History of NHL Offer Sheets

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He would have had to clear. That was all backtracking. And Feaster didn’t even check.

He wouldn't. Feaster used his law background to see how poorly worded that was. No chance in hell he was going on waivers.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The league commented afterwards and said, yeah, waivers would have been required. Feaster admitted this when he said:

"Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents, and the applicability of Article 13.23 under the new Collective Bargaining Agreement to such RFA's was, and continues to be, different than the NHL's current interpretation as articulated to us this morning. Moreover, throughout our discussions, the player's representative [Patrick Morris] shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.”

Again, Morris denied the last statement as well.

That is fine but in a legal battle Feaster would have won. The wording absolutely left the interpretation reasonable that Feaster took. At worst a judge would have just voided the contract and everything would go back to before he signed the offer sheet. There is no chance we would have lost him on waivers, none.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Ped

My favourite remains the Gratton offersheet.


Philly frontloaded it with a 9 million dollar signing bonus because Tampa Bay had cash problems. Phil Esposito knew he probably couldn't match, tried to claim the offer sheet was invalid because they couldn't read the fax, and traded Gratton's rights to Chicago for Carney, Moreau, and Dubinsky without telling Chicago that Gratton had signed the offer sheet.


The league upheld the offer sheet, invalidated the trade, and Tampa got 4 1st round picks, which they then traded back to Philly for Renberg and Dykhuis


Gratton had a decent season in Philly but got off to a slow start the next season and was promptly traded back to Tampa Bay... for Renberg.


https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill...egins/45/45933

That isn't the crazy part of that trade. Gratton gets traded back to the Lightning with Mike Sillinger for Renberg and a disappointing first round pick... Damion Langkow. Langkow then breaks out and gets traded to the Coyotes for a first round pick in 2003, which they use to select Jeff Carter. Carter gets traded to the Blue Jackets for Voracek,
a first and a third... The first turns out to be Couturier and the third turns into Nick Cousins.

That trade has in my opinion been the best trade for any team in the past couple of decades and is still paying dividends in the future. They turned a good player in Gratton into multiple great players.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

He wouldn't. Feaster used his law background to see how poorly worded that was. No chance in hell he was going on waivers.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is fine but in a legal battle Feaster would have won. The wording absolutely left the interpretation reasonable that Feaster took. At worst a judge would have just voided the contract and everything would go back to before he signed the offer sheet. There is no chance we would have lost him on waivers, none.

Feaster’s “law background” is 2 years right after law school doing leases for various venues owned by Hershey Entertainment and Resorts from 1988-90. After that he never practiced at all.

And I’ve shown and so have other actual practicing lawyers, that not only is there a huge doubt that Feaster had it wrong. BTW, it doesn’t matter in civil law whether Feaster’s (ex post facto) interpretation was “reasonable”. That’s not the standard.

You know who is an actual licenced lawyer? Bill Daly.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Feaster’s “law background” is 2 years right after law school doing leases for various venues owned by Hershey Entertainment and Resorts from 1988-90. After that he never practiced at all.

And I’ve shown and so have other actual practicing lawyers, that not only is there a huge doubt that Feaster had it wrong. BTW, it doesn’t matter in civil law whether Feaster’s (ex post facto) interpretation was “reasonable”. That’s not the standard.

You know who is an actual licenced lawyer? Bill Daly.

If you truly think O Reilly actually would have hit waivers I don't know what to say except it is laughable. More than likely the contract would have been voided, it would have been a bad look for the NHL as well if a team lost its 1st for a badly worded clause in the CBA. It never would have come to that. Again, zero chance. What do you mean that is not the standard? If the law has no clear interpretation there is no standard.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If you truly think O Reilly actually would have hit waivers I don't know what to say except it is laughable. More than likely the contract would have been voided, it would have been a bad look for the NHL as well if a team lost its 1st for a badly worded clause in the CBA. It never would have come to that. Again, zero chance. What do you mean that is not the standard? If the law has no clear interpretation there is no standard.

A. There is a standard but it isn’t “well, your interpretation is reasonable”. In a contractual dispute you convince the judge that your interpretation is correct. Usually both sides have a reasonable argument.

B. Voiding the contract wasn’t an option. That would have been a totally made up result. Either waivers applied or they didn’t. “Bad look” wouldn’t have mattered. It wouldn’t be the first time an unintended result occurred from poor wording of a contract.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. There is a standard but it isn’t “well, your interpretation is reasonable”. In a contractual dispute you convince the judge that your interpretation is correct. Usually both sides have a reasonable argument.

B. Voiding the contract wasn’t an option. That would have been a totally made up result. Either waivers applied or they didn’t. “Bad look” wouldn’t have mattered. It wouldn’t be the first time an unintended result occurred from poor wording of a contract.

With all due respect, Gio, I disagree with you on this.

