NHL Rejects Ilya Kovalchuk Contract with New Jersey - Why? & Why Now?
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 11:36 PM EDT
in Devils Issues & Views
313 comments
An evening bombshell has struck the New Jersey Devils organization, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jay Grossman, and the NHL as a whole. As reported in a variety places, such as here at TSN: the NHL has rejected the $102 million, 17 year contract the New Jersey Devils and Kovalchuk agreed upon yesterday. The reason: it circumvents the salary cap.
Really. That's all. At least right now, that's all there is officially reported.
TSN went up live with it 9:54 PM EST. Gulitti had this report up a little earlier this evening; with Lou refusing to comment (probably because it's full of expletives) and Jeff Vanderbeek saying he didn't know about this. The most recent clue I found was on Twitter; the Sporting News' Craig Custance tweeted this 4 minutes ago as of this writing:
Why was Kovy's deal rejected? Was told league has issues w/it going until he's 44, that it's 17-years long and has 6 "bogus" yrs.
That surely can't be it given that the Marian Hossa deal (here from CapGeek) given last year by Chicago was accepted by the league. Same logic: high salary early, low salary at the end, and an incredibly long deal. How does that deal among others not circumvent the cap but this one does?
The Associate called me to let me know of his frustrations and he raised an excellent point. We're learning about this evening. Well after the announcement of Kovalchuk re-signing with New Jersey and after this afternoon's press conference. Why in the world did they wait until this evening to reject this deal? Was the contract acceptable at 1 PM EDT and prior; but now it's rejected?
Yes, the NHL had 5 days to approve the contract. However, the Devils made it known to all who would listen that they would publicly announce this deal with their first ever press conference to announce a player signing. No one at the NHL thought to call up Lou or Jeff or someone to say, "You may want to wait until this is approved" or "We're not approving this yet." No one at the league thought to take a few minutes and give one of their franchises a heads up before going public, taking the pictures and answering the media? Did someone just want to embarrass Lou and/or the New Jersey Devils? Why would the NHL do something like this given that the Kovalchuk signing was a very big deal when announced?
Someone dropped the ball in a big way. Be it by the Devils or the league itself.
I am just waiting to hear what the justification for this rejection is given that the NHL has accepted similar deals in the past and why we're finding about this now - after the press conference. Even St. Louis Blues defenseman Erik Johnson (who could get one of these kind of deals before he goes RFA) is asking the pertinent question:
Haven't we seen some contracts similar to Kovalchuks that were accepted by the league? Why now?
Exactly. Why now? Why, at all?
Leave me your guesses in the comments. Please link to actual news reports if you have them, I have zero tolerance for rumors at this point. I want facts.
UPDATE #1: Maybe this won't be a big deal? Per John Shannon of Sportsnet:
To clarify..The Kovalchuk contract can be restructured and re-filed within 5 days or grieve it within 5 days.
Perhaps the deal is re-done, re-submitted, and re-signed and then everyone lives happily ever after. Maybe the deal is knocked off by 2 years so it'll end when Hossa's does. That's the ideal at least.
UPDATE #2: So what happens now? Tom Gulitti updated his post on the rejection news with this important tidbit.
According to the CBA, the NHLPA has the right to file a grievance on Kovalchuk’s behalf within five days of the deal being rejected, but the contract remains voided until an arbitrator makes a ruling. The arbitrator must issue a ruling withing 48 hours of the filing of the grievance.
According to Article 11.6a (iii), if the arbitrator sustains the league’s rejection of the contract, the contract will immediately “be deemed null and void” and the player will revert to his previous status as a UFA.
If the arbitrator rules that the rejection was [in]valid, then the league must immediately approve the contract and register it.
At least there's clarity on what will happen next. Either the rejection is upheld and Kovalchuk goes back to being a free agent; or the deal stands as-is. I would think the PA is going to step in here, but of course, this will wait.
Not to be too gloomy, but suppose the rejection is upheld. Do the Devils re-sign him to a different deal? Or just say, "Forget this," have Parise and Elias as your top two left wings, use the extra cap space for 2011-12 for Parise's extension, and fill in minor spots as needed? As bitter as this tastes, I don't think that's so terrible. But that's me.
