Confirmed with Link: offer sheet on Ryan O'Reilly

[InfinityIggy]

So, will O'Reilly be put on waivers by COL then? Or no since he originally was from their roster?

Yea..wait a second thats a good question.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

So, will O'Reilly be put on waivers by COL then? Or no since he originally was from their roster?

No..

 

[mouser]

Most GM's probably didn't know about the rule as it was originally suppose to take effect next year but poor wording made it work this year, and unlike most GM's Feaster offered the contract regardless of who else knew about it it was his job to know.

Has nothing to do with when the rule goes into effect. The 13.23 waiver rule remains in effect as in the prior 2005 CBA that any players that play in a league outside North America after the NHL season starts, other than on loan from their club, have to go through waivers before they are eligible to play in the NHL.

The new 2013 CBA added another exception to this rule that players on a team's reserve/RFA list are exempt from 13.23 when re-joining that team. The [unresolved] dispute between the Flames and the NHL is whether this exception would apply to an offer sheet signing. The NHL maintains the exception would not apply so ROR would have to go through waivers. The Flames held the interpretation that the exception would apply.

 

[berto14]

Has nothing to do with when the rule goes into effect. The 13.23 waiver rule remains in effect as in the prior 2005 CBA that any players that play in a league outside North America after the NHL season starts, other than on loan from their club, have to go through waivers before they are eligible to play in the NHL.

The new 2013 CBA added another exception to this rule that players on a team's reserve/RFA list are exempt from 13.23 when re-joining that team. The [unresolved] dispute between the Flames and the NHL is whether this exception would apply to an offer sheet signing. The NHL maintains the exception would not apply so ROR would have to go through waivers. The Flames held the interpretation that the exception would apply.

To add to this, the exception specifically states "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."

Feaster & Co. were apparently of the opinion that an offer sheet would be treated the same as a trade, as you're essentially trading draft picks for the player's services.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Has nothing to do with when the rule goes into effect. The 13.23 waiver rule remains in effect as in the prior 2005 CBA that any players that play in a league outside North America after the NHL season starts, other than on loan from their club, have to go through waivers before they are eligible to play in the NHL.

The new 2013 CBA added another exception to this rule that players on a team's reserve/RFA list are exempt from 13.23 when re-joining that team. The [unresolved] dispute between the Flames and the NHL is whether this exception would apply to an offer sheet signing. The NHL maintains the exception would not apply so ROR would have to go through waivers. The Flames held the interpretation that the exception would apply.

They changed the rule in this cba to eliminate players from using the KHL as leverage, It was intended for future RFA not current hold outs which most likely why this misunderstood the rule.

 

[DCDM]

Flames Statement

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

 

[redsfanhere*]

Most GM's probably didn't know about the rule as it was originally suppose to take effect next year but poor wording made it work this year, and unlike most GM's Feaster offered the contract regardless of who else knew about it it was his job to know.



They could screw us but then Columbus get ROR for free so they also get screwed.

don't bring columbus in your gm's debacle we've got enough problems...we just got rid of our ....... gm. but that would of been funny if this would of played itself out.now i'm not sure we had the worst gm.lol good luck going forward cause that's where columbus is moving... forward... in JD AND JK WE TRUST.

 

[Calculon]

A 2 year Comeau deal won't exactly screw the franchise over. And its easy to say we dodged a bullet on Richards after it happened. For all we know Richards could've been a great fit here. At the time it seemed like a great move to everyone. We can't look at "what ifs" as some players perform differently under different coaching systems. Its like saying lets fire a GM because he drafted Alexandre Daigle over Chris Pronger.. At the time over 20 other teams would do the same.

Actions have consequences. Doesn't matter how justified it may have seemed at the time - if it fails, then the person who was in charge at the time is accountable for that failure. The Tallon qualifying offer screw up was more due to a clerical error by one his front office staff but he still paid the price, because at the end of the day, he's the GM. He has the final say on any thing that happens (second only to ownership). He is thus responsible for anything and everything the front office does or does not do, regardless.

The Flames messed up and are trying to go with the Flyers defense, that is to say, dispute the legitimacy of the CBA. It wouldn't work and the excuse is paper thin. For a franchise that by all accounts is obsessed with their image and ensuring that it's a positive one, they sure are adept at doing the exact opposite.

 

[Calculon]

Well, no chance of the Aves putting the screw to the Flames head now. Not that it was likely they would have done so anyway.

@TSNBobMcKenzie: In case anyone was wondering, Ryan O'Reilly has taken his medical with COL and signed his contract with the Avalanche.

