[News] Flames offersheet O'Reilly UPDATE: Avs match

[Yamer]

More fodder for discussion from Sportsnet's Resident Guru, Damian Cox:

http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/201...pointless.html

It's really amazing how dumb the Calgary Flames have become.

A lack of strategic thinking has the Flames in a terrible spot with a disappointing record, still trying to deny all the strong evidence that they need to take a giant step back and rebuild, hanging on to veteran players beyond their due date in some faint hope that the club can scrape into the post-season and make magic happen.

It was evident last season in the way they hung on to Jarome Iginla, and with the deal done to give up a second round pick and a prospect in the deal to bring forward Mike Cammalleri, then 29 years old, back to Alberta. It was further evident in the free agent signings of Jiri Hudler and Dennis Wideman last summer to inflated salaries.

What are these guys thinking? Its like the Leafs of the final days of Mats Sundin being played out all over again in western Canada.

Goes on to talk about the waiver-wire conundrum, how Calgary actually made the division tougher by getting O'Reilly back into an Avalanche uniform, and skewed future contracts and arbitration because of the offer sheet.

He ends with this beauty:

Now, the fact they would have lost their first and third rounders and never got O'Reilly at all is looking like one spectacular embarrassment for a once-proud franchise.

Abrasive, but he makes a few good points to think about. I think he undervalues what a player like O'Reilly could do for a team like Calgary, and I'm not sure how much an offer sheet structured to undermine the rights-holder plays into setting the market.

And, it all hangs on the confirmation that the info in the Johnston article is actually factual.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Presuming that all the teams would have signed off, including the ones who stood to gain from the opposite interpretation, but you're probably right.

Yes, because I have a law degree - I am not saying that what Friedman thinks is relevant, only that I agree he's right that it SOUNDS like it applies only to the Avs (in this case) RFA list, and that it would be a good battle for the lawyers. Others are speaking as if Daly's interpretation is authoritative and his comments end the discussion - it is not. "Meaningless" is too strong a word, but what Daly says is not the be-all end-all here. You read the words in the document and come to a conclusion about their plain meaning.

Not to mention as Puckluck says, Daly's response was to a question framed as if the Avalanche had re-upped with ROR, which doesn't address the issue here.

Sorry, in my reading if it said "the" club's list, then it would have to be Colorado who signs him to be waiver exempt, by saying "a" club's list, anyone could sign him.
Contract Law 101

[LickTheEnvelope]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

well it doesn't say signing team's RFA list... just says "a club's RFA list"

whether that applies to just limited to the signing's team list or any team's list seems to be the issue

In this case that wouldn't matter since O'Reilly wouldn't have been on the Flame's RFA list to start the season, and would not have been on it until after he had signed and cleared waivers (based on the existing rule... as mentioned there are only comments out there on the amendment).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

well it doesn't say signing team's RFA list... just says "a club's RFA list"

whether that applies to just limited to the signing's team list or any team's list seems to be the issue

That's a nasty grey area. I'm assuming this is quietly fixed and the public response is that he wouldn't have had to pass through waivers for the Flames either.

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

In this case that wouldn't matter since O'Reilly wouldn't have been on the Flame's RFA list to start the season, and would not have been on it until after he had signed and cleared waivers (based on the existing rule... as mentioned there are only comments out there on the amendment).

The alternate interpretation is if the player is on any club's RFA list, he's clear.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

Ya... but the exception that was put into the new CBA only applies to teams re-signing players off their own RFA list...



It was put in for NHL teams to be able to pull back their un-signed RFAs this season and give them some time to negotiate.

Nope. It doesn't say the player has to sign with the same club whose list he is on.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't get me wrong - my read on the document is the same as yours and Friedman's. But surely you realize how silly your post comes off when your response basically reads as "Bill Daly's comments are meaningless, Elliott Friedman's are not."

This is an equivocation. Elliotte has an opinion as to interpretation, which I share. Neither of our opinions are relevant, obviously, in determining the actual meaning of an NHL CBA clause. Daly's comments are "meaningless" (as I say too strong a word because extrinsic evidence is sometimes relevant) in terms of finding an answer to whether Elliotte, and others, are right or wrong, because his opinion doesn't govern either.

Basically what Friedman, you, I, or Daly thinks that clause reads is all meaningless from an interpretation perspective, but I happen to agree with Elliotte's interpretation.

If Daly's alleged comment accurately reflected the theory that the league agreed that any team signing an RFA could do so without waivers in this situation, that would most definitely not be irrelevant.

It would be if a Court looked at the agreement and said, "no, my interpretation of what the words in the document say are that it means X". Legally, if you look at the words, and you can come to a conclusion as to what they mean on the basis just of what's in the agreement itself, you are not even permitted to look at what the parties say they intended them to mean.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Sorry, in my reading if it said "the" club's list, then it would have to be Colorado who signs him to be waiver exempt, by saying "a" club's list, anyone could sign him.
Contract Law 101

Standard lawyer argument on what the meaning of "is" is. "a" implies a singular team, and just as you could say they could've written "the" club's list (which first of all wouldn't have made grammatical sense), someone taking the opposite position would argue that they could have just as easily made it "any" club's list, if they'd wanted that to be the effect. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, though.