Still, don't fret now: This ain't over. (Note: I think Gulitti made a typo in the ending sentence. The league wouldn't be approving something if the arbitrator thought it was a valid rejection. Only if it's invalid.)
0 recs |
313 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
is he a FA now?
so does that make him a FA now, can other teams go after him, if they offer more money (islanders?)…
i dont see why he wouldnt stay though, since he had a conference and saying how he wants to stay in NJ (nhl.com video)
PS3: J-CAMPS
If the deal is rejected, then presumably he’s back to being an UFA.
Not sure who will want to go after him now that he’s stated his intent to be in NJ.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
i love how the flyers version of this site has this rejection on the front page with a big haha after … typical sore loser fans
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 20, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair
It’s on the front page of a lot of sbnation sites…. including LA, NYR, TOR, COL, PIT…
It’s sorta big news.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jul 20, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
who cares...
philadelphia fans couldnt recognize defeat if it happened in their own building. oh…
by brodeurman89 on Jul 20, 2010 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
How are we sore about this? We beat you with Kovalchuck in 5 games, you can’t be a sore loser when we didn’t lose to you. I’m sorry but if you can’t see the hilarity in a 17 year contract you have the homer goggles on high power. This contract has been a joke since it was first reported. Pronger’s was bad. Hossa’s was worse, but THIS? This was too much, if the NHL didn’t stop here than where? 25 year contracts to 2nd year players? This was the right call, maybe a year late but if you can’t see why they did this when Lou himself admitted it you need to readjust the focus on those goggles.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 20, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
…except there isn’t anything in the CBA that stipulates contract length or salary variance across the duration of a whole contract. Nothing in the contract violates the letter of the CBA, just like the Pronger deal, and the Hossa deal, and the Luongo deal, etc. etc.
Lou said it himself – it’s crappy that there’s a loophole, but that’s why they’re called loopholes.
As I belive I've mentioned elsewhere on this site...
You slippery slope argument (which everyone seems to love using) is incredibly weak. It’d be like a cop pulling you over and saying “Well you were only going 65 mph, and the speed limit is 65, but I believe that your going 65 mph encourages other drivers to go 75, so I’m just going to give you a ticket instead.”
I am not debating the “hilarity” of a 17 yr contract, nor saying this is a fair deal, or any better than the Pronger or Hossa deals. However, how do you possibly say that long-term contracts until 42-43 are fine (as Pronger and Hossa have, but 44 isn’t? Disregarding that there is no explicit rule setting the cutoff at 43, Isn’t setting a cut-off age at 43 incredibly arbitrary? Why not 42? Or 45? And why is Kovalchuk’s dropoff considered significantly worse than Pronger’s, which is actually larger? The bottom line, the league does not have the authority to change the rules of the game in the middle of a CBA. The NHLPA will fight this and will win.
It’s not that it’s that…it’s that you’re going 75 in a 55 zone, and others were doing 70 in a 65 zone.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
No Red Army Line, there were no rules broken, so there was no going 75 and the speed limit is the same for ALL teams. That argument doesnt fly.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Whats the difference in two years?
Will it really affect his play? Kovy will still be more valuable then Rolston is at 44.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
It refers to the contracts…we all pretty much think the Hossa, Pronger, and Kovy deals were made with little to no intention of fulfilling the contract—they were made in marginally bad faith. Kovalchuk’s crossed the line more than the others’.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That cannot be proved in any case, not Luongo’s, not Zetterberg’s, not Pronger’s, not Hossa’s.
I think thats the crux of this whole issue, how does the NHL plan to show the ‘intent’ of both sides not to complete the deal, no matter what is likely or probably or even what we, as outsiders, may think.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
It cannot be “proved,” and correct me if I’m wrong, but nothing needs to be “proven” to an arbitor.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
You are correct, once its in the hands of an arbiter, neither of the two sides have to prove anything. But in order for the NHL to deem the contract illegal without an arbiter, it does have to prove intent.
