If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
That's exactly what I mentioned before. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Mike Holdich is their resident guru on financial and CBA stuff.
Either him or Mike Burke (Director of Hockey Administration) should have found out about this clause, his job description is contract research and analysis, as well as monitoring collective bargaining issues!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J epworth For This Useful Post:
No doubt screwing over the Flames would be a good FU move by Sherman but if he doesn't match, he's still going to end up on a similar position, losing Reilly for a 1st and a 3rd.
There's a big difference though between the Flames roster with O'Reilly and the Flames roster without him while also possibly firing their GM and in a state of complete chaos for the foreseeable future.
Instead of a pick out of the top 10, they could easily be looking at a top 4 pick now. I'd say that's more valuable than O'Reilly. At the very least, it would make me reconsider.
This is hilarious. Removing myself and my interest in the flames, this may be the most epically funny sports related story of the decade if it goes down where we get blackmailed.
If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
It would be the only move available to the organization.
Completely agreed. Honestly the reason I asked for a source earlier (which was idiotic seeing as it was in the OP that I didn't read thoroughly) was that I couldn't believe Daly would make a definitive statement on something that has a pretty large ambiguity in it. Unless there are further documents that clarify the interpretation of that clause I could easily see an arbitrator (I'd imagine that's who would hear any argument) siding with either interpretation.
Feaster was not the only one enquirign about O'Reily. If Feaster made this "mistake". So did all of the agents and teams who considered offer sheeting O'Reily. Based on the interpretation given by Daly, O'Reily is un-offer sheetable.
Either him of Mike Burke (Director of Hockey Administration) should have found out about this clause, his job description is contract research and analysis, as well as monitoring collective bargaining issues!!
Ah, it would be on Mike Burke's shoulders then. Holdich is just the financial/cap guru. Yikes.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pierre "Monster" McGuire For This Useful Post:
This is hilarious. Removing myself and my interest in the flames, this may be the most epically funny sports related story of the decade if it goes down where we get blackmailed.
Nope.
The funniest is still Dany heatley saying he won't waive to go to the oilers, the oilers publicly offering to trade for him, Heatley saying no, oilers brass flying to Heatley's cabin in the middle of July to drop off a dvd and plead their case in person only for Heatley to tell them no at the door.
That's the funniest thing that happened in the NHL in my lifetime I think.
If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
As per McKenzie
BTW, if COL didn't match and CGY got ROR, CGY would've been obligated to put him on waivers. No provision for paying him not to play.
If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
This is like a car wreck. I kinda hope they didn't file the paperwork now just to see this get even worse, even if it screws the team for a few years. Haha this is entertaining.
If Sherman reverses, can't the Flames then just keep the player and pay him not to play the remainder of the year? Pay him 2.5M bonus, and tell him we'll see you next year. Feaster would get the axe and we'd still get the player. Bizarro world.
So we'd give the Avs our first overall and don't get any better this year which in turn makes that pick a high one.
Not good either way. This is the biggest blunder I have ever heard of.
Completely agreed. Honestly the reason I asked for a source earlier (which was idiotic seeing as it was in the OP that I didn't read thoroughly) was that I couldn't believe Daly would make a definitive statement on something that has a pretty large ambiguity in it. Unless there are further documents that clarify the interpretation of that clause I could easily see an arbitrator (I'd imagine that's who would hear any argument) siding with either interpretation.
I'm not sure it's all that ambiguous. Under the old CBA all unsigned players (including RFAs) would've had to pass through waivers if they sign a contract after they'd played games without being loaned after the NHL seasons started.
The new CBA keeps that rule, with the noted exception for signing your own RFAs. I'm not sure how Calgary could argue that the new exemption would apply to them.
A technicality no one understood, no one anticipated, and had no impact will not cost anyone. Or should not. I suppose if enough red oilers bitch it will eventually cost him.
It took some joe blow sports writer from Sportsnet about 12 hours to figure it out. Presumably, Feaster has been working on this deal for sometime. There is no excuse for him not to have done his research. The fact other GMs inquired and presumably did not know is meaningless to the discussion as they did not make it to the stage Feaster did and therefore had no reason to continue researching.
O'Reilly's agent should have known, but at the same time, it's not as big of a deal for him. He and his client would be paid regardless. If Feaster pulled this off, he would have cost his employer $2.5 million in hard cash and a valuable asset. The fact he got lucky doesn't change the fact he effed up big time.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Bottom line, Avs want ROR in their line up ASAP. They aren't fooling around with this waiver business. The deal is done but it doesn't make Jay look any better. IMO this might cost him his job....
The funniest is still Dany heatley saying he won't waive to go to the oilers, the oilers publicly offering to trade for him, Heatley saying no, oilers brass flying to Heatley's cabin in the middle of July to drop off a dvd and plead their case in person only for Heatley to tell them no at the door.
That's the funniest thing that happened in the NHL in my lifetime I think.
This cabin?
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
