Who was the other team that offer sheeted RoR back in 2013?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

There was never an overwhelming voting advantage for Monahan over Lindholm.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Replying to Oil Stain (window is blank when replying):


What was really to me about that situation was Bill Daly's remarks.


When he was first asked about it, he flatly stated that RoR would indeed have to pass through waivers if he was to play. However, a day or two later, his stance changed, and his statement was something more like "It would have to be reviewed". I believe it was because he wasn't fully versed in that particular clause which was unclear. If a clause is unclear or ambiguous (as the MOU was at the time), then a legitimate case can be made to disregard it.


I didn't like Feaster, and I was really glad he was gone. I think it was a mistake giving up the 1st for RoR then, I feel it was a mistake in hindsight, but I also do think that RoR would indeed have ended up a Flame and would not have had to pass through waivers. That MOU - the way it was written - was indeed ambiguous, and thus the change in chance from Bill Daly.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Monahan was a can't miss and the decision was ultimately made for the Flames at #6.

Without Todd Button we don't get Gaudreau.

Don't forget, if Sutter was still the GM and Feaster wasn't there for the fire sales to make the tank, that drop to the #6 spot would have never happened. Feaster did a lot of good things for the Flames. Yeah, some things weren't so great, but it had to be done to temporarily rectify a huge problem that Sutter created.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Flames were terrible with Iginla and Bouwmeester. When they held out Iginla for his last game, the Flames were 3rd last in the league by points. They had 28, Florida had 24 and Colorado had 26.

Credit to the Flames, they didn't tank. When Iginla was traded it was talks of Mackinnon, then as the season went on it went to talks of the remaining big 3, before finally "settling" with whoever was left of Lindholm and Monahan.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by stang

https://www.nhl.com/news/oreilly-off...lames/c-658088

I don’t know about that.

I do.

[stang]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I do.

Prove it I guess. You just quoted an article from NHL.com that says he would have to pass through waivers.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Replying to Oil Stain (window is blank when replying):


What was really to me about that situation was Bill Daly's remarks.


When he was first asked about it, he flatly stated that RoR would indeed have to pass through waivers if he was to play. However, a day or two later, his stance changed, and his statement was something more like "It would have to be reviewed". I believe it was because he wasn't fully versed in that particular clause which was unclear. If a clause is unclear or ambiguous (as the MOU was at the time), then a legitimate case can be made to disregard it.


I didn't like Feaster, and I was really glad he was gone. I think it was a mistake giving up the 1st for RoR then, I feel it was a mistake in hindsight, but I also do think that RoR would indeed have ended up a Flame and would not have had to pass through waivers. That MOU - the way it was written - was indeed ambiguous, and thus the change in chance from Bill Daly.

As a lawyer, I have to say, that is not good advice. If a clause is truly ambiguous or unclear, you assume the worst. A judge or arbitrator will decide what the intention of the parties (the League and the NHLPA) was on an objective basis. What I would never advise is that an ambiguous clause is disregarded, especially given the dire results if the preferred interpretation is incorrect. The clause has a meaning one way or another - ambiguity doesn't mean the clause has zero effect.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Don't forget, if Sutter was still the GM and Feaster wasn't there for the fire sales to make the tank, that drop to the #6 spot would have never happened. Feaster did a lot of good things for the Flames. Yeah, some things weren't so great, but it had to be done to temporarily rectify a huge problem that Sutter created.

Right place, right time isn't an indicator of someone's proficiency.

Once Sutter was removed anyone could have disassembled the team. Just so happens Feaster was already AGM.

Just to be clear, I'm not anti Feaster (granted its coming off like that at the moment) or on some witch hunt. My points were:

1. Monahan was a lock at #6, especially after Lindholm was chosen at #5
2. Feaster wasn't a scout nor did he discover Gaudreau. Therefore I won't give him credit for finding him or obtaining him. He trusted his head scout, which is what any good GM would do.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by stang

Prove it I guess. You just quoted an article from NHL.com that says he would have to pass through waivers.

Well the biggest indicator IMO was the fact that the NHL quickly changed the rule to be more clear, and aligned it to what the Flames interpretation of the rule was.

My guess is if the ambiguity of the rule was challenged the Flames would have won that challenge, plus it seems clear that by changing the rule to align to the Flames interpretation that the interpretation the Flames had of that rule was the clear spirit of the rule to start with.

Especially since it was just the "Memorandum of Understanding" while the full CBA was being drafted. The verbiage itself said , “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.”

ROR was on "a Club's Reserves List" - no where did that statement or the MOU state that the player had to be on "the signing clubs" Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List.

Still stupid of Feaster not to double check with the league in this case but if challenged there was no way they MOU would have held up under a challenge - especially since the Union would have really fought it in this case since it would remove a lot of negotiation power from the players.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by stang

Prove it I guess. You just quoted an article from NHL.com that says he would have to pass through waivers.

Don't you know who he's not?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Well the biggest indicator IMO was the fact that the NHL quickly changed the rule to be more clear, and aligned it to what the Flames interpretation of the rule was.

My guess is if the ambiguity of the rule was challenged the Flames would have won that challenge, plus it seems clear that by changing the rule to align to the Flames interpretation that the interpretation the Flames had of that rule was the clear spirit of the rule to start with.