That’s why, if Im a Devils insider, I would rather not take the issue to an arbiter, but I would suspect they could restructure with the same number of years, but change the structure.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I agree with that.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I bet Lebron’s decision was on most every front page of the NBA SBN blogs. Kovy comes in the same vein, and quite frankly, there’s nothing else to talk about. Dev camps are mostly over and most FAs are out.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
To be on the cover of other SB Nation blogs is all well and good, it should be. The problem that kewinsimpguy has is the
big haha after…
Otherwise, there would be no problem. There are many more stories on the LA SB Nation blog about Kovalchuk, but they are in a different vein.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
It sounds like you guys are just way to oversensitive. Something which was pretty noticeable during the playoffs as well. If it is obvious that neither the player nor team wants the player to play anywhere near the length of the deal than it should be rejected. Pronger’s deal is BS, I mean I guess you could argue it is only 2 years short but I still think it is crap, Hossa’s is terrible too, but I’m sorry when you try to just blatantly go around it to the point where LOU publicly said it was ridiculous you have gone too far and the league isn’t going to allow it anymore.
Pronger deal is 70 in a 65, Hossa is 80 and this is a 90+ in a 75 mph zone. The slippery slope argument has pretty much come to fruition. It was Pronger’s deal, then Hossa’s and now this joke of a contract. That is the definition of a slippery slope. The next step is a 25 year contract to a guy like Bobby Ryan.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
It sounds like you guys are just way to oversensitive.
Or, it could be that we have a slightly higher standard of what passes for journalism and maturity around here. But it’s cool, we don’t expect much from BSH.
LOU publicly said it was ridiculous
I wasn’t aware of that… happen to have a cite?
DON'T PANIC.
The Chimp came to incite Devils fans, because that’s what Flyers fans do, which, whatever, I guess he has the right.
Problem is, he got beat out by intelligence and logic.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Yup painting all Flyers fans with a single brush stroke(with a wrong conclusion) really shows your maturity and intelligence. As far as BSH goes, these are all fan blogs and pretty much the quality of the writing is very high and very close. Your head write spent the entire playoffs series calling Mike Richards THE HONORLESS CAPTAIN!!!!!! Nothing wrong with that, but that is why these sites are great fans write them. Spare the holier than thou stuff.
All I have said is that the NHL should get these contracts under control. They never should have allowed Luongo, PRONGER, Hossa or a few others. I don’t have a problem with a throw away year or 2 in a 10+ year deal, this deal has 5 throwaway years. It is insane. I’m totally trying to get a rise out of you by claiming we shouldn’t have our best player(Pronger) under a contract that underpays him by 1-1.5 mil(cap hit) right now.
You guys have done nothing but whined since it hurt you guys, it is getting ridiculous and irrational. Your 2 defenses are that everyone else is doing it and that we did something wrong, everyone knows it but technically can’t prove it because nobody was dumb enough to publicly call it what it is.
Contracts like this are bad for the NHL, the Franchises, the players and the fans.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup painting all Flyers fans with a single brush stroke(with a wrong conclusion) really shows your maturity and intelligence.
You guys have done nothing but whined since it hurt you guys, it is getting ridiculous and irrational.
Pot, meet kettle.
Hey, here’s an idea. If it bothers you, don’t make the effort to visit the site, open the threads and read what’s written.
All I have said is that the NHL should get these contracts under control.
Actually what you said, and what I took exception with, was:
LOU publicly said it was ridiculous
and, frankly, I’m still waiting on that cite.
I mean, it’s not like you’d come to another team’s page at a chaotic time and make things up or take not-so-subtle jabs at “playoff sensitivity” just to get a reaction, right? Right? You are here to actually add to the conversation, aren’t you?
Feel free to begin whenever you’re ready.
DON'T PANIC.
this deal has 5 throwaway years
Prove it! Maybe t in 17 years a 44 year-old would be in the same condition as say a 38 year-old is today. I happen to believe that could be the case. Martin Brodeur is still pretty much near the top of his game. Who’s to say Ilya Kova;lchuk won’t be at 44? Nobody
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Everyone, stop with the biting
Skuba – Behave. Nothing was argued well.
