Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Why not? The rules were clear and Daly illustrated how the NHL would be interpreting them. It's like saying the NHL wouldn't have let all the Chicago RFAs become UFAs because of Tallon's Qualifying Offer snafu.
That part of the rule hadn't really changed though. In the 2005 CBA all players who played outside the NHL after the start of the season needed waivers to play in the NHL that year, so O'Reilly would've needed waivers at any time over the previous 8 years if he was in the same situation. The 2013 CBA created a single exemption for teams signing their own RFAs, but the Flames brass incorrectly took it to mean any RFA. The final wording of the CBA makes it abundantly clear what the rule actually meant.
|
Probably will never know for sure, but I think the Feaster knew exactly what he was doing. After all I'd expect a lawyer, of all people, to recognize an opportunity that unclear language presents.
In the working draft of the CBA the wording of this clause omitted which team could sign a RFA belonging to another team playing overseas during the lockout. Of course the league intended only the team holding the player's rights could do that, any idiot would make that assumption, but the working draft did not confirm it.
So IMO the blunder was in the wisdom of making the attempt, not in how the Flames interpreted the working draft of the CBA.