Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob
tried reading through a bunch of posts (got to about page 60) and people keep saying that if feaster was wrong we would have lost O'Reilly through waivers. I am pretty sure if that was the NHL decision the they wouldn't put him through waivers and he would have joined the team next year. Just would have lost his services for the remaining 28 games this year. Depending on our draft pick I might still make that.
might be interesting to revisit this at the draft and see what might have happened in an alternate reality where Colorado did not match. Might make for some interesting summer fodder.
|
I'm almost 100% sure that that's impossible. If the NHL's position about him needing waivers held, it wouldn't have been the Flames choice whether or not to put him through waivers. You can't just sign a player to a 1 way contract and not have him be on your roster. A team's Active Roster is defined as anyone on their Reserve List with a valid contract who isn't injured, loaned, or designated as a Non-Roster player. O'Reilly wouldn't fit any of of those, at least if he was expecting to get paid.
For instance, if the Flames went out and signed Arnott tomorrow, they couldn't just pay him and not have him appear on their roster. He'd have to be on the Flames' roster until they took further action (loaning him, putting him on IR, or getting the league to classify him as Non-Roster) and the act of getting O'Reilly on the Flames roster would've required waivers (assuming the NHL's initial interpretation that he was subject to 13.23 was correct). Bob McKenzie and Scott Burnside also confirmed that fact with the NHL.
Daly may have been incorrect in his interpretation of the exemption with regards to how it impacts O'Reilly, but if he wasn't then he would've needed waivers to get on the Flames' roster just like guys like Nabokov and Wellwood have in the past.