Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Red]

Has anyone explained the actual reason for changing this rule in the new CBA?

Perhaps that would give us a better idea who interpreted it right?

From what I understand both sides have a point as the wording is not clear.

[CaramonLS]

The most amusing part about this?

Feaster's press release talking about how he spoke with the 'player's representitive' is just as ambiguous as that CBA passage he claims to have knowledge of. Because it wasn't the player's agent, like you would naturally assume.

Still want to know who he claimed to have spoken with regarding this.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not sure how this works in the context of a CBA, but I suspect it's better to think of the Avs decision as a condition precedent that must be met prior to the contract between Calgary and O'Reilly having any legal force.

Either way, it's immaterial in my view: the way I look at it, the exemption in Rule 13.23 applies to the player, not the team--and so long as they are "on a Club's RFA list," they are exempt for the purposes of "a mid-season signing." Whether the contract forms before or after the Avs decision doesn't change anything.

Sure it does.

At no point will O'Reilly be on the Flames reserve or RFA list. As per the ruling being quoted, were they to trade for his rights and sign him, Calgary would not have to recall him through waivers. If he signed with the Avs he would not have to go through waivers. The ruling is clear about this via trade.

By offering him a contract and O'Reilly signing it, he is no longer an RFA, he is a player under contract who played games following the deadline of January 19th, signed by a team that did have him on their RFA list.

Again, at no point is he subject to Calgary's protection list or RFA status exemption because he is not, at any point, their property. The only time they get him is if the Avalanche take the pre-determined compensation at which point he is simply a player under contract who played following the deadline of january 19th for a team outside of north america.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I read the clause, and it's not well written, leaving it open to interpretation. Based on the original sentence and then the trade example/clarification, it sounds like the player is exempt if he is signed by the team on whose reserve list he is. Hence, the exemption following the player to team B in case of a trade.
The trade clarification actually makes it more likely that Feaster was wrong because why would they bother to clarify that the exemption would follow the player with a trade? If the player was exempt in case of signing by 'any' team, the trade clarification is irrelevant.
Therefore, there is a very good chance that Feaster was wrong... and should therefore be fired for risking 2 picks on a "hunch"...

I disagree, particularly with the bolded part. I think the "trade" clarification indicates that, for further clarity, the exemption (which attaches to any player, by virtue of their presence on a Club's RFA list) applies even if such a player is traded--that is, it further indicates that the exemption is not affected by which team signs the player to a PSC after the season begins.

I do agree that the clause is poorly written though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Sure it does.

At no point will O'Reilly be on the Flames reserve or RFA list. As per the ruling being quoted, were they to trade for his rights and sign him, Calgary would not have to recall him through waivers. If he signed with the Avs he would not have to go through waivers. The ruling is clear about this via trade.

By offering him a contract and O'Reilly signing it, he is no longer an RFA, he is a player under contract who played games following the deadline of January 19th, signed by a team that did have him on their RFA list.

Again, at no point is he subject to Calgary's protection list or RFA status exemption because he is not, at any point, their property. The only time they get him is if the Avalanche take the pre-determined compensation at which point he is simply a player under contract who played following the deadline of january 19th for a team outside of north america.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't agree, but I at least understand why it matters when the contract forms.

In that case, I would again stress that the better interpretation is that there is no contract until Colorado fails to match.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Red

Has anyone explained the actual reason for changing this rule in the new CBA?

Perhaps that would give us a better idea who interpreted it right?

From what I understand both sides have a point as the wording is not clear.

It's meant to allow for teams to sign players who are otherwise eligible and ready to play for their team but for one reason or another are unable to agree on contract terms.

It's in the best interest of the team and the player (and by extension the league and the PA) that an otherwise able player should not be exempted from playing in the league if they aren't violating any regulations.

