Should Feaster get fired over the O'Reilly offersheet fiasco

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Nope.

His contract status at the time of the offersheet was Restricted Free Agent.

He was signed as a free agent and is thus not protected by waiver exemption, the same as Nabokov.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 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.

If true this would be the definition of doing something stupid, as in 'we could get a player at a high salary and the cost of a 1st and a 2nd pick, not exactly a bargin, or we could lose both picks and 2.5 million and not get anything.

The only way it makes sense to try an offer sheet this expensive to the kid is if you think there is no risk, as the offer itself isn't a bargin.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nope.

His contract status at the time of the offersheet was Restricted Free Agency.

He was signed as a free agent and is thus not protected by waiver exemption, the same as Nabokov.

As I'm sure you know, Nabokov was signed under the old rules, which did not contain the exemption, and had lots of language that is absent from the MOU on this point.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Except at no point was he ever on Calgary's reserve list BECAUSE he signed the offer sheet which in turn is the same as the SPC in the end as it outlines his terms as an employee of the Flames...which he could not be if he was not under contract....no?

Also, and correct me if I am missing something, if we take your line of thinking further, would it not then be true that every single player in Europe right now can be signed without fear of going thru waivers?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by trublmaker

The offer sheet is a binding contract he signed

It is a binding contract, but it is not the contract (his SPC) - it is a binding precurser to it, subject to a condition.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Except at no point was he ever on Calgary's reserve list BECAUSE he signed the offer sheet which in turn is the same as the SPC in the end as it outlines his terms as an employee of the Flames...which he could not be if he was not under contract....no?

Again, my view is that it doesn't matter because the exemption follows the player--but no, by Flash Walken's logic he would first be exempt as a member of Colorado's RFA list, and then he would be exempt as a member of Calgary's reserve list.

Also, and correct me if I am missing something, if we take your line of thinking further, would it not then be true that every single player in Europe right now can be signed without fear of going thru waivers?

No, only players who get the exemption in the first place: that is, players that are currently on a club's RFA or reserve list. True "free agents" playing overseas would not be able to be signed without being passed through waivers according to Rule 13.23.

I'm no expert in CBA matters--but this, to me, is how the text of the rule reads.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Except at no point was he ever on Calgary's reserve list BECAUSE he signed the offer sheet which in turn is the same as the SPC in the end as it outlines his terms as an employee of the Flames...which he could not be if he was not under contract....no?

Also, and correct me if I am missing something, if we take your line of thinking further, would it not then be true that every single player in Europe right now can be signed without fear of going thru waivers?

IMO, any player that is on a reserve list would be subject to the exemption.

All Players on a Club’s Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List will be exempt from the application of CBA 13.23 Waivers in the case of a mid-season signing

That part seems pretty clear

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If true this would be the definition of doing something stupid, as in 'we could get a player at a high salary and the cost of a 1st and a 2nd pick, not exactly a bargin, or we could lose both picks and 2.5 million and not get anything.

The only way it makes sense to try an offer sheet this expensive to the kid is if you think there is no risk, as the offer itself isn't a bargin.

You might not like the terms of the contract but the Flames head office must have liked it which trumps everyone else's opinion of the terms. Feaster is a hockey lawyer he probably knows the new CBA inside out by now which is why he made the offer he did, again, he's not an idiot.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Again, my view is that it doesn't matter because the exemption follows the player--but no, by Flash Walken's logic he would first be exempt as a member of Colorado's RFA list, and then he would be exempt as a member of Calgary's reserve list.

No, he would be on Colorado's Reserve List, and if his rights were traded to Calgary, would be on their reserve list.

The difference here is that he was signed as a free agent by the Calgary Flames. There may be some restrictions on the process, but this wasn't a trade or waiver claim and needs to be treated the same way. This was a free agent signing and is thus subject to the spirit of the rule (and in my opinion, the way it is written as muddy as it may be), which is to prevent teams from signing players playing in european leagues after regular season play has begun, exactly the case with O'Reilly.

]No, only players who get the exemption in the first place: that is, players that are currently on a club's RFA or reserve list. True "free agents" playing overseas would not be able to be signed without being passed through waivers according to Rule 13.23.

I'm no expert in CBA matters--but this, to me, is how the text of the rule reads.

O'Reilly in this instance is a 'true free agent' in that he is free to negotiate with any other team for any number of unique contracts. The Flames signed him as a free agent.

The only difference here is the league has a specific way of dealing with this particular type of free agent in terms of compensation. That's it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, any player that is on a reserve list would be subject to the exemption.

OK...but to the specific team that holds that player on their reserve...thats the crux to me. I dont think for a second that once you offer sheet a player that he magically moves to your reserve list, but remains on the teams list he was on until they decide what they are doing.

I just dont see why there would be any exemptions or clarifications required if the case was that ANY player traded or offer sheeted was still exempt with his new club....just comepletely unnecessary verbage that was there to begin with for a reason....and that reason IMO is that once the player is dealt/offer sheeted he is no longer waiver exempt.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, he would be on Colorado's Reserve List, and if his rights were traded to Calgary, would be on their reserve list.