Ed Van Chimp – This post has nothing to do with the Flyers, why Mike Richards has no honor, and whining in general. Please answer Frank’s question. Let me restate it:
I don’t have a problem with a throw away year or 2 in a 10+ year deal, this deal has 5 throwaway years. It is insane.
Why is 5 insane more than one or two? Where is the actual, definitive proof that these are, in fact, throwaway years?
On top of that, prove this:
Contracts like this are bad for the NHL, the Franchises, the players and the fans.
How in the world is this a bad contract? The amount and length does not affect me personally. The player and team agreed to it and unless there’s an actual, written provision in the CBA that clearly states that this deal was foul, then it’s within rules.
It is not whining to challenge claims. Please prove it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
John I was not talking about challenging claims with the whining comment, in fact the “Why now?” in the article title is very legitimate, the NHL just enforced a rule they haven’t been for years. However YOUR fans brought the Flyers and our fans into this discussion several times, not me. I agree we should both calm down though as we got a few facewashes in there, no need for a full fight.
As far as the five years thing, I consider one or 2 throwaway(Pronger contract included, though they got us with the +35 thing) years to be inappropriate, so obviously I’d find 5 and really it is 6 to be worse. I hate these contracts, and I think they are terrible for the NHL.
As far as contracts like this being bad for the NHL, if you want to see fire sales every off-season like the one Chicago is going through right now wait until some team starts pumping out 20 year contracts. This contract is unmovable, it hamstrings teams, Lou himself doesn’t like it. Fans cannot like being stuck with contracts like this, Tim Thomas, Briere, Campbell, Huet are not even close to length of this deal and they have held their teams hostage. The few instances where these contracts do work out will only make their use even more common, and either teams are going to be dominant for long periods of time due to cap circumvention or terrible because they are under the burden of these contracts. That is bad for you and me because the last time the same teams were good every year, and the same teams were bad every year the NHL had a lockout. We are all hockey fans, I don’t want to lose hockey for another year and I know you don’t either.
The only players who benefit from deals like this are the few who sign them, the rest of the players are getting hurt big time by escrow. You can say that they negotiated the deal, but contracts like this were hardly imagined when that happened.
I believe the cap circumvention provisions cover this provision, I think the NHL was right to do what they did even if it is way too late. However as you stated it is EXTREMELY hard to PROVE intent, even if it is blatantly obvious to anyone without a stake in this that Kovalchuk clearly does not intend to play 6 years for 3.5 million combined as a 40+ year old. Hossa is the same thing, and so is Luongo/Pronger/etc.
In the end, this is to me a positioning move by the NHL. IF they win great, if not they are setting the tone for the next round of CBA negotiations. I expect the Devils to win the case, and if they do I can’t really say I’ll be all that moved either way so long as teams don’t go off the deep end before the current CBA expires.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
the rest of the players are getting hurt big time by escrow.
This is relative. As I said elsewhere in these comments, the projected $35,000 Ovechkin “loses” looks like less than $200 to a more average salaried person like most of us in here.
Besides, wouldn’t a similar impact on the escrow occur in the latter years of a contract that increases significantly over time? And by significantly, I mean well above the increases in the cost of living.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Yes, but only if the player serves the whole contract. Which is not going to happen in a lot of these deals.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
oh, ok thanks
You got this weekend lottery numbers too? You can’t know that for sure, which is essentially the crux of the entire argument. Sure, one can suspect the contract won’t be played out to term, but nobody knows for sure.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
John I was not talking about challenging claims with the whining comment, in fact the "Why now?" in the article title is very legitimate, the NHL just enforced a rule they haven’t been for years. However YOUR fans brought the Flyers and our fans into this discussion several times, not me. I agree we should both calm down though as we got a few facewashes in there, no need for a full fight.
I have fans? Cool. But guess what, you’re complicit and you recognized that.
