HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Rumors

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2013, 01:40 PM
  #976
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,695
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Sherman didn't want a 1st and 3rd for Ryan, so not matching would only be trying to humiliate another GM. Perhaps he could have used the information to blackmail the Flames into making a trade at a value to his liking, but he chose to get Ryan on the ice immediately.

It does make you wonder though, how it was so hard for Sherman to get him under contract, if the possibility of an offer sheet was largely off the table, otherwise he would be sitting in Columbus. You would think Colorado would have had more leverage. They probably didn't know either.

__________________

“This is for you Kings fans wherever you may be. All the frustration and disappointment of the past is gone. The 45 year drought is over. The Los Angeles Kings are indeed the Kings of the National Hockey League. They are the 2012 Stanley Cup Champions!” - Bob Miller

Last edited by Telos: 03-01-2013 at 01:58 PM.
Telos is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 01:59 PM
  #977
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafettish View Post
isn't sherman also an idiot for not knowing this and matching.

calgary without ROR pretty much means lottery pick.
As per the last paragraph of the article linked above:

Quote:
Article 13:23 in the pre-2012-13 CBA specified that any player who plays in Europe after start of NHL regular season needs to clear waivers to play in the same season in the NHL.

But the recent Memorandum of Understanding between the league and Players' Association says all players on a club's reserve list and RFA list will be exempt from the application of 13:23. Therefore, teams can now sign their own restricted free agents or draft picks out of Europe in mid-season and get them into their NHL lineup without risking them being plucked off the wire.
Since he's on Colorado reserve list already, he wouldn't have to clear waivers to play for them, but he wasn't on Calgary's reserve list, so he would have to clear to play for them. It would have meant that O'Reilly would have been on waivers if Colorado didn't match and took the compensation.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 02:04 PM
  #978
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
With the Olympics next year, will that push the trade deadline back, helping COL to trade ROR before the qualifying offer kicks in?

RonSwanson* is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 02:05 PM
  #979
ScoreZeGoals
Back on Cloud 9
 
ScoreZeGoals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 10,477
vCash: 500
The Bluejackets were a heartbeat away from getting O'Reilly for free while also holding three first round picks,

ScoreZeGoals is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 02:20 PM
  #980
I Am Ziggy Palffy
Registered User
 
I Am Ziggy Palffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 500
Seems to me contract length was the issue. Not sure if COL valued O'Reilly as a 5-6 mil player for several yrs. Would he develop into that kind of player? But now they have a couple years to evaluate his development or cut ties if not convinced.

I Am Ziggy Palffy is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:20 PM
  #981
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSwanson View Post
With the Olympics next year, will that push the trade deadline back, helping COL to trade ROR before the qualifying offer kicks in?
Yes if the league allows the players to go. It's 40 days before the end of the season and the Olympics will push it back by approx two weeks.

tsanuri is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:20 PM
  #982
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Latest reports suggesting that the Avs didn't file the offer sheet match yet. They were waiting to get a physical done.

Watch them go to Columbus and offer a trade scenario.

RonSwanson* is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:22 PM
  #983
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSwanson View Post
Latest reports suggesting that the Avs didn't file the offer sheet match yet. They were waiting to get a physical done.

Watch them go to Columbus and offer a trade scenario.
Where'd you hear that? It's great if they didn't match yet though.

I'm not sure how they can trade with Columbus. If they don't match, he's not their player to trade, and if they do match, they aren't allowed to trade him for 365 days.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:25 PM
  #984
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Where'd you hear that? It's great if they didn't match yet though.

I'm not sure how they can trade with Columbus. If they don't match, he's not their player to trade, and if they do match, they aren't allowed to trade him for 365 days.
They would let Columbus pick him up on waivers and trade other assets as "compensation".

Not sure if the NHL would step in and stop it or not, i.e. Columbus trading their 1st and a prospect for Colorado's 5th round pick, then Colorado would agree not to match the O'Reilly offer sheet. Columbus then picks up O'Reilly off of waivers.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:26 PM
  #985
Vic Vinegar
Registered User
 
Vic Vinegar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
They would let Columbus pick him up on waivers and trade other assets as "compensation".

Not sure if the NHL would step in and stop it or not, i.e. Columbus trading their 1st and a prospect for Colorado's 5th round pick, then Colorado would agree not to match the O'Reilly offer sheet.
Yeah I'm not sure if the NHL would allow something like that. Might be considered collusion?

Vic Vinegar is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:27 PM
  #986
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
They would let Columbus pick him up on waivers and trade other assets as "compensation".

Not sure if the NHL would step in and stop it or not, i.e. Columbus trading their 1st and a prospect for Colorado's 5th round pick, then Colorado would agree not to match the O'Reilly offer sheet.
Columbus would be stupid to trade that 1st rounder.

The Avs probably don't need much to be convinced to not match. Maybe a third rounder.

RonSwanson* is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:28 PM
  #987
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonSwanson View Post
Columbus would be stupid to trade that 1st rounder.

The Avs probably don't need much to be convinced to not match. Maybe a third rounder.
They could trade the Kings' or NY's first rounder.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:31 PM
  #988
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,649
vCash: 500
Fair point Sydor25.

