Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodFetish
Okay, it was a good read and I like the back story.
But the whole reason for this article to be written was this bit...
The writer made his own interpretation of the clause and wrote an article around it. I saw a reference that "he was told" his interpretation was the case but I'm not sure by whom. Does he say his interpretation was confirmed by the league, or any other source? Not that I can see.
Hell, many other GMs and even the league itself wasn't clear on that clause. How could the journalist be?
|
he interpreted the clause like many in the NHL have, and he was the first to do so. Its a potential faux pas by the league in their verbage of a document that everyone has to follow to operate in accordance with the rules.
It still sounds like he was right as well depending on whom you want to believe.
Either way though, and this is not debateable, at the very least Feaster was rolling the dice that his interpretation of the clause was correct and there was a very real chance that he would have had his name attached to what would of amounted to single biggest GM'ing blunder in the NHL's history.
That's saying something.