Flames sign O'Rielly to offer sheet.

[GhostofPotvin29]

EDIT:  I'm removing that quote....the trail of it follows back to......wait for it....EKLUND *facepalm*

Eklund does many things, but, he doesn't make up quotes and attribute them to real people.

Here's the link then: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Morning-Buzz-Does-OReilly-Have-Leverage-Update-Luongo-Talk-Heating-Up/1/48902

 

[bustaheims]

Here's the link then: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Morning-Buzz-Does-OReilly-Have-Leverage-Update-Luongo-Talk-Heating-Up/1/48902

Well, in context, that quote doesn't seem to refer to the potential for offer sheets. So, I guess we're back to guessing about a situation that didn't happen.

 

[Deebo]

No waivers.

Are you sure about that?

No.

 

[Derk]

Just heard on the FAN that each team has an exemption list for this sort of thing and O'Rielly was on the Avs' list (but obviously not the Flames). That is why he doesn't have to clear waivers for Colorado. It was apparently in a memorandum of understanding from around the time the new CBA was being brought in.

 

[Corn Flake]

Would have been so amazing if this had actually happened, Flames get ROR, forced to put him on waivers then guaranteed Columbus picks him up.  Jay Feaster would have exploded and then been fired after donating 2 picks to the Avs, including a 1st that is sliding quickly to the top 5. 

Oh the hilarity!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So everyone seems in agreement now - O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if Colorado refused to match.  What a gongshow that would have been.

 

[Zee]

So everyone seems in agreement now - O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if Colorado refused to match.  What a gongshow that would have been.

Looks smart on Feaster and the Flames.  Someone should have known about that.

 

[Derk]

They "disagree" with the league's interpretation of the clause in the CBA.

 

[Rebel_1812]

So everyone seems in agreement now - O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if Colorado refused to match.  What a gongshow that would have been.

everyone?  one story on sportsnet that has been regurgitated by others doesn't mean everyone.

 

[Rebel_1812]

They "disagree" with the league's interpretation of the clause in the CBA.

Gary Bettman has "trouble" with those that disagree with him.  All contracts have to get league approval.  You figure that the league would have had to disclose this "interpretation" when approving the contract signed by the flames and o'rielly.  Else if Calgary got screwed they could have filed an errors and omissions lawsuit or professional misconduct lawsuit against the league.

 

[Corn Flake]

I vote we close the thread with this:

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So everyone seems in agreement now - O'Reilly would have had to clear waivers if Colorado refused to match.  What a gongshow that would have been.

everyone?  one story on sportsnet that has been regurgitated by others doesn't mean everyone.

Everyone isn't just regurgitating it, all of the hockey analysts/writers I follow on Twitter looked into it (Friedman, etc), TSN's hockey guys all looked into it and did a piece on it, O'Reilly's agent was on TSN radio talking about it.  By the end the consensus appears to be that the Flames would have been told they had to put him on waivers (at which point the Flames would argue they 'interpreted' it differently and start some whole mess there).  I haven't seen any prominent hockey person saying that he wouldn't have to be put on waivers, other than the Flames saying they disagree with the interpretation.  But I'm referring to the talking-heads of course.