 

[Body Checker]

I feel the Flames would of won in court because of the "spirit of the law" principle. The NHL's CBA example says if you trade for a RFA and sign him it's okay, no waivers. There are no other examples, not when it's okay, not when it's not okay.

So whether it's trading Gio/Backlund for ROR or signing him to an offer sheet thus losing picks, it's the same thing because...............

The spirit of the rule is that you own your RFAs or prospects so it's not an unfair advantage to bring them in during the season.

But it's an unfair advantage if Jaromir Jagr plays in the KHL until March and then sees Chicago is the best option at a Cup he signs with them as an UFA for a bargain basement price.

 

[mix1home]

To be fair though CBA clearly says that if you trade for RFAs or sign your own RFAs they are exempt from CBA 13.23.
I don't see how NHL can argue that RoR should go through waiver in this case.
The moment RoR signed OS he should either be deemed Calgary's RFA that they signed to contract or be deemed RFA Calgary has traded for (picks as compensation).
I don't see NHL winning its argument in arbitrage. So Calgary was more or less safe from that front.
Still it was huge gamble by them seeing as they are not in playoff position and even blew 3 gals lead yesterday. They could easily be in lottery and even win it for first overall.

CA though is really in tough. They were stupid to match so quickly. Could have held the gun to Calgary's guts. Even without this waiver drama they cannot trade RoR now this year or next as one year trade restriction will force them past next year trade deadline. And then what? As RFA then RoR will be entitled to $6.5M QUALIFYING OFFER. I don't think CA will extend it to him and he will be essentially UFA after next season and they will lose him for nothing. Good luck getting 1st and 3rd round picks for him then.

Calgary would have been in the same situation too.

These GMs are just don't know what whey are doing.

 

[mouser]

They changed the rule in this cba to eliminate players from using the KHL as leverage, It was intended for future RFA not current hold outs which most likely why this misunderstood the rule.

It was intended to address [among others] the exact situation ROR was in: an RFA who played outside North America after the start of the NHL season. It very clearly lists RFA's.

If the NHL and NHLPA intended the rule to behave differently this season then that would be declared in the new CBA under the Transition Rules for the first season--as they've always done in past CBA's. In the absence of a transition rule the interpretation is that the rule was fully intended to apply to 2012-2013.

Further, if the intent was that the new exception wasn't supposed to be in effect for this season, then 13.23 would mean that ROR couldn't have re-signed with Colorado without going through waivers. Let alone to another team via offer sheet.

 

[berto14]

Now hear me out on this... what if Feaster knew what he was doing all along?

I know this is highly unlikely but can we at least CONSIDER for a second the possibility that Feaster -- who's a lawyer himself -- knew what he was doing all along? Maybe he didn't misinterpret the rule, maybe he read the rule and saw what he thought was a loophole. The rule allows a waiver exception for a player who's traded and then signed to a contract, meaning had we just traded a 1st and 3rd for O'Reilly, instead of signing him to the offer sheet, he wouldn't have been subject to waivers. However, the rule doesn't specifically mention how it applies to offer sheets. The end result of the offer sheet and the trade are the same thing -- we get O'Reilly, they get a 1st and 3rd. Why then should one be subject to waivers and the other not?

Furthermore, it seems odd to me that the "proper" interpretation of the rule creates a situation that even allows this to happen. Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the CBA would allow us to legally sign a player, force us to give up the compensation for that player, and then immediately allow anyone else to have him for nothing? I know what you're gonna say -- it happened to Detroit when they signed Nabokov. Not quite, Detroit never gave up anything to acquire him. All they lost was the rights to the player, which is what I think makes the offer sheet more like the trade and less like the free agent signing.

 

[Svenner]

Actions have consequences. Doesn't matter how justified it may have seemed at the time - if it fails, then the person who was in charge at the time is accountable for that failure. The Tallon qualifying offer screw up was more due to a clerical error by one his front office staff but he still paid the price, because at the end of the day, he's the GM. He has the final say on any thing that happens (second only to ownership). He is thus responsible for anything and everything the front office does or does not do, regardless.

The Flames messed up and are trying to go with the Flyers defense, that is to say, dispute the legitimacy of the CBA. It wouldn't work and the excuse is paper thin. For a franchise that by all accounts is obsessed with their image and ensuring that it's a positive one, they sure are adept at doing the exact opposite.

