In conjunction with last week’s callout, PHR’s Josh Erickson is answering some reader-submitted questions about the new Memorandum of Understanding and adjustments to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Some questions have been edited for clarity and style.

Mike_t – I’ve heard NHL teams can put a 19-year-old in the AHL starting next season or maybe the following season. Do you know if that is part of the new CBA?

Fargo Chipper – Does the CHL have to sign off on the reported eligibility of one 19-year-old player per team being allowed assignment to the AHL?

Starting with a bit of a two-fer here. You’re both onto something. Yes, it is part of the new MOU. Yes, the CHL will need to sign off on it before it happens. The exact text is that the NHL “will reopen its agreement with the CHL to seek to eliminate the mandatory return rule for 19-year-old Players.” The proposed modification allows teams to loan a single 19-year-old player who would otherwise be subject to the previous transfer agreement to the AHL.

As an aside, none of the changes outlined in the new MOU affect league operations for the 2025-26 season or the 2026 draft and free agency. The existing CBA/MOU combination remains valid through Sep. 15, 2026. Every modification laid out in the new MOU takes effect on that date.

blues1967 – What would be the pay scale for an EBUG, since they are expected to be ready for all 82 games? My understanding is their pay would NOT count against the salary cap, correct?

The second part of this question is the quickest to answer. An EBUG is not on the active roster or even signed to a standard NHL contract – that would prohibit them from serving as one, so they’re not considered for salary cap purposes, no.

The first is also pretty simple. Compensation for emergency backups wasn’t previously outlined in the CBA or previous MOUs, and that doesn’t change here. It is entirely up to the team to offer whatever compensation they see fit.

The MOU also stipulates that the EBUG “may also be employed by the Club in another capacity.” I imagine most teams will not “hire” a separate EBUG as a result and will instead give that responsibility to someone already in the organization, assuming they meet the new specific eligibility requirements, like a development coach who’s traveling with the team.

Those eligibility requirements are as follows, and I’ll paraphrase them as best as possible to get rid of the legalese:

1. Can’t have previously played an NHL game under a standard contract, so previous EBUGs who have entered game action remain eligible,
2. Can’t have played more than 80 professional hockey games,
3. Can’t have played pro hockey in the last three seasons,
4. Can’t have any other contractual obligation that would prevent them from honoring their EBUG responsibilities,
5. Can’t be on another NHL team’s reserve list.

vincent k. mcmahon – So with the preseason now shortened to just four games with the upcoming CBA, do you think this will have any sort of effect on roster construction around that time? Also, do you see this affecting players who settle for a PTO?

I think the shortened preseason will have a minimal impact on roster construction, particularly for existing players under contract. However, it will have a more significant effect on players with PTO. I’ll address the remedies for this in a second.

As for contracted players, yes, it likely puts more emphasis on their regular-season play the previous year to fuel their candidacy for a roster spot and may result in more teams making decisions based on players they penciled into their lineup over the summer. Considering the fluidity of rosters in the NHL, I don’t see this as a significant impact in the big picture. If anything, it protects teams from perhaps rushing players who aren’t ready for NHL roles into them based on an impressive but small training camp/preseason sample size.

To clarify these new rules (beginning with the 2026-27 preseason), teams cannot schedule more than four preseason games during training camp, those games cannot start earlier than the fourth day of camp, and no one with at least 100 games played (or dressed for goaltenders) can dress for more than two preseason games.

Like I said, opening night roster spot “battles” are often overblown because NHL/AHL roster fluidity is generally vast, particularly with a rising cap. It’s the veteran PTO players who are getting disadvantaged because they now only have a two-game sample size. In contrast, they’d have previously skated in close to every matchup in a longer exhibition schedule.

To that end, the MOU introduces a new formal mid-season PTO agreement, allowing for the extension of an on-the-books tryout into the regular season at any point. That agreement does not permit the player to enter a regular-season game; however, it does essentially provide an exclusive 10-day training/practice window, during which the team has the first right of refusal on a contract if another club attempts to sign the player.

highflyballintorightfield – Can you confirm/correct/comment on this reading of the LTIR changes: 1. A team can replace a player on LTIR only with players of average-salary-or-less (that is, no replacing an injured star with an equivalent player) unless the injured player is deemed ineligible for the rest of the season, including playoffs. 2. In the playoffs, the season’s cap amount applies (with numerous counting rules for bonuses, retentions, etc., that I will assume make sense) to the 20-man roster for each game. 3. The teams or NHLPA can request a good-faith re-assessment of the playoff cap after two playoffs in use (2028).

I’ll go number-by-number on these:

1. Correct, with a couple of caveats. Essentially, the maximum cap relief via in-season LTIR usage when the player is expected to return is limited to the league average salary for the prior campaign. If this rule were to take effect for 2025-26, the maximum LTIR relief per team would be $3.82MM, since that was the average salary for 2024-25. It will be higher when it takes effect for 2026-27, as the 2025-26 league-average salary is greater than that. Additionally, the injured player in question would be ineligible to dress in the regular season or playoffs, even if they’re medically cleared, if the team exceeded that relief threshold.
2. Correct. Dead cap applies in full in the playoffs; the only difference is your healthy scratches don’t count.
3. Mostly correct. They can have that discussion, but the current provisions are locked in through 2028-29. If they decide to scrap it entirely, that can’t happen until the 2030 playoffs.