Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
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.
|
Right. The example they gave articulates that this is the rule, and that "a Club" means "any Club." That's why it's "for greater clarity."
I think people are reading a bit too much into the "for greater clarity" clause. I agree that it's clumsily drafted, but when a clause gives an example "for greater clarity" it generally either elucidates the principle behind the rule, or gives an example of the sort of thing that the rule includes. In this case, trading of the rights of a player "on the Reserve List" is the sort of thing that the exemption contemplates as included. That's why that language is in there: it's not limiting language that excludes other scenarios--such as signing an offer sheet.
I'll stress this again: if the rule is read the other way, being an RFA is worthless to O'Reilly. Free agency status has to have some value to players, and that value comes from their ability to entertain offers from other teams, subject only to the restrictions attaching to their status under the CBA. A rule that had the effect that an RFA could not exercise any leverage over their team would likely not have been acceptable to Don Fehr and the NHLPA.