First - I don't see that the rule was amended to align with the Flames interpretation: 13.23 says the same thing as it did then.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA...A_2013_CBA.pdf

To the extent it was, an equally likely reason for the change is that they got pushback from a bunch of teams saying they didn't like that outcome.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by getbak

Here's the thread from when the signing was made: https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=125301

That's a fun read. What was really great to me though, was through all the fighting back and forth over major differences in opinion over contract size, rebuild philosophy etc, this dude comes in and nails the biggest issue around acquiring a top level, young NHL centre…

Originally Posted by KOgear

Also this would put us at 50 contracts!!

Cracked me up.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

nm

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

As a lawyer, I have to say, that is not good advice. If a clause is truly ambiguous or unclear, you assume the worst. A judge or arbitrator will decide what the intention of the parties (the League and the NHLPA) was on an objective basis. What I would never advise is that an ambiguous clause is disregarded, especially given the dire results if the preferred interpretation is incorrect. The clause has a meaning one way or another - ambiguity doesn't mean the clause has zero effect.

Not being a lawyer, I would assume that you are 100% correct here. However, the NHL is governed differently than society governs itself, and many of the rules in place contradict existing laws in society. I do believe that the NHL would not allow an ambiguous statement published in a hastily drawn-up MOU to negatively impact one of its' 30 members to the point that the organization's fan-base would revolt and the organization would be denigrated publicly. I just don't see it, and I believe this is why Daly took a giant step back from his initial comments.


Of course in the real world outside of a league with its' own rule of law (so to speak), your advice is the sound one.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Not being a lawyer, I would assume that you are 100% correct here. However, the NHL is governed differently than society governs itself, and many of the rules in place contradict existing laws in society. I do believe that the NHL would not allow an ambiguous statement published in a hastily drawn-up MOU to negatively impact one of its' 30 members to the point that the organization's fan-base would revolt and the organization would be denigrated publicly. I just don't see it, and I believe this is why Daly took a giant step back from his initial comments.


Of course in the real world outside of a league with its' own rule of law (so to speak), your advice is the sound one.

That is all one huge leap of faith, especially given the widespread disagreement with Feaster on this (Gillis said he knew about it, Daley did, at least at first, many writers said it was apparent). Basically what you are saying is that Feaster's thought process was:

a. This is an ambiguous clause.
b. I like our interpretation. The league might view it differently.
c. I'm not going to check - rather, I will take a chance and if I'm wrong I think the league will just change its mind and take my side because of backlash.

BTW, IIRC the actual clause 13.23 was never changed and isn't ambiguous at all. What Feaster hung his hat on was the transition provision in the MOU which exempted certain players from the 13.23 rule:

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.


BUT ROR wasn't on the Flames' Reserve List nor was he on their RFA list. He was on the Avs' RFA list. I really don't see the ambiguity.

One other thing: Feaster and ROR's agent were saying two things at the time. Feaster said they discussed it and the agent said they didn't:

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/c...s-didnt-match/

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That is all one huge leap of faith, especially given the widespread disagreement with Feaster on this (Gillis said he knew about it, Daley did, at least at first, many writers said it was apparent).

Yeah, a lot of people sure became experts the next day. Not one person even mentioned that it could be an issue prior to the offer sheet being signed.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That is all one huge leap of faith, especially given the widespread disagreement with Feaster on this (Gillis said he knew about it, Daley did, at least at first, many writers said it was apparent). Basically what you are saying is that Feaster's thought process was:

a. This is an ambiguous clause.
b. I like our interpretation. The league might view it differently.
c. I'm not going to check - rather, I will take a chance and if I'm wrong I think the league will just change its mind and take my side because of backlash.

BTW, IIRC the actual clause 13.23 was never changed and isn't ambiguous at all. What Feaster hung his hat on was the transition provision in the MOU which exempted certain players from the 13.23 rule:

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.


BUT ROR wasn't on the Flames' Reserve List nor was he on their RFA list. He was on the Avs' RFA list. I really don't see the ambiguity.

One other thing: Feaster and ROR's agent were saying two things at the time. Feaster said they discussed it and the agent said they didn't:

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/c...s-didnt-match/

Thanks

I could have sworn that there was an article afterwards that said the issue was clarified in the CBA that the player would not have to clear waivers as the Flames understanding.

You are right though that it is very clear now:

13.23 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. For the balance of the Playing Season, any such
Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim. This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC or is party to an existing SPC with such NHL Club

[stang]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Thanks

I could have sworn that there was an article afterwards that said the issue was clarified in the CBA that the player would not have to clear waivers as the Flames understanding.

You are right though that it is very clear now:

13.23 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. For the balance of the Playing Season, any such
Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim. This section shall not apply to a Player on the Reserve List or Restricted Free Agent List of an NHL Club with whom the Player is signing an NHL SPC or is party to an existing SPC with such NHL Club

So as the reads to me... IF it happened today he would have to clear waivers?

[Jiri Hrdina]

The inexcusable failure was the Flames not seeking a clear ruling on what would happen BEFORE making the offer sheet.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The inexcusable failure was the Flames not seeking a clear ruling on what would happen BEFORE making the offer sheet.

A hundred times this. This issue has been beaten to death yet no reasonable person could possibly disagree with what you just posted.