The only thing ruining their image is the media. This disaster started from them and it has absolutely no truth to it. Many lawyers state that had the Avs not matched the offer, the Flames would of won the case that he didn't have to clear waivers. Now who knows more about the CBA a news reporter or a lawyer? The rule clearly states:

A player must be on a club's reserve list and restricted free agent list to avoid being subject to waivers.

Had it said the respective team's reserve list it would've been a completely different story. Is it a big assumption to make? Yes but Feaster has a lot of leverage in this case. Another point worth looking at is the fact that the NHL NEVER confirmed that O'Reilly would in fact have to clear waivers. They simply said the Avs matched the offer and its not something worth exploring. So basically our only source of information is the media and we all know the media likes to make a big story out of nothing, its their job.

So with all this as simply speculation, I don't see how our first reaction is fire Feaster he's going to ruin this team. Really? People forget to realize that NOTHING happened and we don't actually know this was ever going to happen. Feaster has drafted well ever since he took over, and has cleaned up the mess left by Sutter extremely well I don't see anything to complain about him being our GM. You can't blame the Flames failures on Feaster as we all know that King and Edwards run the show. So with what he's had to work with he's been great. I have not one complaint about what Feaster has done since he took over and I don't see how this "speculation" makes everyone completely change their perception on the man. If Feaster pulled this off you would all be bowing down to him. Bottom line this is an overeaction by both the fans and the media and I don't see Feaster taking the dive for this. Thats just my two cents.. I don't know how management feels about this, but its definitely nothing close to what this thread looks like.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I'm pissed about this obviously right now, so maybe my views are tainted. But does the fact that Feaster is a puppet for King and Co. really make anyone feel better that he's our GM? Wouldn't it be better to have a guy in charge that is capable of acting and making decisions on their own merit? Good players have been drafted on Feaster's watch yes, but it isn't Feaster that is drafting these guys. Its Weisbrod and the rest of the scouting staff that are hockey people that are scouting these players.

Feaster is a fine person and a likable guy. I do believe he is quite smart and he his definite strengths to him. But he's also a master spin doctor and I'm having serious doubts about his competence of being the man in charge.

The owners of the Flames owe it to us fans to employ the best available people to be running the team. After a close evaluation, if that man is not Jay Feaster then he should be let go of his duties, end of story. The actions of yesterday are an immense embarrassment to the team, after everything that occurred under Sutter's tenure, it would be nice to have the Flames return towards being a respectable organization.

 

[HighLifeMan]

I'm pissed about this obviously right now, so maybe my views are tainted. But does the fact that Feaster is a puppet for King and Co. really make anyone feel better that he's our GM? Wouldn't it be better to have a guy in charge that is capable of acting and making decisions on their own merit? Good players have been drafted on Feaster's watch yes, but it isn't Feaster that is drafting these guys. Its Weisbrod and the rest of the scouting staff that are hockey people that are scouting these players.

Feaster is a fine person and a likable guy. I do believe he is quite smart and he his definite strengths to him. But he's also a master spin doctor and I'm having serious doubts about his competence of being the man in charge.

The owners of the Flames owe it to us fans to employ the best available people to be running the team. After a close evaluation, if that man is not Jay Feaster then he should be let go of his duties, end of story. The actions of yesterday are an immense embarrassment to the team, after everything that occurred under Sutter's tenure, it would be nice to have the Flames return towards being a respectable organization.

Why? I am willing to bet that the risk he took was not nearly as profound as the talking heads in the media are making it out to be. He is after all a lawyer and they are nothing more then sports journalists.

Have there been any definitive statements released from anyone of significance on this issue? I certainly haven't seen any that would lead me to believe that Calgary was all but throwing away their draft picks for nothing.

 

[Calculon]

The only thing ruining their image is the media. This disaster started from them and it has absolutely no truth to it. Many lawyers state that had the Avs not matched the offer, the Flames would of won the case that he didn't have to clear waivers. Now who knows more about the CBA a news reporter or a lawyer? The rule clearly states:

Sorry but that's absurd. The only ones ruining the Flames reputation are the Flames. Having the GM coming out a guaranteeing a playoff spot or saying their biggest rival is wandering the desert only to have it blow up in his face is what makes this franchise the laughing stock of the league. The Flames didn't even know about this provision, as O'Reilly's agent confirmed:

Morris added that he never got any indication from the Flames that they were aware of this provision in the CBA. "It wasn't discussed between the parties," he said.

'Many lawyers' confirming the Flames would have won the case? Like who? Read post 362 of this very thread to see why saying with any level of confidence the Flames would have won is patently ridiculous.