For example this offseason backlund was an RFA. Pretend for a second he doesn't sign with the Flames because he wants to wait and see the what the new cba does for contracts. He plays in Europe during the lockout and when it ends, takes some time agreeing to a contract with the flames. He wants 1 year for instance and they want longer term. He plays in Europe during the lockout to stay in game condition and to earn a paycheque. Him and Calgary agree to terms 2 weeks after the season starts.

Under the old conditions, he'd have to pass through waivers. This means either he doesn't sign with Calgary for fear of ending up in say, Columbus or, Calgary doesn't tender him a contract because of the risk of losing him via waivers.

This happened to Nabokov when he returned to the NHL after playing in the KHL. Signed with Detroit (i think?), but had to pass through waivers and was claimed by the Islanders

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I read the clause, and it's not well written, leaving it open to interpretation. Based on the original sentence and then the trade example/clarification, it sounds like the player is exempt if he is signed by the team on whose reserve list he is. Hence, the exemption following the player to team B in case of a trade.
The trade clarification actually makes it more likely that Feaster was wrong because why would they bother to clarify that the exemption would follow the player with a trade? If the player was exempt in case of signing by 'any' team, the trade clarification is irrelevant.

Exactly how I read it. If the first paragraph applied to any RFA on any team's reserve list the clarification would've been completely unnecessary. It'd be like having a rule where all players are eligible for something when signing a contract (let's say signing bonuses for arguments sake) and then following that up with an example where a player gets traded and how he is eligible for a signing bonus.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In that case, I would again stress that the better interpretation is that there is no contract until Colorado fails to match.

Except, this is the thing, there IS a contract and it is absolutely binding. When the contract takes effect is subject to the Avs. They can match any time in that 7 day window, but when they do, they are automatically bound to the stipulations in the contract. If that means a 2.5 million dollar bonus the day the contract is 'ratified' for lack of a better term, then so be it, those are the terms.

The unresolved matter is whether the Kings will accept the compensation or not.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Red

Has anyone explained the actual reason for changing this rule in the new CBA?

Perhaps that would give us a better idea who interpreted it right?

From what I understand both sides have a point as the wording is not clear.

That is the one thing that is about as clear as mud right now. What is clear is that the old rule has a bunch of language about "the Prior Club" and so on that is absent from the new rule.

To me, that is a further indication that the parties intended to change the rule--possibly this was to avoid precisely this situation, since many players were playing overseas on European contracts (including a bunch of RFAs). A rule that prevented them from returning to their NHL teams could have created some difficulty for those players, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that this is a change the PA wanted for RFAs and that the NHL wanted for "Reserve List" players.

All of that is speculation, of course.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ah, I see what you're saying. I don't agree, but I at least understand why it matters when the contract forms.

In that case, I would again stress that the better interpretation is that there is no contract until Colorado fails to match.

I would agree with this because the player does not sign a contract, they sign an offer sheet. The contract takes effect once it is determined which team it will be with.

[stignasty]

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Except, this is the thing, there IS a contract and it is absolutely binding. When the contract takes effect is subject to the Avs. They can match any time in that 7 day window, but when they do, they are automatically bound to the stipulations in the contract. If that means a 2.5 million dollar bonus the day the contract is 'ratified' for lack of a better term, then so be it, those are the terms.

The unresolved matter is whether the Kings will accept the compensation or not.

I'm not disagreeing that there IS a contract that MAY become legally binding upon the offering party given the fulfilment of a condition precedent. It is, however, not binding until that event occurs. This is quite common, actually--but the law is that the contract forms when the condition is fulfilled, notwithstanding that another party can step into the offeror's shoes on the same terms.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Exactly how I read it. If the first paragraph applied to any RFA on any team's reserve list the clarification would've been completely unnecessary. It'd be like having a rule where all players are eligible for something when signing a contract (let's say signing bonuses for arguments sake) and then following that up with an example where a player gets traded and how he is eligible for a signing bonus.

