Even better, QO’s aren’t supposed to be sent through the mail in the first place.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 07/06/09 at 07:57 AM ET

I agree with Cainer.  I don’t know all of the details, but it seems to me that Chicago broke some black-and-white rules here and that the punishment is laid out clearly in the CBA.  While, in the short run, letting Chicago get away with this would be in the league’s best interest, I believe that following their own rules is best for their long-term success. 

I’d really like to see the NHLPA go to bat for these guys here.  Any one of them could probably find himself an unrestricted free agent if he were to come out in the press and say that’s the way it should be, but in the process he would be doing irreparable damage to his career and his reputation.  One player can’t do it, but that’s exactly what the NHLPA is supposed to be doing for him.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/06/09 at 08:17 AM ET

According to this story on George Malik’s blog, the issue is pretty much settled…

On Sunday evening, multiple credible sources, including TSN, reported that Chicago Blackhawks GM Dale Tallon’s failure to submit qualifying offers to five restricted free agents would receive no disciplinary action from the NHL…

And even though the League ruled against the Devils in 2000 when they did the same thing, here’s what a Sun-Times reporter wrote about the Hawks gaff (bold text is mine):

The New Jersey Devils had a similar problem in 2000, when they ‘’forgot’’ to send qualifying offers to Brian Rafalski and John Madden. Rafalski was scheduled to receive $450,000 and Madden $550,000. Instead, they became unrestricted free agents, and the Devils ended up signing Rafalski to a four-year, $11 million contract and Madden to a four-year, $7 million deal.

When the Devils made their mistake, there was no salary cap. The Hawks wouldn’t be able to rectify their situation as easily if their restricted free agents are cut loose.

So, even though the two infractions are the same, the thinking is the League should overlook the Hawks transgression because it would hurt them. Ludicrous.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 07/06/09 at 09:32 AM ET

Don’t the players have the right to file a grievance individually, as well as the NHLPA for all of them as a whole?

I would think both Cam Barker and Kris Versteeg would draw the most money on an unrestricted basis, and might be influenced by their agents to file grievances.

Posted by CJBear71 on 07/06/09 at 09:42 AM ET

FYI - Aaron Johnson filed for arbitration, so that effectively takes him out of this discussion.

Posted by CJBear71 on 07/06/09 at 09:44 AM ET

Rather than dealing in speculation, let’s deal in fact.

Section 10.2 of the CBA reads in part:
“...the Prior Club of a Restricted Free Agent must tender to the Player, no later than 5:00 p.m. New York time on the later of June 25 or the first Monday after the Entry Draft of the final year of the Player’s SPC, a “Qualifying Offer"..."

Note that the CBA says “tender to the Player” and not “received by the Player.” Futhermore, the CBA is completely silent on the manner by which to offer must be tendered to the player (i.e. courier, registered mail, fax, etc.). Customary practice has been transmittal via fax or overnight courier, but established contract law has ruled that post-marks are sufficient to establish intent to meet deadline provisions, particularly in the case of “tenders”. Chicago’s case would be strengthened if copies of these documents were also submitted to NHL Central Registry in advance of the deadline.

Keep in mind that qualifying offers expire on July 15, and what’s really at stake here is Chicago’s right to match and/or receive compensation for any of those RFA players who might elect to sign with another team. One partial remedy for the Blackhawks would be to take any eligible RFA players in question to club-elected salary arbitration which has a deadline of 5:00 pm EDT on July 6.

All that said, the right decision in this instance would be to rule in favour of the Blackhawks, provided proof can be provided that the qualifying offers were indeed posted prior to the deadline, and then to clarify and codify the manner by which qualifying offers need to be transmitted to Players and/or that physical receipt of the qualifying offer by the Player must occur prior to the deadline.

Finally, this matter is different from the material breach by the New Jersey Devils in 2000 when qualifying offers were not sent out by that team period, let alone sent in the “wrong manner” or not in advance of the deadline.

Posted by Matthew McCallum from Redding, California on 07/06/09 at 01:11 PM ET