Contrary to all these reports, I think that the applicable terminology from the CBA, namely 50.5 (d)(i)(b)(5), is rather ambigious. It states that all player salary bonuses earned in a season by a player who in the second or later year of a contract that was signed when they were over 35 shall count toward cap even if that player is NOT on the Club's Active Roster, Injured Reserve....Meaning, that IF the player IS ON the injured reserve, there wont be a cap hit - that should take care of mogs. Also, the "whether, or where" language actually states "whether, or where the player is playing." Well, playing is UNdefined - and could only mean that a player is being sit or that a player is not actually being played or used - ala Darren Langdon. It may not have been meant to entail a player who is refusing to report to camp or for that matter refuse to play. If a player is refusing to play, I do not see how the league can justify taxing the devils for a player who is refusing to play or even report to camp. I think a valid argument exists that the intention here was to protect a PLAYER from moves by a team to disown him when he got old, not to punish a team for a player who refuses to participate.