Had it said the respective team's reserve list it would've been a completely different story. Is it a big assumption to make? Yes but Feaster has a lot of leverage in this case. Another point worth looking at is the fact that the NHL NEVER confirmed that O'Reilly would in fact have to clear waivers. They simply said the Avs matched the offer and its not something worth exploring. So basically our only source of information is the media and we all know the media likes to make a big story out of nothing, its their job.

Yeah, you sure about that? Because Bill Daly sure seems like a solid confirmation:

And as NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told TSN on Friday, O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers to join the Flames if he actually played overseas after the start of the NHL season on Jan. 19.

So with all this as simply speculation, I don't see how our first reaction is fire Feaster he's going to ruin this team. Really? People forget to realize that NOTHING happened and we don't actually know this was ever going to happen. Feaster has drafted well ever since he took over, and has cleaned up the mess left by Sutter extremely well I don't see anything to complain about him being our GM. You can't blame the Flames failures on Feaster as we all know that King and Edwards run the show. So with what he's had to work with he's been great. I have not one complaint about what Feaster has done since he took over and I don't see how this "speculation" makes everyone completely change their perception on the man. If Feaster pulled this off you would all be bowing down to him. Bottom line this is an overeaction by both the fans and the media and I don't see Feaster taking the dive for this. Thats just my two cents.. I don't know how management feels about this, but its definitely nothing close to what this thread looks like.

First of all, I wasn't happy with the offer sheet at all because for a team to risk a potential top ten pick, a pick which has a shot at first overall for a 2nd line centre is far to risky. So no, I wouldn't be bowing down to Feaster, particularly since he couldn't have pulled it off. He didn't even know about the clause.

The full level of interference by King and Edwards is unknown. Common sense suggests that they don't dictate each and every action Feaster should undertake, otherwise they'd just do the job themselves or hire some no name 'yes man' to do the paper work (like Charles Wang did with Snow) for cheap. More likely, they give him a broad mandate, like be competitive and build a roster that can make the Flames as an 8th seed but no better (yeah I think they're that stupid), but no tanking or rebuilding or finishing with a top ten pick. How Feaster goes about achieving that mandate is entirely up to him. And thus far, he's an absolute failure. His only success is in hiring people smarter than him with regards to hockey knowledge and letting them do their jobs. Firing Feaster doesn't mean the other guys have to be let go, although if anyone in front office was part of this decision and didn't suggest the team do their due diligence, they deserved to be fired too.

Can you seriously say you have no complaints with Feaster thus far and still expect to be taken with some credibility? If you haven't noticed, the team's in 14th place in the conference, has one natural centre on the roster, that being Matt Stajan, and has actually gotten worse under his tenure than when Darryl Sutter was the GM. All of this while guaranteeing playoff spots or proclaiming the Flames as contenders for a berth and maintaining the answers are in the locker-room. If you actually like the direction the Flames want to go in, then by that very rational you'd have to recognize that Feaster has failed miserably in achieving that goal and is actually doing the exact opposite of what he says he wants to do. He says he wants the Flames to contend for a playoff spot while in reality, the only they're contending for is the first overall pick.

I don't know if the Flames management shares your opinion with brushing this whole embarrassing saga under the rug but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. They've shown time and time again that they don't really think much of their fans and have no compunction with demeaning their intelligence.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Why? I am willing to bet that the risk he took was not nearly as profound as the talking heads in the media are making it out to be. He is after all a lawyer and they are nothing more then sports journalists.

Have there been any definitive statements released from anyone of significance on this issue? I certainly haven't seen any that would lead me to believe that Calgary was all but throwing away their draft picks for nothing.

Truthfully, we'll probably never know the answer to that. Feaster's statement suggests he wants this dead (and who can blame him), and the NHL has no interest to further investigate the matter for the sake of media sensationalism.

Like I said, I'm really hot about this right now hence my comments. But the reporter from Sportnet that broke the story contacted Paul Maurice directly who is the coach of the KHL team that ROR played for. The reporter confirmed off that teams KHL website that ROR indeed did play 2 games past the deadline. Despite Feaster's comments implying they knew he played those games, critics suggest that the Flames had no idea he played those games. This is where the grey comes into play because we'll never know if this true or not.

But consider this, O'Reilly's agent said he wasn't aware of any issues, the Avs apparently didn't know this either, and its rumored that other teams made qualifying offers as well, likely meaning that due to the lockout this was something that fell through the cracks and missed by many parties involved. The spotlight is on the Flames because they're the ones that got him to agree to a contract.

