I may be alone here but my view is that if anyone should be fired its the reporter who broke this "story" without, in my view, adequately fact-checking it.
Though I guess it's a lot less sensational to run with the headline: "According to one of two equally-reasonable interpretations of an obscure clause in the MOU the Flames might have had to put a player on waivers in a hypothetical scenario that can no longer happen." That might not have attracted as many eyeballs, but it would at least have been accurate.
People need to settle down about this. The clause is somewhat vague, but to me Feaster's interpretation of it is eminently reasonable in any case. There's really nothing to see here.
|