NHL Sparks Controversy: Vegas Allowed to Sidestep Cap Rules with Lehner’s Contract?

The NHL has once again left fans and teams puzzled by its inconsistent application of salary cap rules and this time, it involves the peculiar case of Robin Lehner’s contract.

The Swedish goaltender hasn’t played since the 2021-22 season after undergoing hip surgery, and he’s been dealing with significant personal challenges off the ice, including declaring bankruptcy.

Despite all of this, the NHL recently announced that Lehner’s contract won’t count against the Vegas Golden Knights’ salary cap for the upcoming season—a move that has raised more than a few eyebrows.

Lehner, who recently confirmed that he won’t be reporting for a physical this year, effectively confirmed that he won’t be playing in the 2024-25 season either.

This should have made him eligible for Long-Term Injured Reserve (LTIR), a mechanism that allows teams to exceed the salary cap temporarily if they have players who can’t play due to injury.

However, rather than placing him on LTIR, the NHL is choosing to remove his contract entirely from the cap equation, handing the Golden Knights an additional $4.5 million in cap space—something other teams haven’t been allowed to do so easily.

What’s odd is that this ruling comes amidst Lehner’s legal troubles. Recently, the courts found that Lehner fraudulently obtained $4.8 million in a loan just six weeks before filing for bankruptcy.

This, combined with his ongoing physical recovery and mental health advocacy, makes for a complicated situation.

But, while these factors might explain why Lehner can’t play, they don’t justify why Vegas gets to benefit without any cap ramifications.

Typically, when a player can’t play due to injury or personal reasons, they’re either placed on LTIR or, in rare cases, have their contracts terminated. Both options still leave some cap impact.

For instance, when the Vancouver Canucks signed Roberto Luongo to a long-term deal under the old CBA, they ended up with a hefty “recapture penalty” that hurt their flexibility for years.

It was a penalty imposed retroactively, and the league’s rationale was that the deal, though technically legal, violated the "spirit of the CBA."

For Vegas, though, the NHL seems to be singing a different tune. Lehner’s contract was fully in line with league rules when it was signed, yet instead of facing any cap hit, Vegas is walking away with a completely clean slate.

It’s a sharp contrast that has drawn criticism from fans and other teams alike, especially those who’ve had to navigate tricky cap situations without similar leniency.

One of the most striking aspects of this decision is the lack of transparency.

If Lehner is unable to play due to medical or personal issues, then why not just move him to LTIR, as has been done with other players in the past?

The league has not provided any clear rationale for its decision, which only fuels speculation and frustration.

The ambiguity leaves room for theories that Vegas is receiving special treatment, which doesn’t sit well with other franchises struggling to comply with the same cap rules.

Meanwhile, other teams like the Vancouver Canucks are dealing with the fallout of their own cap complications.

Vancouver is facing a dilemma over defenceman Tucker Poolman, who is likely done with professional hockey due to multiple concussions.

The Canucks are currently trying to balance their roster within a tight cap space, largely because they don’t have the same ability to creatively free up room like Vegas does in this scenario.

The decision to exempt Lehner’s contract entirely has become a flashpoint, prompting many to ask why the rules seem to shift depending on the team involved.

If this is the NHL’s way of handling similar situations moving forward, teams should at least be given clarity on how and when these decisions are made.

Otherwise, it looks like a blatant case of favoritism, something the league has been accused of before, particularly when it comes to the Golden Knights.

Ultimately, while Lehner’s personal struggles are genuine and warrant understanding, the way the NHL has handled his contract raises questions about fairness.

For Canucks fans, it’s hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu, remembering how the league retroactively penalized them for a deal that, at the time, followed all the rules.

Until the NHL starts applying its rules evenly across all teams, decisions like this will continue to erode trust and leave fans wondering: why does it seem like some teams play by different rules?