As far as contracts like this being bad for the NHL, if you want to see fire sales every off-season like the one Chicago is going through right now wait until some team starts pumping out 20 year contracts
Chicago put themselves in the situation they are now in. They have no one to blame but themselves.
This contract is unmovable, it hamstrings teams, Lou himself doesn’t like it.
The Devils don’t seem intent on moving it given the NMCs and NTCs attached; and Lou may not like it, but he offered it.
Fans cannot like being stuck with contracts like this, Tim Thomas, Briere, Campbell, Huet are not even close to length of this deal and they have held their teams hostage.
Fans can get angry at management of the team for, well, not managing the team. With all contracts you take a risk to get a guy and sometimes it doesn’t work out. Not many like the Rolston deal. That doesn’t mean the NHL needs to dump the Over-35 provisions because it hurts the Devils’ cap flexibility.
The few instances where these contracts do work out will only make their use even more common, and either teams are going to be dominant for long periods of time due to cap circumvention or terrible because they are under the burden of these contracts
Prove circumvention. I swore I asked you to do this. You didn’t. I’m disappointed. Anyway, let me restate an earlier point: The teams put themselves in this position. They don’t have to offer these kinds of deals. Some teams know what they are doing and so they take calculated risks such that even if something goes wrong, they can manage it. Some teams don’t and suffer. This was true before and after the cap. This will remain after the next CBA because this is how sports work.
The role of the CBA isn’t to prevent the NHL teams from making dumb and regrettable errors like signing Derek Boogard to seven figures, trading Simon Gagne for Matt Walker and a 4th, and signing Brian Rolston to roughly $5 million/year after age 35.
That is bad for you and me because the last time the same teams were good every year, and the same teams were bad every year the NHL had a lockout
Funny how that coincides with how well run those good teams are compared to the bad teams.
We are all hockey fans, I don’t want to lose hockey for another year and I know you don’t either.
You’re right I don’t. I still don’t see how these contracts will cause that.
The only players who benefit from deals like this are the few who sign them, the rest of the players are getting hurt big time by escrow. You can say that they negotiated the deal, but contracts like this were hardly imagined when that happened.
Too bad for them. They agreed to the CBA which clearly stated that all cap hits would be based on average salary and does not have limits on how long a contract can be. They agreed to the escrow provisions. They willfully signed off on it. If you want me to start crying tears for six-to-seven figure salaried players losing a couple Gs based on an agreement they signed off on, then you’re mistaken.
I believe the cap circumvention provisions cover this provision
What you believe doesn’t matter. Show me where in the CBA this deal is rejectable.
I think the NHL was right to do what they did even if it is way too late.
What you think doesn’t matter. Why was the NHL right to step in now all of the sudden to stop a deal a team and a player agreed upon?
. However as you stated it is EXTREMELY hard to PROVE intent, even if it is blatantly obvious to anyone without a stake in this that Kovalchuk clearly does not intend to play 6 years for 3.5 million combined as a 40+ year old.
Prove that it’s obvious. I don’t see it. Kovalchuk can totally play until he’s 44 if he’s in shape and remains healthy. It’s unlikely, but it wouldn’t be so surprising – he wouldn’t be the first guy to do it. Given that people are crowing about how he can’t do it, it wouldn’t surprise me if he makes a point of it to keep playing until he’s 44.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes I did, I have absolutely no idea why that first quote was even needed since I admitted that and wanted to move on…
I’m not crying for the Alexander Ovechkin’s of the world. I talking about the entry level players who make 7-8 million dollars over a decade or so and leave the game with concussions and other serious health issues that are going to render them borderline incapable of working for the rest of their lives in addition to making them pay health care costs. But yeah, it is totally better to give the money to billionaire owners.
The issue isn’t his physical ability in my opinion. Even if he is banged up he’ll still be able to make an honest effort to play, look at how much longer Foppa is hanging on even after he should. The issue is that Kovalchuk is not going to play 6 years to make 3.5 million dollars in the 2020s. It is not going to happen, not in a million years. Stick your head in the sand do whatever it is that makes you sleep better at night it’ll never happen and we both know it. If you can’t be honest with yourself then we are going to have to agree to disagree.
