HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Around the NHL Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2013, 12:19 PM
  #251
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I didn't follow the ROR thing super closely (obvs saw Calgary signed, Avs matched). So Columbus basically would've had O'Reilly if they chose to pay him, and Calgary would've still lost the picks? Or would Columbus lose the picks?
Calgary signed him so they would have lost the picks. Once the contract was finalized ROR would have to have been put on waivers since he played in the KHL after the NHL season started (just like happened to the Blues a couple years ago). Since CLB is in last place they would have had the first chance at claiming him, which they would be pretty dumb not to and even if they didnt some other team would have potentially even COL if he lasted that high up the standings.

sh724 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:21 PM
  #252
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I didn't follow the ROR thing super closely (obvs saw Calgary signed, Avs matched). So Columbus basically would've had O'Reilly if they chose to pay him, and Calgary would've still lost the picks? Or would Columbus lose the picks?
If the Avalanche did not match the offer, the Flames would have given up their first and third. ROR would then have been automatically placed on waivers. So the Flames would have lost their picks and got nothing in return, because every other team in the League would have put a claim in!

It is a weird loophole in the new CBA that your RFA and players on your reserve list are excluded from the rule that players who have previously played abroad during the season need to be placed on waivers. He is the Avs RFA, so he is excluded, but if the Flames had got him that RFA rule would not have applied to them.

Either way, the new rule might help us with Lehterä.

Alklha is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 12:38 PM
  #253
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Wow. That would pretty much have been the funniest thing ever. Feaster would have pretty much had to resign on the spot, wouldn't he? Almost wish Colorado had taken Calgary's picks just to give them a giant **** you. However, O'Reilly's the more valuable asset IMO.

Colorado isn't that far away from the bottom. Can you imagine if the Avs had been dead last and then taken the picks and claimed O'Reilly on waivers?

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 01:02 PM
  #254
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Wow. That would pretty much have been the funniest thing ever. Feaster would have pretty much had to resign on the spot, wouldn't he? Almost wish Colorado had taken Calgary's picks just to give them a giant **** you. However, O'Reilly's the more valuable asset IMO.

Colorado isn't that far away from the bottom. Can you imagine if the Avs had been dead last and then taken the picks and claimed O'Reilly on waivers?
Couldn't Calgary have left him in Russia for the rest of the year and bring him over in the off-season without going through waivers?

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 01:18 PM
  #255
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Couldn't Calgary have left him in Russia for the rest of the year and bring him over in the off-season without going through waivers?
I dunno. Like I said, didn't follow it closely and haven't examined the new CBA closely yet.

My guess is they'd have unwittingly called him up (if you believe they genuinely thought their interpretation of the rule was correct). Maybe someone would have caught it in time and they'd have avoided calling him up, but then they're paying a 1st, a 3d and 6.5M for one year of O'Reilly. In fact, unless they traded him elsewhere, they'd wind up having to qualify him twice at 6.5M, which is definitely bad management (3 yrs, 19.5M). O'Reilly is already 4M good, but not yet 6.5M good (though I'd much rather have him than Stastny at that price).

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 01:23 PM
  #256
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Couldn't Calgary have left him in Russia for the rest of the year and bring him over in the off-season without going through waivers?
Nope. In this situation the waiver process is automatic, so when the time limit on Colorado to match finished, ROR would have been automatically placed on waivers by the League.

We now know that the Avs were always going to match, but I really wish they had waited a day and this story had broken before they announced their decision

Alklha is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:13 PM
  #257
frostyflo
#peskyblues
 
frostyflo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
poor Peluso
finally got his well deserved chance and now not back on the ice after beeing injured in a fight

frostyflo is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:23 PM
  #258
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
Nope. In this situation the waiver process is automatic, so when the time limit on Colorado to match finished, ROR would have been automatically placed on waivers by the League.

We now know that the Avs were always going to match, but I really wish they had waited a day and this story had broken before they announced their decision
Actually I am pretty sure as long as they did not put ROR on the active roster he would not have had to go on waivers. If they waited until waivers are no longer in affect to put him on the roster then he could have played for the flames. It would have been just like the flames loaned ROR to a KHL team (or any other Euro league). But the flames still would have to pay him his full salary. So they basically would have paid ROR $10 mil just to play for them next season.

sh724 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:31 PM
  #259
tfriede2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Wow. That would pretty much have been the funniest thing ever. Feaster would have pretty much had to resign on the spot, wouldn't he? Almost wish Colorado had taken Calgary's picks just to give them a giant **** you. However, O'Reilly's the more valuable asset IMO.

