[News] Hossa won't play 2017/18 due to side effects of skin condition meds

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It hadn't been ratified but the MOU was in place and binding. And the rules were clear (and the same as in the previous CBA). The league wouldn't have had discretion to let it slide or impose some lesser penalty - it wasn't a grey area. The consequences were automatic - O'Reilly would have to clear waivers.

Feaster said he had a different interpretation but never said what it was or how he came to it, and the NHL had already made its position clear. It's also apparent that Feaster never checked with the league about any interpretation.

The rules were certainly not clear and Feaster clearly saw that. I guarantee either the NHL would have just voided the whole deal or O'Reilly would have been a Flame. You could totally see how it could be interpreted the way the Flames saw it and if the NHL had done what you think they would have it would have went to court where a judge would have determined that the way it was written could definitely be interpreted in the Flames favour and the NHL would have lost.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The rules were certainly not clear and Feaster clearly saw that. I guarantee either the NHL would have just voided the whole deal or O'Reilly would have been a Flame. You could totally see how it could be interpreted the way the Flames saw it and if the NHL had done what you think they would have it would have went to court where a judge would have determined that the way it was written could definitely be interpreted in the Flames favour and the NHL would have lost.

The NHL already told them they were offside. And that waivers would have been required.

I don’t see how you can interpret article 13 or the transition rules any differently. At the very least Feaster should have cleared his offer sheet with the league. Good GMs don’t roll the dice even if they think that their interpretation on an iffy provision is correct. I don’t actually think Feaster looked at it - it was after the fact rationalizing.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The NHL already told them they were offside. And that waivers would have been required.

After the offer sheet was signed, not ‘already’.

[Roof-Daddy]

People who think the Flames would have come out of the ROR fiasco without ROR and without their 1st round pick (which ended up being Monahan) are out of their minds. The league wouldn't not have done that to one of their teams based on some poorly worded MOU. They won't even properly enforce their goddamn cap recapture penalty letting teams escape that with LTIR bullcrap and when they actually came down hard on Jersey for the Kovalchuk contract, they turned around and gave their pick back to them anyways the bunch of wimps.

It wouldn't have happened, no way.

But yeah, we've been down this road way too many times, as Enoch said.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Feaster has a law degree... He knew the wording inside out and knew he had a loophole. Him saying “I have a different interpretation” was basically him saying “they can’t win this and we are prepared to fight them on it”.

They didn’t miss anything here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

After the offer sheet was signed, not ‘already’.

But before Feaster said it was a grey area. Dissentowner was suggesting the NHL would not penalize them. I'm saying they were already told by the NHL that it would have happened when Feaster was talking about "interpretations".

Feaster has a law degree that he doesn't use. He hadn't practiced for 30 years and when he did he was just a young associate at a law firm. I'd put a lot more faith in Edwards saying it frankly, because he was a pretty darn good lawyer before he decided to make money for himself and not his clients. And this was reportedly the mistake that caused Edwards to finally fire Feaster. So it looks like he thought Feaster's legal work wasn't correct.

Besides, the MOU isn't poorly worded on this topic. People say that but never say what exactly is unclear. 13.23 of the CBA always said that if a player went to another league they had to clear waivers to come back to the NHL. The MOU only amended that to say teams could re-sign their own RFAs without risking waivers. It said nothing about other teams.

But even if Feaster actually held that view beforehand (which I don't believe - it sounds like ex post facto rationalizing) what competent GM decides to sign a player knowing that it would cause a legal fight with the league? You check it out with the league.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Feaster has a law degree... He knew the wording inside out and knew he had a loophole. Him saying “I have a different interpretation” was basically him saying “they can’t win this and we are prepared to fight them on it”.

They didn’t miss anything here.

Bettman has a law degree. And was general counsel to the NBA. Bill Daley has a law degree and is the chief legal counsel to the NHL.

There's really nothing to indicate that Feaster (a) knew the MOU inside and out; (b) thought about it at all; or (c) took any proactive measures. Law degrees don't make an opinion right, nor do they prove that a person is that smart (look at me).

Can you find anywhere where Feaster explains why he thinks the NHL was wrong? 13.23 says: "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 only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers." This was altered to allow teams to re-sign players on their own RFA list mid season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

...when they actually came down hard on Jersey for the Kovalchuk contract, they turned around and gave their pick back to them anyways the bunch of wimps...

A point of clarification here: NJ did not get their pick back. They received a pick in the first round that was at least 17-places back from their initial 2014 draft slot.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A point of clarification here: NJ did not get their pick back. They received a pick in the first round that was at least 17-places back from their initial 2014 draft slot.

True. They had the 11th pick that year, lost it but the NHL gave them the 31st pick.

