Clarification on Anthony Duclair and the 50 Contract Limit

When the Rangers signed Anthony Duclair back in January, I said that his contract would “slide” for both the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons:

Duclair will continue to play for Quebec in QMJHL and his contract will slide provided he doesn’t play in 10 NHL games this season. His contract could slide next season as well, meaning his contract wouldn’t officially start until his first professional season at age 20. In any year in which his contract slides, the contract will not count against the limit of 50 contracts all NHL teams have imposed on them.

Then this summer, CapGeek explained why I was wrong, and Duclair’s contract would not slide for the upcoming season.

I took this to mean he would count towards the Rangers 50 contract limit, meaning Kevin Hayes signing and John Moore‘s eventual re-signing would push the Rangers to the limit. Today I was corrected again.

The CBA definition of reserve list shows that the 50 contract limit operates independent of, though similar to, the entry-level slide rule:

Meaning although Duclair’s contract will not slide in 2014-15, he won’t take up one of their 50 contract spots, either.

So it looks like they’ll have room to invite Alex Semenov to training camp after all.


  1. […] even be able to sign Malone to a contract as Cap Geek has them at the 50 contract limit, but Jared at Rangers Unlimited did his homework finding out that according to the CBA, after signing J. Moore, the Rangers would […]

  2. […] Here is why. Even though Anthony Duclair’s contract will not slide this year, he will not count against the 50 contract max per the CBA. I had originally thought Duclair’s contract would slide and thus not count against the limit. I was right for the wrong reasons. But I did forget about Ryan Graves, whose contract will slide next year thus bringing the Rangers down to 49 contracts; one shy of the limit. […]

  3. […] Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article said the Rangers had hit the 50 contract limit. This is not true per the explanation here. […]