Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I don't think so. He last played with Colorado, and then signed with St. Louis. The only way the Blues could have signed him if he was still an RFA would have been through an offer sheet. All indications seem to point to his deal as an UFA contract.
*EDIT* Besides, the amendment I cited was written specifically into the new CBA, and Svatos's deal occurred under the old agreement.
In any event, I have always had major doubts that the League would have followed through with the public's interpretation of the rule, in light of the fact that compensation for draft picks were involved. The rule was designed as a control on signing UFAs to play in the NHL in mid-season in an effort to circumvent certain cap conditions. If a team loses a signed UFA on waivers, all they lose is the player and the contract. At the time the RFA offer for O'Reilly was made, there was CLEARLY enough confusion on ALL FRONTS to confirm the assertion of many parties that the CBA was still being finalised, and that this was a scenario that was not adequately covered in the signed draft versions. I think this likely caught the League off guard, and they were more than happy to avoid making firm statements one way or the other because they saw this as a problem in the deal. It will never happen again, thanks to this incident.
|
This is the frustrating part for me. Ignorance is forgivable (but still punishable), but lazyness is not when the stakes are so high. Feaster said in an interview he was aware of the rule, but just had a different interpretation of it - you would think if there was any room, even the slightest, for confusion, you would do your due dilligence and clearify this in written form? In any other industry in the world, you document the hell out of things like this to cover your ass.... how could a trained lawyer, of all professions, fail to do this?
This kind of summarizes Feaster's tenure with the Flames to me.... unexcusably sloppy.