View Single Post
Old
10-03-2006, 07:02 PM
  #1
Hoss
Registered User
 
Hoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,033
vCash: 91
LTI and the CBA for players 35+

This is not specifically about the NJ Devils. I have no axe to grind. I don't have a problem with the Devils trading Malakhov's contract. My questions relate to the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McKenzie
The new CBA included a clause that basically said any 35 and over player who signs a multi-year contract will count against the team's salary cap even if he retires or plays in the minors. It is why the Tampa Bay Lightning have to account for retired Dave Andreychuk's salary. Ditto for the New York Islanders with retired goalie *** GM Garth Snow and the Toronto Maple Leafs with the retired Tie Domi.

Why would Mogilny be any different?

That's the question a lot of GMs want answered.

There are a number of issues here.

The first is whether a 35 and over player is eligible for LTI status. The CBA clearly spells out that a 35 and over player has to count against the cap even if he's retired, playing in the minors or on injured reserve, but it doesn't specifically say anything about Long-Term Injury status. Conversely, the CBA clause on Long-Term Injury doesn't say anything about precluding 35 and over players from getting LTI.

It is that interpretation that sources say will get the Devils' their relief on Mogilny
.
from: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=179719&hubname=nhl

Was this an intential clause in the CBA? Did the drafters intend for players over 35 with multi-year contracts be eligible for LTI? Or was it a loophole that New Jersey was the first to take advantage of? It seems to me to be a bit of a golden parachute.

Hoss is offline   Reply With Quote