Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire
So nice to read this thread 24 hours later. Everyone's calmed down and can think things through rationally.
After giving it further thought. I'm on Feaster's side on this one. It was a small clause that no one even knew about. Yes, Feaster should have thoroughly combed through all the clauses that apply, but no one could've guessed that a clause like that was present in the new CBA.
|
But it's not as though there were not similar precedents of players playing in Europe needing to clear waivers prior to getting back into the NHL. Nabokov and Svatos just year were plucked from the waiver wires when they tried to re-enter the NHL.
In light of those incidents, it was up to the organization to ensure that they knew the possible ramifications.
The rationale that it was a "small clause" is moot: Feaster's statement made it clear they were aware of the clause prior to making the offer.
What it comes down to then is interpretation of that clause. IMO the Flames should have sought clarification from the NHL (an impartial third party, who would ultimately preside over any ruling) They choose not to, and that is the reason for people being upset.
Rolling the dice on part of the organization's future on a hunch is at best risky and at worst negligent.