Making excuses for Roy doesn't cut it with me. Even if he was humiliated responding in kind makes him no better than management. Rise above it and show some class and maturity.
Roy was volatile and half crazy. But that was part of what made him as good as he was. I'm sure your opinion of him wouldn't phase him. He wouldn't even hear you with his cup rings in his ears.
Making excuses for Roy doesn't cut it with me. Even if he was humiliated responding in kind makes him no better than management. Rise above it and show some class and maturity.
That is part and parcel of Roy's personality and that is also what made him a winner. He was and is an explosive personality with a few idiosyncrasies thrown in as well. Goalies are quite often said to be different anyhow and Roy was that in spades.
You want to change Roy's personality and make him a little docile cat that deals with things calmly behind closed doors...then you are going to change how he plays as well.
And knowing your players" personalities is part and parcel of the job description of the coach and GM. There was no reason to leave Roy in for all those goals. He was being made a spectacle of and there was no reason to do that to one of the best goalies in the league at that time. Roy deserved more respect than that.
At risk of beating a dead horse, though this is the former's GM most indelible mark that needs to be reminded of, of course it would've turned out being in COL:
Tanguay - (2nd year) Monahan - Iginla
+Kanzig
with O'Reilly now discussing a contract with CLB, and Feaster out of a job March 3-7ish 2013, (before his ability to trade Iginla and Bouwmeester) rather than 9 months later.
At risk of beating a dead horse, though this is the former's GM most indelible mark that needs to be reminded of, of course it would've turned out being in COL:
Tanguay - (2nd year) Monahan - Iginla
+Kanzig
with O'Reilly now discussing a contract with CLB, and Feaster out of a job March 3-7ish 2013, (before his ability to trade Iginla and Bouwmeester) rather than 9 months later.
O'Reilly is discussing a contract with Columbus?
Colorado traded his rights?
O'Reilly is discussing a contract with Columbus?
Colorado traded his rights?
Bill Daly said at the time o'Reilly would have had to go through waivers to play in the nhl , Columbus had first waiver priority and would have claimed him.
Colorado would had drafted MacKinnon at 1 and Monahan at 6.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Not a chance the league would have let that happen, IMO. Let's be real.
Lets be real and not ignore what the second most powerful man in the NHL said on the record about the situation in favour of dismissing it because the immensity of the blunder is too embarrassing to fully consider.
There's no evidence the league would have done anything different than what they and Tue rules said they would.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Not a chance the league would have let that happen, IMO. Let's be real.
I don't know about that. Bettman seems to derive some pleasure in enforcing the letter of the law. I remember him smirking when asked about the Flames situation when because of injuries and the stupid IR rules at the end of the season, we couldn't dress a full line-up.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
Yeah, just like the league was going to take a first round pick away from the Devils for the Kovalchuk contract.
The wording was too iffy, and the ink wasn't even dry on the CBA yet.
There is no way the league would have enforced that and had us lose a 1st and 3rd round pick to Colorado for nothing, and have Columbus walk away with O'Reilly for nothing.
It would have looked bad for the whole league.
That's my opinion, but we will never know for sure.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
Yeah, just like the league was going to take a first round pick away from the Devils for the Kovalchuk contract.
The wording was too iffy, and the ink wasn't even dry on the CBA yet.
There is no way the league would have enforced that and had us lose a 1st and 3rd round pick to Colorado for nothing, and have Columbus walk away with O'Reilly for nothing.
It would have looked bad for the whole league.
That's my opinion, but we will never know for sure.
So what you're saying is Bettman would have softened and gave us the 30th pick.
Not a chance the league would have let that happen, IMO. Let's be real.
Why not? The rules were clear and Daly illustrated how the NHL would be interpreting them. It's like saying the NHL wouldn't have let all the Chicago RFAs become UFAs because of Tallon's Qualifying Offer snafu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy
The wording was too iffy, and the ink wasn't even dry on the CBA yet.
That part of the rule hadn't really changed though. In the 2005 CBA all players who played outside the NHL after the start of the season needed waivers to play in the NHL that year, so O'Reilly would've needed waivers at any time over the previous 8 years if he was in the same situation. The 2013 CBA created a single exemption for teams signing their own RFAs, but the Flames brass incorrectly took it to mean any RFA. The final wording of the CBA makes it abundantly clear what the rule actually meant.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Why not? The rules were clear and Daly illustrated how the NHL would be interpreting them. It's like saying the NHL wouldn't have let all the Chicago RFAs become UFAs because of Tallon's Qualifying Offer snafu.
That part of the rule hadn't really changed though. In the 2005 CBA all players who played outside the NHL after the start of the season needed waivers to play in the NHL that year, so O'Reilly would've needed waivers at any time over the previous 8 years if he was in the same situation. The 2013 CBA created a single exemption for teams signing their own RFAs, but the Flames brass incorrectly took it to mean any RFA. The final wording of the CBA makes it abundantly clear what the rule actually meant.
