Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Offer Sheet] Flames offer sheet Ryan O'Reilly


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#151 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,676 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:43 PM

So how stupid does Calgary look now? Turns out because he played in Russia, if they Av's let him go, O'Reilly would have to clear waivers, where you know someone would have picked him up. So the Flames would have thrown away 2 draft picks for nothing!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417108

Good thing the Canucks didn't make an offer sheet huh?


I want to know where the detractors calling for Gillis' head are now.
  • 0

#152 Monty

Monty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:45 PM

This waiver news is an absolute shocker. I would not be surpised at all if Feaster doesn't last beyond this season as GM. I cannot see how Flames ownership can go ahead with full confidence in Feaster's ability to run the team successfully after this bonehead move. Had Colorado taken the compensation, there would have been no doubt that some team would have claimed him on waivers. I think it's safe to say that Feaster is done in Calgary.
  • 0

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#153 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

I want to know where the detractors calling for Gillis' head are now.


Why doesn't our GM make bold moves like this!!??!! :bigblush:
  • 0

#154 drdeath

drdeath

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,079 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 03

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:49 PM

I'm really enjoying calgarypuck today
  • 0

aXmDa9t.gif


#155 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,324 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

People still crying about how Feaster does more to improve his team than Gillis? LOL

Feaster should be fired for this, but the president Ken King is a moron.

Edited by playboi19, 01 March 2013 - 12:52 PM.

  • 2

Subbancopy.jpg


#156 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

I feel sorry for Flames fans - and almost thankful that they didn't get what they wished for - if they had lost O'Reilly to waivers, what a crushing blow to them - they already desperately need their picks going forward - that would have vaulted Feaster past Milbury into the poll position of all time worst deal makers...
  • 0

#157 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

I want to know where the detractors calling for Gillis' head are now.

They're still around, they've just conveniently dropped this from their list of 'facts' and are not being quite so obvious until the heat dies down.

I feel sorry for Flames fans - and almost thankful that they didn't get what they wished for - if they had lost O'Reilly to waivers, what a crushing blow to them - they already desperately need their picks going forward - that would have vaulted Feaster past Milbury into the poll position of all time worst deal makers...

Whoa! That's a pretty big leap putting him at the depths of Milbury... :o

Edited by elvis15, 01 March 2013 - 01:51 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#158 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:27 PM

They're still around, they've just conveniently dropped this from their list of 'facts' and are not being quite so obvious until the heat dies down.


Whoa! That's a pretty big leap putting him at the depths of Milbury... :o


A team like the Flames, with a shallow prospect pool, giving away a 1st and 3rd and not even landing the player - that would belong in a class with Milbury, perhaps an even bigger gaff than Milbury ever managed.
Feaster already has the distinction imo of being one of the worst cap managers around...
  • 0

#159 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,324 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:43 PM

Well - at least their GM is trying to do something for the Flames....ours just places players on waivers and loses them... :(

Oh WOW. :picard:

Well..Well...Well...

Looks like Feaster would have lost O'reilly on waivers hey buds..

Thanks for coming out though. ;)

Posted Image
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#160 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,344 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:52 PM

Oh WOW. :picard:

Well..Well...Well...

Looks like Feaster would have lost O'reilly on waivers hey buds..

Thanks for coming out though. ;)

Posted Image


Oh wow. :picard:

That was so yesterday.

Posted Image
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#161 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,731 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:53 PM

"Well at least their GM is doing something"

Really? That's probably one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

So you want Gillis to try and give up draft picks for a player and then lose him to waivers? Would that appease you? Sometimes posters on here just prove that they're pretty much here to whine about anything.
  • 2

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#162 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:56 PM

The best move by Colorado could have been to ask Calgary for something in return for agreeing to match the offer sheet.

That would have been epic.

"Hey Feaster, thanks for being a jerk and sending out an offer sheet. I should tell you that you will have to waive him in order to activate him after losing your picks to us. If you are willing to send us your 2nd rounder this year, we will match and save you from being totally screwed"
  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#163 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

A team like the Flames, with a shallow prospect pool, giving away a 1st and 3rd and not even landing the player - that would belong in a class with Milbury, perhaps an even bigger gaff than Milbury ever managed.
Feaster already has the distinction imo of being one of the worst cap managers around...

