-holes to these kind of thing. And Colorado just conveniently matching the offer sheet so quickly.

What I think happened was something in the likes of Sherman getting very frustrated with the fact RoR wont sign a contract that they want (i.e. RoR wanting 5 years @5mil per). With all the pressure building up because of RoR sitting makes Sherman look real bad. So Sherman calls up Feaster and says something like offer RoR 2 years 10million dollar contract and I'll match that within a few hours. This way they get RoR for 2 years @ 5mil per (cap hit) and then being able to re-evaluate him after those 2 years compared to 5 years RoR is after. Then with this being said Sherman would owe Feaster a favor. So maybe a trade for someone at a very minimal price where Feaster would be coming out like a bandit. And then everyone says they knew nothing about that rule (they play dumb) so they don't get in trouble for conspiring.

Thats my two cents take it for what you want but i think it makes a lot more sense then Feaster losing his mind "misreading" the CBA.
Not a chance this happened. Feaster made the move on his own because he wanted O'Reilly, not to help a rival team get one of their top players back. The contract is also terrible for the Avs in comparison to what the Avs could of actually signed him to. I agree with your initial point that Feaster did not misread the rule but there no way he is helping the Avs with the offer sheet he gave to O'Reilly. This story is simply an outburst from the media that has no credibility as it has not been confirmed by anyone from the NHL offices and won't be because the Avs matched the offer.

Flames92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:18 PM
  #120
Savoie16
Registered User
 
Savoie16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bathurst, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
I highly doubt it as Colorado could have offered him a better structured contract as it is in 2 years (if he isn't signed and I doubt he will be) they have to offer him 6.5 just to keep him as an RFA. So if he never becomes anything more than a 50 point center they have to pay 6.5 to him or loss him for nothing. Sounds terrible from them if Calgary had offered a contract like 5 million both years then I would agree but as it is, given the fact he is only playing 37% of a normal season he is basically only making 3.7 million for this year versus next year when he gets his 6.5 million.
Sure doesnt look ideal where he would have to sign him at 6.5 per but you also cant forget that in the publics eye Sherman is not looking good without RoR in the line up ( i still admire what he did none the less telling him he isn't getting more then Duchene) but desperation makes for some bad decisions and he needed RoR in the lineup not on his couch watching Sportcenter

Savoie16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:28 PM
  #121
beakerboy14
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
I guess I'm a little bit late with the above post, but I wanted to remind everyone that Jay Feaster has a background in law, not hockey. He's obviously going to look at things with a lawyers eye and thus we should probably be looking at things through a legal filter.

One of the basic rules of contract law is that it is assumed that two parties (barring an imbalance of bargaining power) tend to say what they mean when they create a contract. What is written down is the most important thing.

The argument as far as I can tell is centered around these statements from the MoU.

Quote:
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.
From the second sentence, the implication is that these lists are specific to a team and only the team that has the player on a reserve list or the RFA rights can sign the player without waivers. However, the first sentence explicitly says that all players on a reserve list or a RFA list will be exempt.

The real argument is whether it should be read as applying only to the team that signed them or to any signing. Ultimately, do you read the clause as ending in "by the club that owns the players rights" or as ending in "by any club". I'd be willing to make the argument that the second option makes much more sense as it is less restricting than the first. When we're forced to read in information, then it makes much more sense to read in the less restrictive option.

To be honest, I'm kind of sad that Colorado matched, not only because i'd love to have seen ROR on the flames, but also because it'd have been a really fun legal argument to watch.

TL;DR, I like what Feaster did. A bit of a gamble that he'd win the legal argument, but I like the chances.

beakerboy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 04:42 PM
  #122
fallsviewafro*
truculent
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,458
vCash: 500
The more I read into the nitty gritty the more it seems like Feaster was right, so i have to somewhat redact what i said earlier, but still... Gambling with a high first rounder... Yeesh.

fallsviewafro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 06:07 PM
  #123
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beakerboy14 View Post
The argument as far as I can tell is centered around these statements from the MoU.
The examples cited in the MOU refer to teams either signing their own RFAs or voluntarily trading their RFAs to other teams. There is no mention of offer sheets. That is why Feaster should have made that one important phone call and received clarification from the league.

Feaster may have won the battle with the league if it came to that point where a fight was necessary but he still could have lost the war by burning bridges and throwing away good will.

Mike Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 06:28 PM
  #124
Calculon
unholy acting talent
 
Calculon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,246
vCash: 1000
The MOU is not the final CBA document, it's merely a summary. The actual CBA is still being finalized. It's a little silly for a supposedly invested lawyer to gamble everything on a summary, instead of seeking clarification on the exact details.

Another thing that doesn't pass the sniff test is the idea that Feaster knew all along about this clause, but was so firm in his belief that he was right that he wouldn't even mention the possibility of controversy to O'Reilly's agent. If he actually knew about this beforehand, he would then have to know that it was possible for the NHL to argue things differently and thereby causing O'Reilly's status to be in limbo for at least a while. That would have to be mentioned to O'Reilly's agent because it's something they would have to plan for.

There are way too many holes in the theory that Feaster knew all along what he was doing. The much more likely version is Feaster saw other teams preparing offer sheets and rushed to put in one of his own, without doing the necessary due diligence.

Calculon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2013, 06:38 PM
  #125
doubledown99
Registered User
 
doubledown99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,990
vCash: 500
Even if Feaster was right about the wording and assuming Avs didn't match, the Flames would have been fighting this in court and RoR probably would have had to sit until resolved. Meaning they likely would have been giving up a very high pick to the Avs and not benefitted from RoR being in the lineup and improving the team

doubledown99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.