07-20-2018, 05:11 PM
|
#101
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Jays best moves as Flames GM...
1) Trying to give away Monahan but luckily his incompetence allows us to draft Monahan.
2) Allows his head scout to do what he is paid to do and use a 4th round pick to select a player he really likes.
Guy is a genius.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-20-2018, 05:18 PM
|
#102
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Jays best moves as Flames GM...
1) Trying to give away Monahan but luckily his incompetence allows us to draft Monahan.
2) Allows his head scout to do what he is paid to do and use a 4th round pick to select a player he really likes.
Guy is a genius.
|
Those people who give any credit at all to Feaster consider that he did other things much better than those two. You are arguing with a figment of your imagination.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 05:35 PM
|
#103
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Those people who give any credit at all to Feaster consider that he did other things much better than those two. You are arguing with a figment of your imagination.
|
3) Taking massive swing at Brad Richards and missing allowing him to leave the next GM cap flexibility.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 06:09 PM
|
#104
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Jays best moves as Flames GM...
1) Trying to give away Monahan but luckily his incompetence allows us to draft Monahan.
2) Allows his head scout to do what he is paid to do and use a 4th round pick to select a player he really likes.
Guy is a genius.
|
Allowing smart people to do smart things is the essence of good management. He should absolutely get credit with empowering the scouts to do what they think is correct instead of fitting a specific archetype.
|
|
|
07-20-2018, 11:48 PM
|
#105
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
3) Taking massive swing at Brad Richards and missing allowing him to leave the next GM cap flexibility.
|
So you're doubling down on beating that strawman. Good to know.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 12:41 AM
|
#106
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Jays best moves as Flames GM...
1) Trying to give away Monahan but luckily his incompetence allows us to draft Monahan.
2) Allows his head scout to do what he is paid to do and use a 4th round pick to select a player he really likes.
Guy is a genius.
|
Unlike Peter Chiarelli who refused Scott Fitzgerald's(scout) advice to select Gaudreauin the 3rd round because he would be gone before they picked again(5th round). story goes Chiarelli said: "Stop,that little guy will be on the board in the 7th round"
I totally wouldn't be shocked if this is 100% true
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 10:54 AM
|
#107
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Any old NHL club can sign an eligible RFA to an offer sheet, at which point he is no longer on the protected list of his former club. That is the only circumstance in which this problem arises, and the player's former club is already entitled to compensation. You are arguing, once again, that a team should be liable to pay compensation and yet not receive the player that they signed. I doubt whether any judge is going to agree with such an interpretation absent strong confirmatory language in the terms of the agreement.
|
Once the player is signed, he is not an RFA, nor is he on a reserve list. So the exemption doesn't apply. Judges make decisions on contractual interpretation based on the internal language of the contract. You are typically not allowed to bring in outside considerations like the negative effect. Especially when it is essentially saying "please protect me from the mistake I made". I can't tell you how many times a judge has told someone in a case I have been on that they are sorry that the contract leads to a result that wasn't intended. But they make the ruling anyway.
In fact, there are examples of teams losing the player they signed.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-21-2018, 11:15 AM
|
#108
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary
|
What did Feaster leave us with, a lot of cap room, two star players on the first line, including a perennial all-star, and a team free of ageing, bad contract players.
Having said that, it's been 4 1/2 years since the guy's been here, time to move on already.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-21-2018, 12:17 PM
|
#109
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Once the player is signed, he is not an RFA, nor is he on a reserve list. So the exemption doesn't apply. Judges make decisions on contractual interpretation based on the internal language of the contract. You are typically not allowed to bring in outside considerations like the negative effect. Especially when it is essentially saying "please protect me from the mistake I made". I can't tell you how many times a judge has told someone in a case I have been on that they are sorry that the contract leads to a result that wasn't intended. But they make the ruling anyway.
In fact, there are examples of teams losing the player they signed.
|
There are no examples of teams losing the player they signed under this particular MOU of which I am aware.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 04:48 PM
|
#110
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
There are no examples of teams losing the player they signed under this particular MOU of which I am aware.
|
No, but they've lost players they signed, under the previous CBA, notwithstanding they weren't trying to bury a player in Europe, the ostensible purpose of the provision. It didn't matter that they weren't offending the "spirit" of the provision, is my point.
