Senators forfeit 1st round pick (in 2024, 2025 or 2026) because of Dadonov trade - Page 6 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

IamNotKenKing · 11-01-2023, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by activeStick

Wait, is this true? I've always understood that the Flames were at high risk and misinterpreted the rules.

Calgary’s read of the rule was correct. They in fact changed the wording from the Memorandum of Understanding to the actual CBA to clarify what they meant because of Calgary’s read being correct.

The wording was changed from “a team’s negotiation list” to “that team’s negotiation list” in order to be read as they wanted.

bluejays · 11-01-2023, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Pretty much this.

The league gave back the first (albeit the last pick in the 1st round) the Devils lost in the Kovalchuk signing because of new ownership. Andlauer angling for the same play.

I suppose it's similar, but for the league to not disclose it (arguably not material enough), and him exposing that, twists the NHLs arm a bit. Doubt he does anything further because he can't go too hard against the mother corporation too much, but I'm sure at this point they want to sweep it under and set the tone for future trades to be done appropriately. Weird that they didn't disclose the potential penalty when it wouldn't have held up the deal (though I guess they really didn't want holdups).

keenan87 · 11-01-2023, 05:48 PM

As others have mentioned, this is ridiculous. Especially after the gross precedence set after Chicago faced no punishment.

The NHL seems to be so behind on taking actual issues seriously, such as sexual assualt and 2SLQBTQ+ ... its getting pretty disgusting and part of the reason I am slowly moving away from even being much of a fan.

FireGilbert · 11-01-2023, 11:52 PM

I thought the Devils punishment was also too severe. That contract was allowed by the CBA at the time, the league was just angry they took the average value loop hole to the nth degree.

Wouldn’t be surprised if this Sens penalty is eventually rescinded as well given the new owner wasn’t involved but just had to drop millions firing the GM.

GioforPM · 11-02-2023, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don’t see how this is similar to ROR at all. This was negligence and deceit that had actual negative consequences for multiple franchises. Feaster and the flames were never at risk and ultimately would have been proven correct. Sens were never correct in any way shape or form. Maybe the sens were vindicated because they produced evidence that the NTC was void, then maybe I could see some similarities.

It’s similar because it was a publicly embarrassing gaffe, and it caused the firing in both cases. And no, the Flames were at huge risk. The league made that call and the league is the decider. It doesn’t matter what the counter arguments were. And they never even checked first.

GioforPM · 11-02-2023, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Calgary’s read of the rule was correct. They in fact changed the wording from the Memorandum of Understanding to the actual CBA to clarify what they meant because of Calgary’s read being correct.

The wording was changed from “a team’s negotiation list” to “that team’s negotiation list” in order to be read as they wanted.

Just because rules get clarified to avoid future confusion doesn’t mean the initial league ruling was incorrect. This happens all the time in statute writing. Guess who gets to decide that one - the league.

OptimalTates · 11-02-2023, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by butterfly

So they can wait until the 2025 draft lottery to declare which one it would be? If I were them and I made the playoffs this year, I'd get it over with now.

They could try to pull a Devils and hold onto it until the NHL decides to reverse course. The Devils bigballed the NHL into giving back a pick when they decided to hold onto it after reaching the Cup finals.

DeluxeMoustache · 11-02-2023, 01:31 AM

Dadonov in the news

Dadonov plays Flames

Dadonov scores

Flames lose by 1

IamNotKenKing · 11-02-2023, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Just because rules get clarified to avoid future confusion doesn’t mean the initial league ruling was incorrect. This happens all the time in statute writing. Guess who gets to decide that one - the league.

The Flames’ read was technically correct. They would not have lost ROR AND the picks.

GioforPM · 11-02-2023, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The Flames’ read was technically correct. They would not have lost ROR AND the picks.

A. The league, which makes the decision disagrees.

B. Feaster didn’t even ask before acting - I’m confident they never even thought about it.

C. Very few analysts and CBA commentators agree with you. As I said, the clarification doesn’t mean the original draft meant something else.

