Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
A number of people had noted this, but the reason that the clarification is needed is because the exemption isn't just for RFAs, it's also for players "on the Reserve List," which includes players whose rights are owned by a team, but who aren't on an SPC. That's why the clarification was needed--in essence, without it you couldn't trade the rights to an unsigned player, because that player would have to clear waivers for the signing team.
By analogy, the clarification does elucidate something that's clear from the structure of the first sentence: the exemption attaches to the player, and follows the player regardless of the team that signs him.
|
Why? If the argument is that being on any team's RFA and Reserve List is enough to exempt a player from waivers when he signs a mid-season contract then why would they have to give an illustration of how it follows him? The exemption wouldn't need to follow players anywhere because just the act of being on an NHL team's Reserve List would exempt them.