Colorado isn't that far away from the bottom. Can you imagine if the Avs had been dead last and then taken the picks and claimed O'Reilly on waivers?
It may have been even worse for Feaster...word is that Calgary would have also been on the hook for the 2.5 million signing bonus and not Columbus had they picked him up on waivers...hahaha. Someone (Dreger or McKenzie, can't remember who) confirmed that he would have needed to go on waivers no matter what if Colorado didn't match...Calgary wouldn't have had a choice of just not playing him and thus not subjecting him to waivers.

tfriede2 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 03:55 PM
  #260
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
It really comes down to the wording of the CBA once it is finished and ratified. Since no one has seen the finalized CBA no one knows for sure what would have happened, it is all just speculation at this point. There are spots of the old CBA that can be interpreted to mean ROR would never have had to go on waivers, other spots that say Calgary could just keep him off of the active roster, and other spots that can be interpreted to mean he would have had to go on waivers immediately no matter what. The NHL could have jumped in and issued a judgement that was final and that would have become the precedent going forward. No one really knows at this point. Luckily for everyone involved (COL, CAL, NHL, NHLPA, ROR, etc.) Colorado matched so any potential fiasco has been avoided and we are all left to argue about what would have happened. Now they will probably have to figure this out for the future and right something into the new CBA to address this if it were to ever happen again.

sh724 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 04:22 PM
  #261
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
It really comes down to the wording of the CBA once it is finished and ratified. Since no one has seen the finalized CBA no one knows for sure what would have happened, it is all just speculation at this point. There are spots of the old CBA that can be interpreted to mean ROR would never have had to go on waivers, other spots that say Calgary could just keep him off of the active roster, and other spots that can be interpreted to mean he would have had to go on waivers immediately no matter what. The NHL could have jumped in and issued a judgement that was final and that would have become the precedent going forward. No one really knows at this point. Luckily for everyone involved (COL, CAL, NHL, NHLPA, ROR, etc.) Colorado matched so any potential fiasco has been avoided and we are all left to argue about what would have happened. Now they will probably have to figure this out for the future and right something into the new CBA to address this if it were to ever happen again.
The new CBA details were sent to every team and make things very clear. The passage that is relevent here is...

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.

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 application of CBA 13.23.
Signing a player to an offersheet does not place him on your RFA list at any point, so in this situation he has to pass through waivers. There is no ambiguity there. As Bob McKenzie stated, you can't sign a player to a offersheet and then leave his contract in no mans land, waivers becomes an automatic process as soon as the other team doesn't match.

Calgary would have filed a grievance if ROR had ended up on waivers, but they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. I assume that the Flames are looking for a replacement GM, because Jay Feaster has got to get the sack sometime soon for making that kind of mistake. The fact he still think that signing another teams RFA to an offersheet puts him onto his teams RFA list at any point is mindblowing.


Last edited by Alklha: 03-02-2013 at 04:28 PM.
Alklha is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 05:48 PM
  #262
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
The new CBA details were sent to every team and make things very clear. The passage that is relevent here is...



Signing a player to an offersheet does not place him on your RFA list at any point, so in this situation he has to pass through waivers. There is no ambiguity there. As Bob McKenzie stated, you can't sign a player to a offersheet and then leave his contract in no mans land, waivers becomes an automatic process as soon as the other team doesn't match.

Calgary would have filed a grievance if ROR had ended up on waivers, but they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. I assume that the Flames are looking for a replacement GM, because Jay Feaster has got to get the sack sometime soon for making that kind of mistake. The fact he still think that signing another teams RFA to an offersheet puts him onto his teams RFA list at any point is mindblowing.
I'm confused on how signing an RFA to your team doesn't put him on your team's RFA list. Can you clarify?

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 06:08 PM
  #263
EastonBlues22
Global Moderator
 
EastonBlues22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
I'm confused on how signing an RFA to your team doesn't put him on your team's RFA list. Can you clarify?
A RFA is a player who doesn't have a contract, just like a UFA (but in this case his team retains his rights). A signed offer sheet immediately becomes a binding contract with the new team if the other team involved declines to match it.

That means that he goes directly from someone who isn't their property to someone they have under contract. The new team never owns his rights in the absence of a contract, so he never has RFA status for that team.

EastonBlues22 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 06:15 PM
  #264
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastonBlues22 View Post
A RFA is a player who doesn't have a contract, just like a UFA (but in this case his team retains his rights). A signed offer sheet immediately becomes a binding contract with the new team if the other team involved declines to match it.

That means that he goes directly from someone who isn't their property to someone they have under contract. The new team never owns his rights in the absence of a contract, so he never has RFA status for that team.
Ahhh, I understand now. Thanks for clearing things up for me.