Still pathetic of the NHL to reduce the penalty they imposed for no good reason that I can think of.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

...Besides, the MOU isn't poorly worded on this topic. People say that but never say what exactly is unclear. 13.23 of the CBA always said that if a player went to another league they had to clear waivers to come back to the NHL. The MOU only amended that to say teams could re-sign their own RFAs without risking waivers. It said nothing about other teams...

The MOU said nothing specific about those RFAs being re-signed by their own teams. The actual wording is as follows:

"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."

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

True. They had the 11th pick that year, lost it but the NHL gave them the 31st pick.

Still pathetic of the NHL to reduce the penalty they imposed for no good reason that I can think of.

Sure... but they could have elected to have given up their 1st round pick in any of the prior years between then and the signing... including the year that they reached the finals and picked 29th. I thought at the time that it was strange that Lou didn't forfeit that pick, in retrospect Lou must have known that the League was gonna let them off easy.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The MOU said nothing specific about those RFAs being re-signed by their own teams. The actual wording is as follows:

"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."

It's pretty obvious on a plain reading that "a Club's" means that it applies to the club that has the rights. I still say that, just like an advance tax ruling from CRA, you go to the league and say "does this mean that we can sign another team's RFA"? Because the league says it didn't (and would have said it to Feaster if he'd asked, which he didn't). And the league decides, and you then go to arbitration (with Bettman being the arbitrator). Then you have to appeal that. All the while you are stuck with the league decision until it's overturned and it's a significant risk that you lose. Just bad management.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's pretty obvious on a plain reading that "a Club's" means that it applies to the club that has the rights...

I am not arguing the merits of the decision to sign O'Reilly, because I think overall it was not a good idea. However, the language of the MOU is indisputably ambiguous. It is not at all "obvious" that the application of "a Club's" applies exclusively to the rights-holding team anymore than "a mid-season signing" precludes RFA offer sheets. BOTH appear to be legitimate interpretations of the clause, which was precisely the sticking-point after the fact.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's pretty obvious on a plain reading that "a Club's" means that it applies to the club that has the rights. I still say that, just like an advance tax ruling from CRA, you go to the league and say "does this mean that we can sign another team's RFA"? Because the league says it didn't (and would have said it to Feaster if he'd asked, which he didn't). And the league decides, and you then go to arbitration (with Bettman being the arbitrator). Then you have to appeal that. All the while you are stuck with the league decision until it's overturned and it's a significant risk that you lose. Just bad management.

Why are you trying to hash this out again? No one is going to change their mind from the last 35 rounds through this. It is ambiguous.

Let it go.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why are you trying to hash this out again? No one is going to change their mind from the last 35 rounds through this. It is ambiguous.

Let it go.

I think 37 is the magic number. So only a couple more debates until we’ve got this figured.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why are you trying to hash this out again? No one is going to change their mind from the last 35 rounds through this. It is ambiguous.

Let it go.

Oh, all right. In my defence, I wasn't here at the time of that debate.

[nik-]

I also like to invent deus ex machina scenarios where the league steps in to save our asses from our own management's stupidity.

The real one was Greg Sherman

[getbak]

Originally Posted by nik-

I also like to invent deus ex machina scenarios where the league steps in to save our asses from our own management's stupidity.

The real one was Greg Sherman

My conspiracy theory is that Sherman asked Feaster to give O'Reilly the offer sheet, which is why he matched it almost immediately. Negotiations between O'Reilly and the Avs had become contentious and they weren't getting any traction at that point. Sherman and Feaster had likely crossed paths when Feaster was in Hershey and Sherman worked for the Avs. The Flames were on the road that night in Denver. Sherman asked Feaster to make the deal that Colorado wanted to make for a promised return favour somewhere down the road. Unfortunately, that favour ended up being the Tanguay trade.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

My conspiracy theory is that Sherman asked Feaster to give O'Reilly the offer sheet, which is why he matched it almost immediately. Negotiations between O'Reilly and the Avs had become contentious and they weren't getting any traction at that point. Sherman and Feaster had likely crossed paths when Feaster was in Hershey and Sherman worked for the Avs. The Flames were on the road that night in Denver. Sherman asked Feaster to make the deal that Colorado wanted to make for a promised return favour somewhere down the road. Unfortunately, that favour ended up being the Tanguay trade.

Only problem with the theory was that his previous offer was about $2M less, right? I think there were some other teams ready to do a deal as well.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's pretty obvious on a plain reading that "a Club's" means that it applies to the club that has the rights.

Not obvious at all. It is the players that are exempt from the waiver rule according to the clause as written, not the team that owns their rights. If the player is exempt, then it should be immaterial which club signs him.

The language needed clarification, and fortunately, that was done.