Re-Entry Waivers (Avery)

[DevilChuk*]

I'm a little confused..

I had always thought (and I'm pretty sure I read this in the CBA itself) that a player like Avery who already has been claimed once on re-entry waivers would have his cap hit/salary split between the team who claimed him the first time and the team who claimed him the second time.

As in, right now Stars pay 50% and Rangers 50%.

If Team X claimed him, I had thought Stars would be off the hook, Rangers would pay 50% and Stars 50%.

Since when does the CBA outline further splits, bringing down the Ranger's and Team X's share to only 25%?

I don't expect him to be claimed, but I'm curious how the NHL can explicitly just ignore the CBA and no-one media wise is picking up on it (if I'm right).

Click to read more...

 

[Mungman]

I'm a little confused..

I had always thought (and I'm pretty sure I read this in the CBA itself) that a player like Avery who already has been claimed once on re-entry waivers would have his cap hit/salary split between the team who claimed him the first time and the team who claimed him the second time.

As in, right now Stars pay 50% and Rangers 50%.

If Team X claimed him, I had thought Stars would be off the hook, Rangers would pay 50% and Stars 50%.

Since when does the CBA outline further splits, bringing down the Ranger's and Team X's share to only 25%?

I don't expect him to be claimed, but I'm curious how the NHL can explicitly just ignore the CBA and no-one media wise is picking up on it (if I'm right).

I'm not positive on the ins and outs of it, but with the cap floor trouble Dallas has I think they would argue pretty hard to keep the 50% cap hit at the moment.

I don't see why Dallas should benefit from another teams decision to waive a player, so this seems to me to be the correct way to handle the split (50,25,25).

 

[DevilChuk*]

At the same time, you can say why should the Rangers be rewarded by the 25% cap hit whereas the Stars are stuck at 50%?

This system rewards the middle team and I would think if you had to choose between rewarding one of the two teams (you would have to, unless you did a 33% split), you would reward the team who's farthest from having the player (i.e. the original team).

 

[FissionFire]

Nobody is rewarding the Rangers over the Stars in this situation. When Dallas lost Avery to re-entry waivers they assumed 50% of the cap hit they were due to pay him. If a team claims his on re-entry from the Rangers then the Rangers will pay 50% of the cap hit they had to pay him, which is 25% of his original cap hit overall. That's why Dallas is still paying 50% but the Rangers would only pay 25%. If the team claiming him later lost him on re-entry then you'd have a 50/25/12.5/12.5 situation. It's not really difficult. A team pays based on the cap hit they has assumed, not the original cap hit. This is all specified in the CBA Section 50.9(g)(ii). Specifically the re-entry cap number applies only to 50% of the contract's remaining amount so since the Rangers are only responsible for 50% of the original contract, half of that would only be 25% of the original, or 50% of their share of it.

 

[Mungman]

At the same time, you can say why should the Rangers be rewarded by the 25% cap hit whereas the Stars are stuck at 50%?

This system rewards the middle team and I would think if you had to choose between rewarding one of the two teams (you would have to, unless you did a 33% split), you would reward the team who's farthest from having the player (i.e. the original team).

What I see it doing is punish the team that signed the original contract (assuming that the player is overpaid (which is generally the case when a veteran gets waived like this)) and rewarding the most recent team to take on the player to give them an opportunity to play in the league full time (I realize this is a little different as it is re-entry, but...).

 

[kdb209]

I'm a little confused..

I had always thought (and I'm pretty sure I read this in the CBA itself) that a player like Avery who already has been claimed once on re-entry waivers would have his cap hit/salary split between the team who claimed him the first time and the team who claimed him the second time.

As in, right now Stars pay 50% and Rangers 50%.

If Team X claimed him, I had thought Stars would be off the hook, Rangers would pay 50% and Stars 50%.

Since when does the CBA outline further splits, bringing down the Ranger's and Team X's share to only 25%?

I don't expect him to be claimed, but I'm curious how the NHL can explicitly just ignore the CBA and no-one media wise is picking up on it (if I'm right).

The most direct reading of the CBA would imply that case - Rangers 50%, Team X 50%, and the Stars off the hook. This has been the BoH "conventional wisdom". However the League is free to make it's own interpretation - except in the unlikley case that the NHLPA files a grievance against that interpretation - and it seems that the League has ruled (as reported by Puck Daddy & Lebrun) that the split would be Stars 50%, Rangers 25%, and Team X 25%.

edit: Of course, it's a moot point (for now) - he cleared.