 

[HighLifeMan]

Truthfully, we'll probably never know the answer to that. Feaster's statement suggests he wants this dead (and who can blame him), and the NHL has no interest to further investigate the matter for the sake of media sensationalism.

Like I said, I'm really hot about this right now hence my comments. But the reporter from Sportnet that broke the story contacted Paul Maurice directly who is the coach of the KHL team that ROR played for. The reporter confirmed off that teams KHL website that ROR indeed did play 2 games past the deadline. Despite Feaster's comments implying they knew he played those games, critics suggest that the Flames had no idea he played those games. This is where the grey comes into play because we'll never know if this true or not.

But consider this, O'Reilly's agent said he wasn't aware of any issues, the Avs apparently didn't know this either, and its rumored that other teams made qualifying offers as well, likely meaning that due to the lockout this was something that fell through the cracks and missed by many parties involved. The spotlight is on the Flames because they're the ones that got him to agree to a contract.

Fair enough. I understand where most of you are coming from, but I strongly believe this is being blown out of proportion by the media.

This article (might have been posted earlier, I haven't read the entire thread) gives a good look at where Feaster was coming from in my opinion.

http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca/

In other words, the language doesn't expressly provide that a player may only avoid waivers if he re-signs with the team that holds his rights (in this case the Avs). Instead, it states that so long as the player is on “a” Club's Reserve and Restricted Free Agent list, he will not be subject to waivers before playing, regardless of where he signs.

Put another way, the Flames likely interpreted the MOU to provide that O’Reilly being on the Avs reserve list makes him waiver exempt for all teams.

Articles 10 and 13 of the old CBA, the portions that govern offer sheets and waivers, are chalk full of references to the “Prior Club” (the Avalanche) and the “New Club.” (the Flames) This is significant because it shows that the NHL and the NHLPA have treated the Prior Club and the New Club differently in other provisions of the CBA.

So the MOU does not distinguish as to the club signing the player. So the language is such that the parties understood there would not be a distinction between the Prior and New Clubs in this regard.

To me Feaster was aiming for a loophole in the current MOU in order to acquire a player that fills essentially every need we currently have, and that the risk was not nearly as profound as many are making it out to be.

 

[Kevotron]

I love how all the hockey people/executives already confirmed ROR would have to clear waivers yet there are still some of you who are still trying to defend Feaster's embarrassment to the team by saying he did it on purpose to exploit a loophole

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Fair enough. I understand where most of you are coming from, but I strongly believe this is being blown out of proportion by the media.

This article (might have been posted earlier, I haven't read the entire thread) gives a good look at where Feaster was coming from in my opinion.

http://offsidesportsblog.blogspot.ca/



To me Feaster was aiming for a loophole in the current MOU in order to acquire a player that fills essentially every need we currently have, and that the risk was not nearly as profound as many are making it out to be.

I do recognize the area of grey here, but to me if your right that is just to big of a gamble for Feaster to take with our draft picks AND potentially lose the player. As Holland suggested, if there was any uncertainty from the GM, a simple phone call to the NHL headoffice would of resolved that and gave them their answer.

Personally, I think this was a big miss by Feaster and Co. which is why I feel its an embarrassment.

 

[HighLifeMan]

I love how all the hockey people/executives already confirmed ROR would have to clear waivers yet there are still some of you who are still trying to defend Feaster's embarrassment to the team by saying he did it on purpose to exploit a loophole

Again, has anybody of relevance actually confirmed that?

 

[Kevotron]

Again, has anybody of relevance actually confirmed that?

the fact this has been reported in all media outlets including NHL.com
Feaster himself releasing a statement also solidifies that he made a mistake.
What other confirmation do you need ???

 

[HighLifeMan]

the fact this has been reported in all media outlets including NHL.com
Feaster himself releasing a statement also solidifies that he made a mistake.
What other confirmation do you need ???

That's just it, I want confirmation, not speculation or "what if's".

If we ever find out what truly happened and it turns out that Feaster made an ass of himself then so be it, but until then I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe that is just the type of person I am, who knows.

 

[Calculon]

Again, has anybody of relevance actually confirmed that?

Like Bill Daly?

And as NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told TSN on Friday, O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers to join the Flames if he actually played overseas after the start of the NHL season on Jan. 19.

Since it's been verified that O'Reilly did play overseas after the lockout ended, this seems like a pretty clear cut and dry scenario.