Probably will never know for sure, but I think the Feaster knew exactly what he was doing. After all I'd expect a lawyer, of all people, to recognize an opportunity that unclear language presents.
In the working draft of the CBA the wording of this clause omitted which team could sign a RFA belonging to another team playing overseas during the lockout. Of course the league intended only the team holding the player's rights could do that, any idiot would make that assumption, but the working draft did not confirm it.
So IMO the blunder was in the wisdom of making the attempt, not in how the Flames interpreted the working draft of the CBA.
Probably will never know for sure, but I think the Feaster knew exactly what he was doing. After all I'd expect a lawyer, of all people, to recognize an opportunity that unclear language presents.
In the working draft of the CBA the wording of this clause omitted which team could sign a RFA belonging to another team playing overseas during the lockout. Of course the league intended only the team holding the player's rights could do that, any idiot would make that assumption, but the working draft did not confirm it.
So IMO the blunder was in the wisdom of making the attempt, not in how the Flames interpreted the working draft of the CBA.
I'd expect a lawyer or anyone to pick up the phone and ask for clarification. This goes to the point that he didn't know that O'Reilly played the extra game, making him subject to waivers and was only protecting his butt when he said he disagreed with the NHLs take on the situation.
Probably will never know for sure, but I think the Feaster knew exactly what he was doing. After all I'd expect a lawyer, of all people, to recognize an opportunity that unclear language presents.
In the working draft of the CBA the wording of this clause omitted which team could sign a RFA belonging to another team playing overseas during the lockout. Of course the league intended only the team holding the player's rights could do that, any idiot would make that assumption, but the working draft did not confirm it.
So IMO the blunder was in the wisdom of making the attempt, not in how the Flames interpreted the working draft of the CBA.
Honestly if that's true it reflects even more poorly on Feaster et al that they'd be willing to risk losing valuable assets for nothing just on the chance that they may be able to successfully get O'Reilly via an offer sheet.
If they honestly missed the rule (or more likely the fact that O'Reilly played games after the deadline) that's simply a mistake; a huge one, but a relatively honest oversight. But if their idea was to play chicken with the NHL on this rule when the ultimate reward was still a relatively questionable move (i.e trading #6 and #67 for O'Reilly), then they were completely and utterly out to lunch.
And all that said, I disagree that the wording was all that unclear. The MOU included an illustration where it said that a team would need to trade for an RFA in order to have the signing be exempt from rule 13.23, so I don't really see any kind of brilliant loophole. It could've certainly been worded better (as it eventually was in the CBA), but I really don't see enough there to warrant gambling a high 1st rounder in a great draft.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Telling your team President you won't play another game for Montreal?
Including playoffs, Roy appeared in 665 games for Montreal. He won 358 of those and tied 66 more. He brought them their last two Stanley Cups, winning the Conn Smythe both times, and also collected 4 Jennings trophies, 3 Vezinas and made a ton of All Star teams. In the year he was traded after the incident you posted, he won his 3rd Cup. A few years later he won his 4th Cup and 3rd Conn Smythe.
Even if I'm the GM, I think I take a little bit of yelling at me for all that production. His attitude definitely helped him achieve his greatness. But yeah, let's focus on a time he was pissed off, on a situation that was avoidable.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
Honestly if that's true it reflects even more poorly on Feaster et al that they'd be willing to risk losing valuable assets for nothing just on the chance that they may be able to successfully get O'Reilly via an offer sheet.
If they honestly missed the rule (or more likely the fact that O'Reilly played games after the deadline) that's simply a mistake; a huge one, but a relatively honest oversight. But if their idea was to play chicken with the NHL on this rule when the ultimate reward was still a relatively questionable move (i.e trading #6 and #67 for O'Reilly), then they were completely and utterly out to lunch.
And all that said, I disagree that the wording was all that unclear. The MOU included an illustration where it said that a team would need to trade for an RFA in order to have the signing be exempt from rule 13.23, so I don't really see any kind of brilliant loophole. It could've certainly been worded better (as it eventually was in the CBA), but I really don't see enough there to warrant gambling a high 1st rounder in a great draft.
Like I said, I considered the wisdom of the attempt to be the blunder. Or if not THE blunder, A blunder. So sort of sounds like we agree?
Anyway, I should have not continued the derailment. BF out.
EDIT: Opendoor, looks like I didn't address something in your post that I'm sure you'll come back at me on. I don't remember the bit you mention about rule 13.23 requiring a team to trade for an RFA. Here's the language from the MOU...
Quote:
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. 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.
So I'll admit that I agree with this writer's opinion. You are free to disagree, of course, but since I do agree by extention I am giving Feaster credit for recognizing an opportunity. At the same time I think he was an idiot in pursuing it, or at least pursuing it in the manner that he did.
Last edited by BloodFetish; 07-12-2014 at 06:54 PM.
Reason: Clarification