The NHL can do whatever it wants, frankly, and in this instance, I believe at worst they would have voided the contract if Colorado did not match.

Again, it is all moot and speculation in any event, and, again, with all due respect, you have not "shown" anything. You have argued your position.

Feaster's interpretation was correct by the strict, plain reading, which, as you are of course aware, is a standard used.

The fact they fixed it in the actual CBA supports this.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

With all due respect, Gio, I disagree with you on this.

The NHL can do whatever it wants, frankly, and in this instance, I believe at worst they would have voided the contract if Colorado did not match.

Again, it is all moot and speculation in any event, and, again, with all due respect, you have not "shown" anything. You have argued your position.

Feaster's interpretation was correct by the strict, plain reading, which, as you are of course aware, is a standard used.

The fact they fixed it in the actual CBA supports this.

The plain ordinary meaning doesn’t support Feaster. It’s ambiguous at best. And a later fix actually means the opposite, and in any event isn’t typically used in contractual interpretation, since it’s parol evidence. The adjoining clause specifying trades works against him, badly.

Again, he would have been working against the league, who drafted the clause.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The plain ordinary meaning doesn’t support Feaster. It’s ambiguous at best. And a later fix actually means the opposite, and in any event isn’t typically used in contractual interpretation, since it’s parol evidence. The adjoining clause specifying trades works against him, badly.

Again, he would have been working against the league, who drafted the clause.

I don't agree "a team" is ambiguous.

The bolding, of course, brings up contra proferentem.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I don't agree "a team" is ambiguous.

The bolding, of course, brings up contra proferentem.

A team in that sentence is certainly ambiguous. If a clause refers to “a team” treating a player a certain way, it is referring to the team that has his rights. It’s that way all through the CBA.

Contra prof only applies in rare circumstances - usually form agreements - and never to a CBA which was drafted by two parties (and Feaster wasn’t one of them).

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The plain ordinary meaning doesn’t support Feaster. It’s ambiguous at best. And a later fix actually means the opposite, and in any event isn’t typically used in contractual interpretation, since it’s parol evidence. The adjoining clause specifying trades works against him, badly.

Again, he would have been working against the league, who drafted the clause.

I thought external documents that resolve ambiguity are an exception to the parol evidence rule in contracts.

And although the league drafted the agreement, I don't know if they would necessarily be set on fighting Feaster's protest.

Finally, wouldn't Feaster just keep ROR in Europe so that he avoids waivers? ROR would have been kept in limbo until it was sorted out. I could see the NHLPA becoming annoyed with the requirement.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I thought external documents that resolve ambiguity are an exception to the parol evidence rule in contracts.

And although the league drafted the agreement, I don't know if they would necessarily be set on fighting Feaster's protest.

Finally, wouldn't Feaster just keep ROR in Europe so that he avoids waivers? ROR would have been kept in limbo until it was sorted out. I could see the NHLPA becoming annoyed with the requirement.

It is an exception but doesn’t include after the fact documents. It’s stuff like drafting notes and previous drafts.

All I can tell you about the league is what they said - waivers would have been required. As for what Feaster would have done, IIRC ROR had already terminated his contract in Europe.

I really dont think Feaster even knew about this issue until it was pointed out.

ETA: the non use of the change in the later CBA actually helps Feaster’s case because the change would arguably indicate they discovered the problem because of that case and had to close it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

NM already addressed.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

ter just keep ROR in Europe so that he avoids waivers? ROR would have been kept in limbo until it was sorted out. I could see the NHLPA becoming annoyed with the requirement.

He couldn't keep him in Europe once he signed him to the contract for that season.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Ped

He couldn't keep him in Europe once he signed him to the contract for that season.

Even if he couldn't, the CBA only says that he needs to clear waivers before he can play in the NHL that season, so the Flames could have just not played him for the remainder of the season.

If they had decided to do that, the PA would likely have stepped in and some kind of agreement would have been worked out to allow him to play.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

Even if he couldn't, the CBA only says that he needs to clear waivers before he can play in the NHL that season, so the Flames could have just not played him for the remainder of the season.

If they had decided to do that, the PA would likely have stepped in and some kind of agreement would have been worked out to allow him to play.

I suppose - it would have ended up like Sutter’s screwup with McAmmond.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I suppose - it would have ended up like Sutter’s screwup with McAmmond.

That was Button.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

That was Button.

Oh, right. Just before Sutter took over.

[Strange Brew]

I personally don’t believe the NHL would have allowed ROR to hit waivers. Which in no way excuses Feaster’s gaffe IMO.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I personally don’t believe the NHL would have allowed ROR to hit waivers. Which in no way excuses Feaster’s gaffe IMO.

Why wouldn't they?

It was a different era, but the same rules applied when the Blues once signed Peter Stastny mid-season. Ron Caron gave him at the time a expensive contract, hoping it would deter other teams from claiming him - and it worked.