A number of people had noted this, but the reason that the clarification is needed is because the exemption isn't just for RFAs, it's also for players "on the Reserve List," which includes players whose rights are owned by a team, but who aren't on an SPC. That's why the clarification was needed--in essence, without it you couldn't trade the rights to an unsigned player, because that player would have to clear waivers for the signing team.

By analogy, the clarification does elucidate something that's clear from the structure of the first sentence: the exemption attaches to the player, and follows the player regardless of the team that signs him.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Exactly how I read it. If the first paragraph applied to any RFA on any team's reserve list the clarification would've been completely unnecessary. It'd be like having a rule where all players are eligible for something when signing a contract (let's say signing bonuses for arguments sake) and then following that up with an example where a player gets traded and how he is eligible for a signing bonus.

But that's not the issue, IMO. I agree that it doesn't imply any team's reserve list, I think it is definitely the specific team's reserve list. The key issue to me is that it then goes on to say the player is exempt. Period. It doesn't say exempt only to that team.

That is why the trade example is important - it demonstrates that the exemption is the player's, not the team's and transfers with the player. And it doesn't limit 'trade' as the only way that the transference applies.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not disagreeing that there IS a contract that MAY become legally binding upon the offering party given the fulfilment of a condition precedent. It is, however, not binding until that event occurs. This is quite common, actually--but the law is that the contract forms when the condition is fulfilled, notwithstanding that another party can step into the offeror's shoes on the same terms.

Ok, but if you follow that logic, at no point is O'Reilly ever an RFA with the Calgary Flames.

If the contract's finality is predicated specifically on when the player changes teams, then he's never an RFA and thus never subject to waiver exemption.

[trublmaker]

I find it funny that people have this impression about Feaster et al sit around the office going " herpy derp lets go do something really stupid" they probably knew that if they asked the NHL about the wording they would have been told he has to go thru waivers therefore at that point they couldn't make an offer. They know of this loophole and say "we can beat this" and can make an offer and argue it later which it seems they had a good chance of winning. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, they're not dummies.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I read the clause, and it's not well written, leaving it open to interpretation. Based on the original sentence and then the trade example/clarification, it sounds like the player is exempt if he is signed by the team on whose reserve list he is. Hence, the exemption following the player to team B in case of a trade.
The trade clarification actually makes it more likely that Feaster was wrong because why would they bother to clarify that the exemption would follow the player with a trade? If the player was exempt in case of signing by 'any' team, the trade clarification is irrelevant.
Therefore, there is a very good chance that Feaster was wrong... and should therefore be fired for risking 2 picks on a "hunch"...

This....over and over...this.

Its pretty clear to me that the clause in question applies ONLY to the team who's player is returning from Europe...not the player specifically or there wouldnt need to be clarifications set apart within said clause in case of a trade.

Feaster screwed up...either by not getting clarification from the league, or thinking he did without knowing 100% for sure what the rsults would have been. He simply cannot do that in his position.

He must be fired.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ok, but if you follow that logic, at no point is O'Reilly ever an RFA with the Calgary Flames.

If the contract's finality is predicated specifically on when the player changes teams, then he's never an RFA and thus never subject to waiver exemption.

Incorrect. The exemption also applies to players "on a team's Reserve List," which includes players under contract who are playing abroad. He would then be a player on Calgary's "Reserve List," and thus still exempt.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I would agree with this because the player does not sign a contract, they sign an offer sheet. The contract takes effect once it is determined which team it will be with.

The offer sheet is a binding contract he signed

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

The offer sheet is a binding contract he signed

I disagree. The offer sheet is a contract subject to a condition precedent. I actually don't think the distinction matters, but if it does then the contract doesn't form until Colorado fails to match.

In that case, as I noted above, O'Reilly would become a player on Calgary's Reserve List, and be waiver-exempt according to the text of the Rule.

My interpretation of the rule is that the exemption applies to O'Reilly anyway, and follows him--so it doesn't matter when the contract is formed or with which team. But if it DOES matter, he's exempt anyway, because the contract doesn't form until Colorado fails to match.