Feaster at least has some pros from his time in Tampa (and a Stanley Cup as a result) but I agree he's not good. Milbury bad is another thing altogether when Milbury had a 1st overall and a 5th overall draft pick in 2000 but used them to get DiPietro and Torres. Heatley and Gaborik were #2 and #3 that year, and Hartnell #6. Milbury already had Roberto Luongo from the 1997 draft, but traded Luongo and Olli Jokinen to make room for DiPietro in return for Mark Parrish and Oleg Kvasha. He also traded Torres (along with Isbister) for Janne Niinimaa in 2003, ending the illustrious return from the 2000 draft.

That's before you even consider the Yashin contract or trading away Chara to get him in the first place, and also trading McCabe and Bertuzzi for Linden (great for us!) as some of his other blunders behind the wheel of the Islanders.

But hey, we agree on this one, wouldn't want either as a GM. B)
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#164 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:12 PM

This waiver news is an absolute shocker. I would not be surpised at all if Feaster doesn't last beyond this season as GM. I cannot see how Flames ownership can go ahead with full confidence in Feaster's ability to run the team successfully after this bonehead move. Had Colorado taken the compensation, there would have been no doubt that some team would have claimed him on waivers. I think it's safe to say that Feaster is done in Calgary.

How long until ownership realizes that it's the Flames that are done? They are at ground zero of the WTC staring at a pile of rubble, but they still think they can board an elevator. STOP PUSHING THE BUTTON!! REBUILD IT!!
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#165 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,222 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:02 PM

Nice one, Feaster!

Hope the Avs take the compensation and Calgary can finally get some help on offense!

Not trying to turn this our way and say why oh why didn't you make the offer sheet, Mike. But I'm a bit envious of the other teams' GM's making bold moves and ours making none at all. And we were actually the one supposed to make a splash.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=417051

Looks like one GM in the division is trying anything to bolster his lineup (although agreeably, they should of done a youth movement a long time ago)...

I wish Gillis did this. Late 1st round pick and a 3rd

Why isnt the Canucks doing something like this? Is MG still alive or on vacation?

We could've offersheeted Benn and erase any secondary scoring questions..

Dallas would've have matched but atleast its an attempt to make the team better, MG are you paying attention??

Still waiting on the 'bold moves' MG promised us when he was hired..


How does it feel guise. Gillis is smarter than Feaster.
  • 0

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#166 Monty

Monty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:04 PM

How long until ownership realizes that it's the Flames that are done?  They are at ground zero of the WTC staring at a pile of rubble, but they still think they can board an elevator.  STOP PUSHING THE BUTTON!!  REBUILD IT!!


Ah, WTC jokes. One of the few times in life where I laugh and immediately feel bad about myself as a person. Thanks :)  And thanks :( 

Edited by Monty, 01 March 2013 - 05:05 PM.

  • 1

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#167 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:17 PM

The best move by Colorado could have been to ask Calgary for something in return for agreeing to match the offer sheet.

That would have been epic.

"Hey Feaster, thanks for being a jerk and sending out an offer sheet. I should tell you that you will have to waive him in order to activate him after losing your picks to us. If you are willing to send us your 2nd rounder this year, we will match and save you from being totally screwed"


The AVs should have waited a bit - let Feaster and the Flames sweat - see what they would have done to persuade Colorado to match hahahaha...
  • 0

#168 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:33 PM

All feaster managed to do was make a division rival better. What a moron
  • 0
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#169 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:37 PM

All feaster managed to do was make a division rival better. What a moron


Yeah - he effectively got O'Reilly back in the lineup sooner rather than later. Whichever way you slice it, it was a downright terrible idea.
  • 0

#170 iwtl

iwtl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:40 PM

Not sure if it would even be possible but ......

Could you imagine the Flames sign him to the offer sheet - The avs decline to match - the flames put him on waivers and the Av's claim him?

Like I said - not sure it would be possible but funny as all get out imagining the Avs getting the draft picks and still picking him off waivers lol
  • 0
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. -
John Kenneth Galbraith

"This is the first test of a gentleman: his respect for those who can be of no possible value to him." - William Lyon Phelps



#171 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

Not sure if it would even be possible but ......

Could you imagine the Flames sign him to the offer sheet - The avs decline to match - the flames put him on waivers and the Av's claim him?

Like I said - not sure it would be possible but funny as all get out imagining the Avs getting the draft picks and still picking him off waivers lol

Columbus would claim him first.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#172 AppleJack

AppleJack

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:16 PM

So because O'rilley played in the KHL he had to be put on waivers... again....even after Calgary had offer sheeted him So basically if the AVS had chosen not to match the Flames offer, Calgary would have lost a 1st and a 3rd and then had to turn around and put O'Rilley on waivers again?

