Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

browna · 03-01-2013, 02:45 PM

Here's an article on the 13.23 again, since the Flames/Feaster are going to go with this excuse (err, defence) to try in vain to wipe the collective eggs off collective faces.

When in doubt, ask the league office. Simple.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/ey...vs-didnt-match

The previous CBA (section 13.23) stated that any player who played in a league outside of North America after the start of the NHL regular season could only play in the NHL that year after he cleared -- or had been obtained by -- waivers. You might remember in previous years, Evgeni Nabokov and Kyle Wellwood starting seasons overseas, signing with NHL clubs in the middle and then were claimed on waivers by other teams.
Nabokov was the most high-profile example. He was claimed on waivers by the New York Islanders after the Detroit Red Wings attempted to sign him a couple of years ago. He has been the Islanders' starting goalie ever since.
According to Johnston, O'Reilly, who signed in the KHL during the lockout, played two games in the Russian league after the NHL regular season began. That means he would have, in fact, been subject to waivers before he returned to the league under the old CBA rules.
So why don't the Avalanche have to risk losing him on waivers?
This is where some of the confusion comes in. The new NHL CBA has slightly altered that rule. The memorandum of understanding states:

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.

This would explain why the Avalanche were able to match the offer and come to terms with O'Reilly after he played overseas and not have to expose him to waivers -- he was their restricted free agent.
If the Flames had traded for O'Reilly's free-agents rights and then signed him to a contract, he also would have apparently been waiver exempt because his rights would have then belonged to the Flames.
But because they signed him as a restricted free agent, he would have needed to clear before he could play for them this season. And there's a very good chance, had it come to that, that he would have been claimed. The Flames would not only have lost their first- and third-round picks, they also would have lost the very player that they gave them up for.

03-01-2013, 02:45 PM	#593
browna Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Calgary Exp:	Here's an article on the 13.23 again, since the Flames/Feaster are going to go with this excuse (err, defence) to try in vain to wipe the collective eggs off collective faces. When in doubt, ask the league office. Simple. http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/ey...vs-didnt-match The previous CBA (section 13.23) stated that any player who played in a league outside of North America after the start of the NHL regular season could only play in the NHL that year after he cleared -- or had been obtained by -- waivers. You might remember in previous years, Evgeni Nabokov and Kyle Wellwood starting seasons overseas, signing with NHL clubs in the middle and then were claimed on waivers by other teams. Nabokov was the most high-profile example. He was claimed on waivers by the New York Islanders after the Detroit Red Wings attempted to sign him a couple of years ago. He has been the Islanders' starting goalie ever since. According to Johnston, O'Reilly, who signed in the KHL during the lockout, played two games in the Russian league after the NHL regular season began. That means he would have, in fact, been subject to waivers before he returned to the league under the old CBA rules. So why don't the Avalanche have to risk losing him on waivers? This is where some of the confusion comes in. The new NHL CBA has slightly altered that rule. The memorandum of understanding states: 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. This would explain why the Avalanche were able to match the offer and come to terms with O'Reilly after he played overseas and not have to expose him to waivers -- he was their restricted free agent. If the Flames had traded for O'Reilly's free-agents rights and then signed him to a contract, he also would have apparently been waiver exempt because his rights would have then belonged to the Flames. But because they signed him as a restricted free agent, he would have needed to clear before he could play for them this season. And there's a very good chance, had it come to that, that he would have been claimed. The Flames would not only have lost their first- and third-round picks, they also would have lost the very player that they gave them up for.