In Elliotte Friedman's 30 Thoughts he mentions Dallas might be worried about Jeff Skinner's contract with Carolina signed prior to the expiry of the previous CBA should Jamie Benn make it to arbitration.
It seems to me that contracts signed under a previous CBA should not be comparable to ones seeking to be established under a new CBA but, from the sound of it, they are.
On what pretense is this allowed? Is purely for logistical reasons: if it was not allowed it's possible arbitration could have no comparables to base itself on which could be a problem I guess; still I am curious.
So it is possible that contracts from the 2005-2012 CBA could be considered ineligible for comparison in future arbitration cases.
This will be interesting.
Very unlikely. That would be a significant change - to the detriment of players - and would have very likely been included in the MOU terms if it were contemplated.
The 2005 CBA permitted earlier SPCs to be used in arbitration - they just discounted them by 24% to account for the 24% rollback. Given that the changes in economics across this CBA are much less than across the previous one - I would be VERY surprised if they disallowed any SPCs as comps.