Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Has anyone explained the actual reason for changing this rule in the new CBA?
Perhaps that would give us a better idea who interpreted it right?
From what I understand both sides have a point as the wording is not clear.
|
It's meant to allow for teams to sign players who are otherwise eligible and ready to play for their team but for one reason or another are unable to agree on contract terms.
It's in the best interest of the team and the player (and by extension the league and the PA) that an otherwise able player should not be exempted from playing in the league if they aren't violating any regulations.
For example this offseason backlund was an RFA. Pretend for a second he doesn't sign with the Flames because he wants to wait and see the what the new cba does for contracts. He plays in Europe during the lockout and when it ends, takes some time agreeing to a contract with the flames. He wants 1 year for instance and they want longer term. He plays in Europe during the lockout to stay in game condition and to earn a paycheque. Him and Calgary agree to terms 2 weeks after the season starts.
Under the old conditions, he'd have to pass through waivers. This means either he doesn't sign with Calgary for fear of ending up in say, Columbus or, Calgary doesn't tender him a contract because of the risk of losing him via waivers.
This happened to Nabokov when he returned to the NHL after playing in the KHL. Signed with Detroit (i think?), but had to pass through waivers and was claimed by the Islanders