EDIT: Murray Edwards is as sharp a contract reader as they come, and he uses every bit of wording to his advantage, and he’s not afraid to litigate. Yet he fired Feaster over this.

Erick Estrada · 11-02-2023, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

I think the lack of punishment to the Hawks is the main issue for people

I'm not exactly sure why people keep bringing this up. I don't want to minimize what happened in Chicago but these two issues are not related in any way.

Kipper_3434 · 11-02-2023, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not exactly sure why people keep bringing this up. I don't want to minimize what happened in Chicago but these two issues are not related in any way.

False. Disciplinary action with regards to the NHL is 1 way they are related.

1qqaaz · 11-02-2023, 07:19 AM

I'm pretty sure Feaster was fired because of the poor returns in the Regehr, Iginla, and Bouwmeester trades. Not because of the O'Reilly signing.

The analysts like to state that the Flames almost lost of pick because this narrative is more interesting. Bettman himself seemed to dismiss that there was ever any risk. As did Feaster. And other GMs.

The original wording was very unclear. If anything, as a fellow attorney, I think Feaster's interpretation makes more sense. Quite a bit more, really.

PepsiFree · 11-02-2023, 07:21 AM

I don’t see how you can point to the O’Reilly issue as being the one that got Feaster fired when he was fired 8 months later (after being allowed to run another draft and free agency).

powderjunkie · 11-02-2023, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Just because rules get clarified to avoid future confusion doesn’t mean the initial league ruling was incorrect. This happens all the time in statute writing. Guess who gets to decide that one - the league.

Did the league ever actually make a ruling?

getbak · 11-02-2023, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Did the league ever actually make a ruling?

No, Colorado matched the offer sheet almost instantly and it was never actually an issue. Any discussion on it has always been hypothetical.

I have always believed that the relationship between O'Reilly and the Avs had soured so much that they couldn't get a deal done at any price, so Feaster and Sherman made a handshake deal for the Flames to get O'Reilly to sign the offer sheet so Colorado could match it and get the player playing ASAP. Both Sherman and Feaster were fired in the following months, so it's possible the "return the favour" portion of the deal never happened -- or maybe that's why they gave the Flames a 2nd round pick for Reto Berra.

GioforPM · 11-02-2023, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Did the league ever actually make a ruling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by getbak

No, Colorado matched the offer sheet almost instantly and it was never actually an issue. Any discussion on it has always been hypothetical.

Why it became a moot point, the league intimated they disagreed (they said they only agreed with the Flames that it had become moot).

With respect to Feaster lasting 8 months after the fiasco it's true that the insta-firing is unusal. Feaster was in year two of a 5 year deal so that probably was a factor. Yes, the other issues played a role but the Iginla trade was almost at the same time, so who knows which was a bigger reason.

EDIT: This is a thread derail I caused. Let's end it.

Jay Random · 11-02-2023, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. The league, which makes the decision disagrees.

The league doesn't make the decision if it comes to litigation. The league is not a court of law.

Quote:

EDIT: Murray Edwards is as sharp a contract reader as they come, and he uses every bit of wording to his advantage, and he’s not afraid to litigate. Yet he fired Feaster over this.

He fired Feaster because of his whole body of work. Getting bent over in trades was, I'm sure, a bigger deal than this one incident that turned out to be a moot point.

Jay Random · 11-02-2023, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

False. Disciplinary action with regards to the NHL is 1 way they are related.

The NHL can't put people in prison. That is the appropriate punishment for what happened in the Beach incident. Anything the NHL actually could do would be mere grandstanding.

OptimalTates · 11-02-2023, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The NHL can't put people in prison. That is the appropriate punishment for what happened in the Beach incident. Anything the NHL actually could do would be mere grandstanding.

Wow, terrible take.

"Oh we can't put you in prison so I guess we shouldn't punish you at all."