Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
But how would the PA allowing the NHL to void O'Reilly's contract help anyone in the future? Presumably in that situation the NHL's original interpretation would stand going forward and any RFA who played outside the league after the season started would still need waivers to clear after an offer sheet. It'd basically be the PA sacrificing O'Reilly to give the Flames a get out of jail free card which is something I couldn't see ever happening.
Maybe the PA would pressure the league to interpret the clause as the Flames say they did, but like you said it would depend on what both sides intended when they put that in the MOU. I just don't see any way the PA would be party to one of their members having his contract voided. IMO that would open up just as big a can of worms as the Flames losing a draft pick from a lack of diligence.
|
Well I guess my thinking is that if the ultimate decision was in favor of Feaster's interpretation then everyone wins. O'Reilly gets the offer, the Avs get the opportunity to match and it's business as usual. Where it gets tricky, and I didn't really consider the sacrifice of O'Reilly here and that's a good point, is if it goes the other way.
I think if the PA wanted it to read as Feaster does there's a reason for it, and that basis isn't going to be so insubstantial that they'll let it go over one player. But you're right, there would be some divided interests there.