The difference here is that he was signed as a free agent by the Calgary Flames. There may be some restrictions on the process, but this wasn't a trade or waiver claim and needs to be treated the same way. This was a free agent signing and is thus subject to the spirit of the rule (and in my opinion, the way it is written as muddy as it may be), which is to prevent teams from signing players playing in european leagues after regular season play has begun, exactly the case with O'Reilly.




O'Reilly in this instance is a 'true free agent' in that he is free to negotiate with any other team for any number of unique contracts. The Flames signed him as a free agent.

The only difference here is the league has a specific way of dealing with this particular type of free agent in terms of compensation. That's it.

I disagree - he was on Colorado's Reserve List and would thus be subject to the provision referring to such players.

Whether that status remains once the Flames sign him to the offer sheet is the key issue, IMO (and obviously I believe it would)

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

Why? If the argument is that being on any team's RFA and Reserve List is enough to exempt a player from waivers when he signs a mid-season contract then why would they have to give an illustration of how it follows him? The exemption wouldn't need to follow players anywhere because just the act of being on an NHL team's Reserve List would exempt them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

OK...but to the specific team that holds that player on their reserve...thats the crux to me. I dont think for a second that once you offer sheet a player that he magically moves to your reserve list, but remains on the teams list he was on until they decide what they are doing.

I just dont see why there would be any exemptions or clarifications required if the case was that ANY player traded or offer sheeted was still exempt with his new club....just comepletely unnecessary verbage that was there to begin with for a reason....and that reason IMO is that once the player is dealt/offer sheeted he is no longer waiver exempt.

Show the verbage that supports this.

I have demonstrated several times the text that I believe shows that the exemption stays with the player. Please demonstrate where you think that the exemption doesn't transfer.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I actually wish Colorado let him walk to see how this would have played out. Would have been interesting.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why? If the argument is that being on any team's RFA and Reserve List is enough to exempt a player from waivers when he signs a mid-season contract then why would they have to give an illustration of how it follows him? The exemption wouldn't need to follow players anywhere because just the act of being on an NHL team's Reserve List would exempt them.

It is an example.

The exemption remains with the player. For clarity, if the player is traded, they are still exempt.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, he would be on Colorado's Reserve List, and if his rights were traded to Calgary, would be on their reserve list.

The difference here is that he was signed as a free agent by the Calgary Flames. There may be some restrictions on the process, but this wasn't a trade or waiver claim and needs to be treated the same way. This was a free agent signing and is thus subject to the spirit of the rule (and in my opinion, the way it is written as muddy as it may be), which is to prevent teams from signing players playing in european leagues after regular season play has begun, exactly the case with O'Reilly.




O'Reilly in this instance is a 'true free agent' in that he is free to negotiate with any other team for any number of unique contracts. The Flames signed him as a free agent.

The only difference here is the league has a specific way of dealing with this particular type of free agent in terms of compensation. That's it.

That's not just the spirit of the rule, that's its substance, and its effect. However, what's new in this CBA is an exemption to that rule which applies to players on a Club's RFA or Reserve List. That exemption clearly follows the player--and as valo pointed out a bunch of pages back, the distinction between "a Club" and "the Club" in the context of a defined term in the contract is massive.

You've articulated "the spirit" of the rule quite well--but "the spirit" of the exemption, particularly in the context of a lockout in which many players were playing abroad when the CBA was concluded, is to make sure that the rules don't prevent current NHL players from returning to the NHL.

Think of it this way: if your interpretation is correct, then being an RFA is of absolutely no value to O'Reilly--because teams literally cannot sign him. In that context, Colorado can offer him league minimum and he has no choice but to either sign it or stay in the KHL--he has no leverage at all.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I disagree - he was on Colorado's Reserve List and would thus be subject to the provision referring to such players.

Whether that status remains once the Flames sign him to the offer sheet is the key issue, IMO (and obviously I believe it would)

If the contract is predicated on him changing teams, he's at no point on Calgary's reserve list until after the transaction and signing, removing his eligibility for waiver exemption.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I actually wish Colorado let him walk to see how this would have played out. Would have been interesting.

Imagine if Colorado was still considering it.

Flame fans, Av fans and Columbus fans would be going insane debating the issue.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the league to clarify would be extremely intense.

And fans, bloggers, reporters, and twitterers would pretty much be exploding

[photon]

Originally Posted by mister__big

He called the league to get their verification, which is something Feaster didn't bother to do (or didn't want to do).

Is this known for sure? I don't recall reading anything where this has been said, but I haven't read the whole thread.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is an example.

The exemption remains with the player. For clarity, if the player is traded, they are still exempt.

But if all players on any team's Reserve List are exempt then why would they need to illustrate how it transfers? It wouldn't need to transfer because 100% of the players on any team's Reserve List would be exempt.