It was a bit confusing since we often refer to players under contract by the terms UFA and RFA, even if we really mean when their current contract is over.

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:50 PM
  #265
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alklha View Post
The new CBA details were sent to every team and make things very clear. The passage that is relevent here is...



Signing a player to an offersheet does not place him on your RFA list at any point, so in this situation he has to pass through waivers. There is no ambiguity there. As Bob McKenzie stated, you can't sign a player to a offersheet and then leave his contract in no mans land, waivers becomes an automatic process as soon as the other team doesn't match.

Calgary would have filed a grievance if ROR had ended up on waivers, but they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. I assume that the Flames are looking for a replacement GM, because Jay Feaster has got to get the sack sometime soon for making that kind of mistake. The fact he still think that signing another teams RFA to an offersheet puts him onto his teams RFA list at any point is mindblowing.
This is the full reading of the CBA

Quote:
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.
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.

sh724 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:56 PM
  #266
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Ahhh, I understand now. Thanks for clearing things up for me.

It was a bit confusing since we often refer to players under contract by the terms UFA and RFA, even if we really mean when their current contract is over.
It is just quicker and easier for example to say Petro is an RFA than it is to say Perto will be an RFA when his contract expires after 11:59:59 PM EST on June 30, 2013.

sh724 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:34 AM
  #267
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
It is just quicker and easier for example to say Petro is an RFA than it is to say Perto will be an RFA when his contract expires after 11:59:59 PM EST on June 30, 2013.
Exactly. So, when Ryan O'Reilly the RFA is signed to a contract that he will be an RFA at the end of yet doesn't end up on the RFA list, I was a bit confused.

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:55 AM
  #268
BleedinBlueSince1972
More Cowbell!!!
 
BleedinBlueSince1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 2,789
vCash: 1010
Feaster has to be the worst GM in the NHL now that Columbus fired Howson. Perhaps Armstrong could fleece Feaster into dealing Giordano to the Blues once the fire sale , no pun intended ever transpires in Cal and Gary.

BleedinBlueSince1972 is online now  
Old
03-03-2013, 05:40 AM
  #269
Alklha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh724 View Post
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.

Alklha is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 01:08 PM
  #270
bigplay41
BIG MEECH
 
bigplay41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,135
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to bigplay41
Did you guys checkout the beating Peluso gave Volpatti yesterday? Sucks he's out really enjoy watching him play

bigplay41 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:00 PM
  #271
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigplay41 View Post
Did you guys checkout the beating Peluso gave Volpatti yesterday? Sucks he's out really enjoy watching him play
Yeah I saw that, Volpatti looked like a little kid in that fight. Peluso is a great fighter, he packs a very hard punch. Really wish he was still in the organization.

BlueDream is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 02:36 PM
  #272
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
Yeah I saw that, Volpatti looked like a little kid in that fight. Peluso is a great fighter, he packs a very hard punch. Really wish he was still in the organization.
I liked Peluso as well. With Reaves I just didn't see room for him though as Reaves is the better hockey player. I am glad Peluso is getting a shot in the NHL.

HooliganX2 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 12:02 AM
  #273
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,718
vCash: 500
Funny that as I was watching the Kings game and looked at the box after the 2nd int and saw LA had only 6 shots through 2 periods against Nashville. If you were only following the box score that shot total really misled you, especially during the 2nd period when LA was coming in waves. You could see the 3rd period onslaught coming from a mile away. They look as good as last year and I'm concerned the Blues are going to get embarrassed tomorrow. LA is still by far the most imposing team when they're on their game.

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 04:05 AM
  #274
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
Funny that as I was watching the Kings game and looked at the box after the 2nd int and saw LA had only 6 shots through 2 periods against Nashville. If you were only following the box score that shot total really misled you, especially during the 2nd period when LA was coming in waves. You could see the 3rd period onslaught coming from a mile away. They look as good as last year and I'm concerned the Blues are going to get embarrassed tomorrow. LA is still by far the most imposing team when they're on their game.
Kings have the only A game I think the Blues' A game literally cannot beat. Unless they catch Anaheim they're going to be in the 4-5 matchup and that's doom for the Blues if they end up there too.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:59 AM
  #275
Falco Lombardi
LET'S GO BLUES
 
Falco Lombardi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 7,610
vCash: 50
Speaking of Anaheim, one of the oddities of the NHL schedule this season is that the Ducks are playing the Coyotes 3 times in a row. Coyotes won both of the first two 5-4 in SHs.

Falco Lombardi is offline  
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 04:58 AM.

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.