Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
A player needs to become eligble for the draft again according to the clasule.
In order to become eligble for the draft that player have to be 18 y/o or older.
So according to the wording Cherepanov will never become eligble to the draft again. Its very simple, when you is a live you is a age, after you have died -- you was a age of -- this all according to the english languege? Right? (which I suck on so I could be wrong, but thats how you say it, right?)
So Cherry, according to the wording of the CBA, doesn't fit the criteria to become eligble for the draft again.
So gooing by the wording the Rangers don't have a case. But they are arguing that the clasule should be interpreted in favor of them anyway -- because thoose words, that a player should become eligble for the draft or become a UFA -- is only ment to expand the teams that should recive compensation. Because otherwise there could be questions if the same player that they lost, ended up with the first team either by getting drafted again or through UFA.
this is a catch 22--over the last few years teams have lost 1st rounders who became UFA do to the fact they had left UNI and were too old for juniors. And the teams losing them got a draft pick.
I was listening on line to one of the talking heads of TO who used to work for an nhl team and he said something along the lines "A team is entitled to a comp pick if they are unable to sign the pick before the expirey of their claim and said player either becomes elligable to get redrafted or signed by someone as a UFA."
Here is the question, has the nhl ever awarded a team a comp pick for a draft pick that they were unable to sign or did not want to sign due to injury or retirement?
And second question --Did the nyr offer him a contract? This goes to something from the old cba where a team needed to make an effort to sign a player to get the comp pick