I could see a 2nd for future considerations, should Columbus want him. Not sure Columbus would give up a 1st, they likely wouldn't value O'Rielly THAT highly with that cap hit, and our 1st and the NYR 1st aren't that low right at the moment, though that could change. Columbus' 2nd would be basically a low 1st anyways, so it'd seem fair.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 04:38 PM
  #989
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Vic Lombardi ‏@VicLombardi
Talked to Avs official. Paperwork on ROR already filed. He's in town. Back at practice tomorrow.


All of the fun is over.

RonSwanson* is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 05:36 PM
  #990
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,234
vCash: 500
Feaster is going to be waking up at 3 am for weeks thinking about what happened!

MsWoof is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 06:43 PM
  #991
kingsfan28
Viva Los Cucarachas!
 
kingsfan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Feaster is going to be waking up at 3 am for weeks thinking about what happened!
How much sleep would he have lost if after all the work he put in trying to get O'Reilly, only to lose him to a Columbus waive claim because he didnt read the fine print.

kingsfan28 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 06:53 PM
  #992
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,386
vCash: 500
Except according to a team statement they knew about the rule and had a different interpretation. Sounds rather ugly to me.
http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=658072
Flames Statement:
“Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.

Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), 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 shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.

While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process.”

Jay Feaster

General Manager

tsanuri is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:18 PM
  #993
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
Except according to a team statement they knew about the rule and had a different interpretation. Sounds rather ugly to me.
http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=658072
Flames Statement:
“Prior to tendering the offer sheet for Ryan O’Reilly we, as a hockey operations department, examined whether there were any impediments to our successfully securing the services of the player including, but not limited to, his having played in the KHL after the start of the current NHL season.

Our interpretation of the Article 13 transition rules governing restricted free agents (“RFA”), 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 shared our interpretation and position with respect to the non-applicability of Article 13.23.

While we were prepared to advance our position with the NHL, in light of Colorado’s having matched the offer sheet it is now an academic point. As such, we will have no further comment on the matter, the player, or the offer sheet process.”

Jay Feaster

General Manager
So, your saying there's a chance then?

etherialone is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:23 PM
  #994
Live in the Now
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,773
vCash: 500
Awards:
Legally the Flames interpretation of that rule is pretty sound IMO.

Quote:
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.
The thing is, risking your picks on a ruling the governing body believes to be interpreted the opposite way is a foolish decision.

Live in the Now is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:26 PM
  #995
kingsfan28
Viva Los Cucarachas!
 
kingsfan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Legally the Flames interpretation of that rule is pretty sound IMO.



The thing is, risking your picks on a ruling the governing body believes to be interpreted the opposite way is a foolish decision.
Did the Flames miss out on the fact that he played 2 game in the KHL that voids that clause in the CBA?

kingsfan28 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:27 PM
  #996
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,234
vCash: 500
This reminds me so much of the extension Holmgren gave Pronger and misunderstood that it would be considered an under 35 but it wasn't.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:29 PM
  #997
kingsfan28
Viva Los Cucarachas!
 
kingsfan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 12,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
So, your saying there's a chance then?
Sure, next season when the Avs try and trade him when they don't want to pay the 6.5 mil.You know Calgary will.

kingsfan28 is offline  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:30 PM
  #998
Live in the Now
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,773
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan28 View Post
Did the Flames miss out on the fact that he played 2 game in the KHL that voids that clause in the CBA?
CBA 13.23 Waivers relates to games played overseas. The quote I linked exempts players from that clause. The difference is that the NHL takes "All Players on a Club's Reserve List and Restricted Free Agent List" to mean all players on the team with their rights. Feaster takes it to mean all players on a (meaning any) club's restricted or reserve list.

Live in the Now is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:34 PM
  #999
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Legally the Flames interpretation of that rule is pretty sound IMO.



The thing is, risking your picks on a ruling the governing body believes to be interpreted the opposite way is a foolish decision.
Except that if it had gone to arbitration and ruled against them they would have cut the baby in half and they wouldn't have lost everything really. You can bet they talked with in house council and they gave them the interpretation. And they asked the agent about it and they did the same. So it really sounds like the Avs matching saved things from getting ugly.
And another report was made that 4 other teams made offers. So it sounds like we have a part of the CBA that is vague in a big way. Haven't seen anything confirming it but it was said by Darren Dreger from what I read.

tsanuri is online now  
Old
03-01-2013, 07:38 PM
  #1000
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Legally the Flames interpretation of that rule is pretty sound IMO.



The thing is, risking your picks on a ruling the governing body believes to be interpreted the opposite way is a foolish decision.
That's why it seems that the argument is that the definition is open for interpretation, which is what lawyers are great at arguing for/against.

My interpretation of the language (or the intention of it) is that a RFA re-signing with the club he is property of would be waiver exempt. However, a club signing another team's RFA does not gain this waiver exemption.

The language does leave some room for interpretation, but hopefully this isn't a case that has to be presented in front of an arbitrator or judge to define the language.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.