Around the NHL Discussion
View Single Post
03-03-2013, 05:40 AM
Join Date: Sep 2011
Originally Posted by
This is the full reading of the CBA
No where in there does it say the player must go through waivers immediately after being signed. All it says is the player may play in the NHL after clearing waivers. If he never gets put on waivers then he can never play. Mckenzie is speculating just like everyone else because he does not know what would happen to the contract if ROR was never put on the active roster. It is the same thing as the Gomez/Redden situation at the begining of the season, neither one of them were going to be on their teams active roster (MON/NYR) nor were they going to be sent some where else. The NHL had to step in and make a special ruling to allow teams to buy out players before the season started. No where in the CBA does it say a team must activate a player upon signing them. A team in theory could have 20 players on their roster and 30 other players sitting at home getting paid. Of course the PA would file a grievance if the flames made ROR sit at home all year while getting paid, but once again it would be up to the NHL to make a ruling as to whether Calgary could do that or if Calgary would be forced to put him on waivers. Neither the NHL nor the NHLPA anticipated a situation like this ever happening so there is nothing that directly relates to it in CBA. However the CBA does allow teams to suspend players with or without pay which is what the flames could have done the grievance by the PA would be that the flames do not have cause to suspend ROR. While Mckenzie is very knowledgeable and is one of the best hockey reporters there is he has not said anything like a 'source from the league tells me..." until that happens anything he says is no different than any other person speculating. He could end up being correct but until the league releases something nobody knows.
There is no real win for Calgary though. Even if the waiver process wasn't deemed automatic, and you are right there might be enough wiggle room, then the League could easily have went after Calgary for cap circumvention. Paying a structured $9m+ over 2 years with the intention of using him in 1 season at $5m caphit would qualify. You just can't sign a player not to play.
It is a messy situation. I think something that we can all agree on is that Feaster is insane. That team just needs to suck bad for a couple of seasons rather then Feaster doing everything he can to lift them to mediocrity that hurts them long term.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Alklha