Why didn't Colorado just take those pics and run and then Offer sheet O'rilley after the flames put him on waivers? Correct me if I am wrong (I might be) but wouldn't the team O'rilley originally played for (Colorado) have first crack on him if Calgary had waived him?

I have just one last thing to say :picard: FLAMES LOL

Edited by Gillyfluffball, 01 March 2013 - 08:24 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image
Do Not Trade TanevPosted Image

Thanks TS <3

formely known as Gillyfluffball


#173 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:24 PM

Crazy thought and I'm not sure on the technicalities but if the Avs declined and he went on waivers and we had not claimed sestito, would we not have had first dibs on Orielly because patti got claimed?

If thats correct it was almost a perfect storm and we could have got him lol. How hilarious would that have been. Calgary gives a 1st and 3rd to a divisional rival and then another div rival gets orielly with them footing half the bill.
  • 2

#174 AppleJack

AppleJack

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:29 PM

Crazy thought and I'm not sure on the technicalities but if the Avs declined and he went on waivers and we had not claimed sestito, would we not have had first dibs on Orielly because patti got claimed?

If thats correct it was almost a perfect storm and we could have got him lol. How hilarious would that have been. Calgary gives a 1st and 3rd to a divisional rival and then another div rival gets orielly with them footing half the bill.


That would be so troll worthy of Gillis it would have been awesome......but wouldn't the team who originally waived him first get first crack at him?
  • 0

Posted Image
Do Not Trade TanevPosted Image

Thanks TS <3

formely known as Gillyfluffball


#175 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:40 PM

That would be so troll worthy of Gillis it would have been awesome......but wouldn't the team who originally waived him first get first crack at him?


I'm not sure if that's how they do it or not. The didnt actually waive him, they declined to match an offersheet. Logically I would think Colorado would not have first dibs because they get compensation in draft picks for losing the player. Whereas we lost patti for nothing(actually have to pay half his salary) so we got first chance at sestito.

I'm sure the only thing that would hold up us getting him woulda been another team lower in the standings that had a player claimed. I'm also not sure how long we are eligible to have first dibs on a waived player. It could be that after the week it takes for the offersheet to go through that we are ineligable.

Calgary might of had legal action too as I read that the reason they made the mistake is they didnt actually have the new cba, the league still does. RO's agent said no one had any idea about that rule or they would have not even signed it
  • 0

#176 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:58 PM

I'm really enjoying calgarypuck today

Yeah the meltdown is epic..haha.
  • 0

#177 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 01 March 2013 - 08:59 PM

@thad and Gilly: There's nothing anywhere to suggest a team gets to jump the line for waivers unless the player was theirs before and was claimed from them when they'd attempted to put him on waivers prior.

An example to fit the rule I first mentioned is if Washington decided later they couldn't keep Volpatti and put him on waivers again, as his original team we'd have first rights to claim him back. We wouldn't have first choice at any other player going on waivers, including O'Reilly, just because we'd lost a player to waivers before.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#178 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:08 PM

@thad and Gilly: There's nothing anywhere to suggest a team gets to jump the line for waivers unless the player was theirs before and was claimed from them when they'd attempted to put him on waivers prior.

An example to fit the rule I first mentioned is if Washington decided later they couldn't keep Volpatti and put him on waivers again, as his original team we'd have first rights to claim him back. We wouldn't have first choice at any other player going on waivers, including O'Reilly, just because we'd lost a player to waivers before.


Oh ok I misinterpreted something I read before. I thought It was any player after that and we got first crack at sestito.
  • 0

#179 AppleJack

AppleJack

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 12

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:38 PM

@thad and Gilly: There's nothing anywhere to suggest a team gets to jump the line for waivers unless the player was theirs before and was claimed from them when they'd attempted to put him on waivers prior.

An example to fit the rule I first mentioned is if Washington decided later they couldn't keep Volpatti and put him on waivers again, as his original team we'd have first rights to claim him back. We wouldn't have first choice at any other player going on waivers, including O'Reilly, just because we'd lost a player to waivers before.



Ummm if you re-read what I originally wrote I was asking if Colorado hadn't matched Calgary's offer sheet and took the picks, and then Calgary had to waive him if Colorado couldn't just go out and claim him off of waivers since his original te am was Colorado.

If this (and I think so from what you wrote) is true then why didn't colorado take those pics?
  • 0

Posted Image
Do Not Trade TanevPosted Image

Thanks TS <3

formely known as Gillyfluffball


#180 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:48 PM

Because it was an offer sheet deal and not waivers?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.