I don't get it. ROR has been front news for months yet nobody mentioned this Loophole. Every owner, GM, reporter and fan had access to the CBA, yet nobody mentioned this till now. Doesn't that make everyone as dumb as Calgary?
Not once did anyone ever mention that an offer sheet would result in ROR having to clear waviers.
http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/03/why-im-wrong-and-everyone-is-also-wrong/
Oh look it appears every is a dumbass
Not once did anyone ever mention that an offer sheet would result in ROR having to clear waviers.
http://www.mcsorleys-stick.com/2013/03/why-im-wrong-and-everyone-is-also-wrong/
Oh look it appears every is a dumbass
Last edited:
Daisy Jane
everything is gonna be okay!
- Jul 2, 2009
- 70,212
- 9,189
I'm sorry - we gave up two firsts and a 2nd.
Calgary was going to give up FOR NOTHING (had this worked out not in the Avs favour), a first, a third and 2.5 million dollars. Ergo, (even though it was more tongue in cheek), I wonder if Nonis DOESN'T call up Calgary if they are willing to give up that kind of bling in the wait for it.
"deepest draft in years".
for Kessel, etc. Though Kessel isn't a centreman, he'd help the offense out and maybe because isn't so Crash Bang, he'd thrive a lot better out there.
(i had meant to say "for" not "and" if that's what is tripping you up).
FlareKnight
Registered User
I agree there's little point in jumping on Calgary when everyone missed this. Though you should give Calgary's GM more criticism than most since he did go forward with the offersheet without covering his bases first.
Talk about a crazy development. First the offersheet on the night that Calgary faced Colorado and then finding out that no matter what it wouldn't have gone well for Calgary.
Talk about a crazy development. First the offersheet on the night that Calgary faced Colorado and then finding out that no matter what it wouldn't have gone well for Calgary.
Daisy Jane
everything is gonna be okay!
- Jul 2, 2009
- 70,212
- 9,189
I did. now I'm royally confused. LOL I won't lie, it doesn't take a lot
So is everyone but people love to jump on any perceived mistake. It looks like Calgary were the smart ones here.
From the CBA
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.
.....
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 applicaiton of CBA 13.23.
So I guess Bob McKenzie should be fired as well as anyone at Sportsnet for allowing this story to blow up out of proportion.
Last edited:
Boom King
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2010
- 1,199
- 0
The way Bob Mac clarified that clause is that applies only to a club's own RFA, hence why Colorado did not have to put ROR on waivers to have him rejoin the club. Calgary could have gotten passed the waiver requirement had they obtained the rights to ROR from Colorado through trade.
Even if Bob McKenzie was right and I'm still not sure he is. He has been talking about ROR for months. Why has he never brought this up?
ULF_55
Moderator
KEY POINT: NHL during that Playing Season
So the Flames at worst would not have been able to play in the current season.
Interesting observation for sure. So you are saying that if Colorado had declined to match, then Calgary could have obtained and retained O'Reilly's rights for next season by just paying him to sit at home this season....thus avoiding the waivers. That would probably work if O'Reilly agreed not to rock the boat on such an arrangement. Still Calgary would look pretty silly...just not as silly
There is not one possible scenario where Calgary looks smart for this entire scenario. Only thing they did is just help erase stale-mate between Avs and RoR.
Drew311
Makes The Pass
- Oct 29, 2010
- 11,902
- 2,381
This is amazing.
Please post on the Avs board. They're such an uppity fanbase, they need to be taken down a peg.
Interesting observation for sure. So you are saying that if Colorado had declined to match, then Calgary could have obtained and retained O'Reilly's rights for next season by just paying him to sit at home this season....thus avoiding the waivers. That would probably work if O'Reilly agreed not to rock the boat on such an arrangement. Still Calgary would look pretty silly...just not as silly
If they did this though they would probably end up with a top 5-10 pick going the other way.
ULF_55
Moderator
Interesting observation for sure. So you are saying that if Colorado had declined to match, then Calgary could have obtained and retained O'Reilly's rights for next season by just paying him to sit at home this season....thus avoiding the waivers. That would probably work if O'Reilly agreed not to rock the boat on such an arrangement. Still Calgary would look pretty silly...just not as silly
Sure, but if the league told them he had to go on waivers to join the team they would not have put him on waivers.
As soon as the league said he has to go on waivers they would have declined to do so.
From my understanding the team puts the player on waivers, not the league.
nuck
Schrodingers Cat
- Aug 18, 2005
- 11,403
- 2,479
This is what I had thought and if they love the guy not having him for 20 games wouldn't be a big deal.
ULF_55
Moderator
Maybe some people think he's the difference between winning the Cup and not?
Flames weren't losing any players in the deal, just picks. It was going to be a 1st. and 3rd.
We could look back on the threads here and see how much Leafs' fans were willing to give up but we all know there was a large love affair with him just a few days ago.
Boom King
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2010
- 1,199
- 0
Even if ROR and Pat Morris were to play ball with Calgary had they decided to have him sit out the entire season to avoid waivers and from the sounds of it, the intention of all parties upon signing was to have ROR play this season, I wonder how the league and other teams would react to this. It's all conjecture but the league could view it as a "no-show" job. Not a reflection of fair market value for services rendered. It's clearly listed as an example of circumvention in the prior CBA.
mix1home
Registered User
This is exactly the point I brought up in my earlier post. If you trade for RFA and sign him he becomes _your_ RFA and therefore not subject to waivers. Technically offer-sheet could be seen as trade of picks as compensation for that player and he becomes _your_ RFA to sign.
For league it would be very hard to argue in arbitrage that offer-sheeted player still remains RFA of the other team even after they received compensation value. I see Calgary winning the case quite easily and league, not club, looking silly in debacle.
Morguee
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2010
- 3,002
- 184
I see RoR was a little confused on who he plays for and scored his first goal for Columbus.
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/e...ly-scores-own-goal-in-first-game-back-for-avs
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/e...ly-scores-own-goal-in-first-game-back-for-avs
Boom King
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2010
- 1,199
- 0
Well the CBA seems to consider a trade and draft choice compensation as being two distinct things. Edit: Went back on the thread to read your earlier post
I see what you're saying now and this is where Feaster said he didn't agree with the league's interpretation of that clause in the MOU.
That's not to say that Feaster and his camp didn't have some validity in their interpretation of things. The problem is without absolute clarity from the league, risking a 1st and a 3rd and going by guess work is just silly. The more likely scenario is that Feaster and ROR's agent just plain missed this part. Pat Morris mentioned that it was never discussed with Calgary at contract discussions. If he knew about it, he probably wouldn't have let ROR sign.
Last edited:
