Question

[TheScorpion]

Saw a report about a certain player potentially coming out of retirement. This player was the property of a CPHL team when he retired and would still be under contract to his CPHL club had he remained in the NHL.

If this player returns, how would we handle it in the CPHL?

[Harry Lime]

I think that this was brought up in the retirement thread, that the player would first be offered to the last team that owned him, and then be offered to the league if the original owner did not want the contract.

[MJK]

It’s the Kovalchuk clause. Bid process but last team that had him right to match best offer.

[MJK]

If the player “un-retires” it will be made available as a free agent to the league, following standard UFA bidding rules, with the team’s original GM holding the right to match the winning offer to retain the player. Per standard UFA bidding rules, teams, including the original GM must have the available cap space for their bids.

[JonDuke]

I'm not a big fan of this rule.
Let's use Niskanen as an example:
When he left, I used his cap space and assets to plug the hole he left. That used whatever cap I had left. If he returns, I then have to make even more moves, to get the right amount of cap to match and acquire him back.

So, I would essentially be penalized twice for tryimg to get someone back. I know the option is given for me to not acquire him but that would be silly too considering his rating.

I think there needs to be an asterix around *retire* with rules that state if they return within one season - the retirement never took place.

There's lots of variables to think of there, I'm sure,. I don't know what the right answer is but I don't like it as is right now.

[Harry Lime]

If this were to happen in season, there are not many teams that could put in a substantial offer, meaning that the team that previously owned him could end up re-acquiring him at a discount.

The shuffling that would have to take place is a pitfall, but there is also a potential benefit.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Dave has it right.
That's how we've handled it in the past.