Anyway, moot, and the Flames got lucky at the end of the day.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 05:01 PM
|
#111
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
The only player I can remember being claimed off waivers after a mid-season signing was Nabokov when he signed with Detroit but was claimed by the Islanders. That was a UFA signing though, so the Wings didn't actually lose anything other than the player.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 05:08 PM
|
#112
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
The only player I can remember being claimed off waivers after a mid-season signing was Nabokov when he signed with Detroit but was claimed by the Islanders. That was a UFA signing though, so the Wings didn't actually lose anything other than the player.
|
There were a couple others, but Nabokov was the most famous. Sure they didn't lose anything, except pride and their time and effort. But the point is that they weren't doing what the rule is supposedly aimed at.
The league has a few examples of strictly following their interpretation even if there's no actual harm done.
Anyway, we should be done with this. I'm sorry I have gone on so long on it myself.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 06:02 PM
|
#113
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
In fact, there are examples of teams losing the player they signed.
|
To the very best of my knowledge, there is no example of a team losing the player they signed AND being forced to pay compensation for signing him.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 08:20 PM
|
#114
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
No, but they've lost players they signed, under the previous CBA, notwithstanding they weren't trying to bury a player in Europe, the ostensible purpose of the provision. It didn't matter that they weren't offending the "spirit" of the provision, is my point.
Anyway, moot, and the Flames got lucky at the end of the day.
|
Previous CBA, so not this one, and thus irrelevant.
Flames didn’t get lucky. Via the MOU, as written, the flames would not have lost the player, never mind both the player and picks.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-21-2018, 08:48 PM
|
#115
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
Previous CBA, so not this one, and thus irrelevant.
Flames didn’t get lucky. Via the MOU, as written, the flames would not have lost the player, never mind both the player and picks.
|
I think there’s a better than 50/50 chance they would have. Plus they would have had to go through a half year of litigation to get there. Because they didn’t ask beforehand.
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 09:53 PM
|
#116
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
I think there’s a better than 50/50 chance they would have. Plus they would have had to go through a half year of litigation to get there. Because they didn’t ask beforehand.
|
I think there’s a zero percent chance they would have lost him.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-21-2018, 10:06 PM
|
#117
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
I think there’s a zero percent chance they would have lost him.
|
OK, you go with that. Despite the league saying so. Despite most writers saying so. Despite Feaster even putting out a cogent defence (all he said was "we have a different interpretation "). I've never told a client there was zero or 100% chance of anything. But then what do I know?
|
|
|
07-21-2018, 10:32 PM
|
#118
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
|
It's funny that so much has been written about Feaster's interpretation vs the league's interpretation because I think the most-likely thing is exactly what Jacks suggests here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Personally I don't think the Flames knew that O'Reilly had played in the KHL when they made the offer sheet. His agent said he didnt' know, O'Reilly was listed on the KHL roster sheet with a different spelling (can't find evidece now but remember seeing a picture of the roster list at the time). If the Avalance had known they would have made sure all teams were aware since it would have destroyed O'Reilly's bargaining power. I think they tried to cover their asses after the fact but didn't know at the time. Several teams inquired and there was more than one offer sheet so it makes you wonder.That would also explain why they didn't get clarification from the league.
|
The Avs matched so fast that it instantly became an academic discussion that means nothing. Everything since then has just been people pretending they weren't completely incompetent and/or were smarter than everyone else.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
|
|
07-22-2018, 08:39 AM
|
#119
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
It's funny that so much has been written about Feaster's interpretation vs the league's interpretation because I think the most-likely thing is exactly what Jacks suggests here...
The Avs matched so fast that it instantly became an academic discussion that means nothing. Everything since then has just been people pretending they weren't completely incompetent and/or were smarter than everyone else.
|
I tend to think that's right. Like I said before, all the talk afterward sounded like backfilling to me.
|
|
|
07-22-2018, 10:38 AM
|
#120
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
I've never told a client there was zero or 100% chance of anything. But then what do I know?
|
But you're telling us that its 100% that they would have surrendered the picks and lost the player too. OK, then.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 AM.
|
|