MARCH 1, 2008 - While I like to take pride in the fact that NHLSCAP.com is the most accurate salary and cap site available, every once in a while someone points out a mistake I've made - and while I feel bad when there's a mistake present, I'm very grateful when someone notices.  However, there's times when I look over the work I've done and realize that something just doesn't look right, but I can't figure out why - and after some digging, I realize what the problem is ... and that no one has noticed [and probably wouldn't notice if I didn't fix it on my own].

During the trade deadline was one of those moments.

I realized when working through each team's cap situation that the numbers for the teams that were affected by the LTI exception in 50.10(d) weren't correct.  Even better, I realized why it wasn't right.  I've always been a little suspicious of how I've done this and I've struggled to pull this into line to make it accurate, but I could never put my finger on what was wrong until Tuesday.  I also realized this goes back to 2005-06, when I first put together cap calculations, and that it potentially has a significant impact on whether or not teams were over the cap and had to carry an overage forward to the current season.  I still believe that Detroit and Atlanta were the only two teams to exceed the Upper Limit in 2005-06, but the amount by which each went over is now in question; I also still believe that Detroit went over in 2006-07, but I'm more convinced that Boston and San Jose were also over.  This will not affect New Jersey, who still definitely finished 2006-07 exactly $100,000 over the Upper Limit.

This also means that every site looking at this site for their LTIR exception figures [no names, please - even if we all know who they are] has it wrong.  Every site is wrong on this, unless it's a site officially produced by the NHL [which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist - otherwise, why would I take the time to replicate something that already exists and .

I've re-calculated the LTI figures for 2007-08 and I'm very comfortable that those are indeed correct now ... but I'll go back to 2005-06 and rebuild that year to get those numbers more accurate, then carry those forward to 2006-07 and do the same.  This means I'll be putting together revised pages and spreadsheets over the next couple of weeks to try and correct all numbers and better correct teams' situations for this year where necessary.  I'm hoping to have 2005-06 corrected by March 15, 2008 and to have 2006-07 corrected by March 31, 2008.  When each year is finally corrected, I'll put a notice on the front page to let everyone know.