[Roof-Daddy]

So has Bill Daly confirmed O'Reilly would have had to pass through waivers had the Avs not matched the Flames offer?

[Sakari]

This also means that O'Reilly and the Avalanche were unaware of this. If it's true.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Sorry, in my reading if it said "the" club's list, then it would have to be Colorado who signs him to be waiver exempt, by saying "a" club's list, anyone could sign him.
Contract Law 101

A problem is the clarifying note in that same 25-page summary:

"For further clarity, if Club A trades such a Player to Club B and Club B signs the Player to an SPC,such Player will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23."

That would be a hard statement to overcome in the "the rule doesn't specify that it has to be your own RFA" argument.

[dammage79]

So if this is true, then Feaster knew and was tossing Sherman a bone. Maybe helping Sherman save a little face.

[dissentowner]

I can't believe people think O'Reilly would have had to have cleared waivers. Feaster is a frickin lawyer, he obviously had contact with the NHL regarding this and was under the impression O'Reilly would not have to clear waivers. If O'Reilly was not matched by the Av's and he did have to clear waivers the Flames would have to receive compensation from the NHL. I am certain Daly was right when he stated it would be under last years rules.

[Sakari]

And, we owned the rights to O'Reilly until the Avs signed him, so that does mean he was a Flames RFA.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by dammage79

So if this is true, then Feaster knew and was tossing Sherman a bone. Maybe helping Sherman save a little face.

That's imaginative.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Sorry, in my reading if it said "the" club's list, then it would have to be Colorado who signs him to be waiver exempt, by saying "a" club's list, anyone could sign him.
Contract Law 101

CBA rule 13.23 states, "In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers."

However, one of the player-friendly changes negotiated in the new CBA was a relaxing of rule 13.23 in certain situations. According to the Summary of Terms (Page 19, Article 13, section 1) of the new NHL-NHLPA agreement is the following amendment: "All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing."

I didn't think very much of it a (few pages ago) ... but since its in the actual rules (13.23)... there is enough for that to go to court. Scary oversight by the Flames if CO hadn't had matched.

[LickTheEnvelope]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Nope. It doesn't say the player has to sign with the same club whose list he is on.

?

According to the Summary of Terms (Page 19, Article 13, section 1) of the new NHL-NHLPA agreement is the following amendment: "All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing."

13.23 states that any un-signed player coming back to the NHL mid-season must clear waivers.

This amendment stats that "All players on a club's reserve list and RFA list are exempt from 13.23..."

O'Reilly is not and has never been on the Flame's RFA and Reserve list and the only way to get him there would be to sign him and have him clear waivers first.

He does not auto-pass through waivers being an RFA.

EDIT:

For those talking about the legal wording, the actual reference I put up is from the Summary of terms, not from the signed CBA....

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

In this case that wouldn't matter since O'Reilly wouldn't have been on the Flame's RFA list to start the season, and would not have been on it until after he had signed and cleared waivers (based on the existing rule... as mentioned there are only comments out there on the amendment).

no you are misunderstanding the point...

The Summary does not specify the player has to be on the signing team's RFA list. All it says is the player has to be on "a club's" RFA list.

"a club" implies that if the player is on any team's RFA list he is exempt. In any case its arguable. If the intention is for only the signing club, the language should read "the club's RFA list"

[SuperMatt18]

Let's not forget that Colorado Avalanche president Pierre Lacroix is one of Jay Feaster's good friends, he actually credits Lacroix for his first job in Hershey, his job in Tampa, and looks at him as a mentor.

The second I heard of this offer sheet I though something was up.

Avs get to save face since they were "forced" to give money to O'Reilly that they didn't want to, and Feaster gets to look like he tried to improve his teams center ice position.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

?



13.23 states that any un-signed player coming back to the NHL mid-season must clear waivers.

This amendment stats that "All players on a club's reserve list and RFA list are exempt from 13.23..."

O'Reilly is not and has never been on the Flame's RFA and Reserve list and the only way to get him there would be to sign him and have him clear waivers first.

He does not auto-pass through waivers being an RFA.

Where does it say the player has to be on a specific clubs reserved list? He was on a club's reserved list, it does not say that player cannot be traded. O'Reilly would not have to clear waivers.

[bubbsy]

Feaster/King better have a damn good statement about this (ie. They had already cleared this up with the league before the offersheet).

Anything less, and there needs to be a vote of no confidence on the hockey operations side of this franchise due to the sheer incompetance. Bye-bye GM Feaster.

[calumniate]

If this rule is true, it would be effectively protecting the Avalanche from offer sheets on ROR? Strange