|
Give Feaster a Break. Should Colorado ask for a "Do-over?" |
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting day yesterday, eh?
Hats off the Chris Johnson for his article and figuring out how Calgary skirted a huge blunder. This situation was quite unique and given the fact that the NHL hit the ground running and is still working off of the memorandum of understanding (the actual CBA may be done in time for the next lockout) it is understandable that an NHL GM (and Jay Feaster was NOT alone in the attempt to offer sheet O'Reilly) who had to scramble to get a team iced in 10 days may not understand the idiosyncratic aspects of the waiver rules.
Consider this: It took several hours before ANYONE figured out what Calgay had actually done. In this age of twitter if it takes more than thirty five seconds for a mistake to be pointed out you can be damn sure that most of world doesn't have a clue. Hell, we had a story up that addressed the waiver rules back on January 30th, when I had asked Bill Meltzer to delve into the CBA abyss and it took Meltzer getting to Bill Daly at the NHL to definitively clarify one aspect of this whole scenario: Should Colorado want to bring him back or trade his rights to another team while still unsigned.
A late-night email from NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly confirms that O'Reilly would be the first case under the newly amended rules if and when he returns to the NHL this season...Daly wrote, " No, he would not be subject to waivers. He would have been under last year's rules, but that was changed in collective bargaining."
So yes, even though we had clarified part of it, in talking to Bill Daly myself via email last night Bill further clarified his original explanation, telling me, "I was focused on him re-signing with Colorado, in which case no waivers would have been necessary."
Point being...all those calling for Feaster's head over this need to realize how EVERYONE missed this for a good 14 hours...which is the equivalent of 14 years in twitter years.
The NHL did understand this rule. The GMs...not so much. Fortunately no one was harmed in the filming....except perhaps Colorado...
If Calgary had understood the rule I doubt Colorado would have been paying this amount of money to a player they don't really want around.. I do have issue with Colorado giving him this kind of money after previously doing the right thing and claiming he didn't deserve more than Duchesne. Now time will tell, but it feels like a lose/lose situation to keep O'Reilly around. A year from now you can trade him..but he will be a pending UFA...and if he doesn't perform to that salary you will surely not get what you would have gotten from Calgary's picks.
There is really no benefit, from a team standpoint, to matching Calgary's offer sheet. I am all for spite and all, but if you were going to pay O'Reilly that money you should have done it right away and not screwed this shortened season...already, this is a mess.
Were I Colorado I would maybe try and argue the deal signed with Calgary was done so under false pretenses and that were the rule understood Calgary NEVER would have put that kind of money on the table and Colorado wouldn't have been forced into a lose/lose place...
What do you all think?
Join the Discussion:
»