As for the CBA:
(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement,
If the NHL believes that the contract is designed to circumvent the cap they can void it. That is straight out of the CBA John, the issue is precedent because there are several other contracts that are blatant violations of that article as well.
What I think doesn’t matter? I agree that my opinion isn’t changing anything or remotely important in the hockey world. What is the point of even talking about things if nobody’s opinion matters…. We don’t even know how an Arbiter would rule on this some everyone’s argument right now is basically a pure opinion in area that we’ve never really approached before.
Fans can get angry at management of the team for, well, not managing the team. With all contracts you take a risk to get a guy and sometimes it doesn’t work out. Not many like the Rolston deal. That doesn’t mean the NHL needs to dump the Over-35 provisions because it hurts the Devils’ cap flexibility.
And when fans get angry at management for long enough(which a bad 20+ year contract is going to cause) they are going to stop going to games. Teams will make less money because of a CBA loophole, players and teams are going to fight and there is going to be a lockout… it may or may not cause it, but there is a definite risk with just letting teams have at it with contracts like this.
As far as proving circumvention. Well let’s see a guy getting 11.5 million dollars for 5 straight years, 10.5 the next and 8.5 the year after bringing to a total of 6 straight years with actual payments at least 4.5 million over the cap hit and 7 straights with at least 2.5 million more seems like cap circumvention to me, and most of the world. Clearly not to you however, but what we think doesn’t matter right John? It is what the NHL thinks, and they think it is….
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
After earning that much, the interest on their savings will supplement their measly half million dollar a year income.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
And when fans get angry at management for long enough(which a bad 20+ year contract is going to cause) they are going to stop going to games
Huh, that must be what happened in Toronto with the Maple Leafs and in DC with the Redskins. Wait, what? They still sell out every game and have waiting lists to get season tickets? Go figure.
I guess fan loyalty supercedes dumb management decisions after all.
As far as proving circumvention. Well let’s see a guy getting 11.5 million dollars for 5 straight years, 10.5 the next and 8.5 the year after bringing to a total of 6 straight years with actual payments at least 4.5 million over the cap hit and 7 straights with at least 2.5 million more seems like cap circumvention to me, and most of the world.
Emphasis mine. “Seems like” is a long way from proving.
It seems like my workday is 20 hours long, but I certainly can’t prove that it is, especially since my time card refutes it. It didn’t seem like I was speeding when I got pulled over and ticketed for going 10 mph over the limit, but that pesky radar gun refutes my feelings on the matter.
Empirical evidence has a way of overriding abstract concepts like how things “seem.”
DON'T PANIC.
And the NHL believes it has enough to reject this contract. Ilya Kovalchuk intends going to spend 7 seasons playing at amounts significantly over his cap hit and retire before it evens out with 7 years that are about 5-5.5 million dollars under his cap hit. That is circumvention.
Congratulations on citing a historic NFL franchise and the most popular team on Earth. Go take a look at the arenas of the Thrashers, St. Louis Rams, pre-revival Blackhawks, pre 09-10 Coyotes, Colombus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, Islanders etc. They’re mausoleums.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 22, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Ilya Kovalchuk intends going to spend 7 seasons playing at amounts significantly over his cap hit and retire before it evens out with 7 years that are about 5-5.5 million dollars under his cap hit. That is circumvention.
No, that is speculation. Unless you have some empirical evidence that that is his intent, you can’t say that that is his intent.
Congratulations on citing a historic NFL franchise and the most popular team on Earth. Go take a look at the arenas of the Thrashers, St. Louis Rams, pre-revival Blackhawks, pre 09-10 Coyotes, Colombus Blue Jackets, Florida Panthers, Islanders etc. They’re mausoleums.
Is that because fans got angry at management? No, it’s because they’re not traditional markets where the sport didn’t/hasn’t caught on or they’re perennial losers… as you point out, winning turned around the Blackhawks and Coyotes really quickly.
And, how does one become a historic franchise and most popular team on Earth whilst sucking for years on end without fans who are loyal enough to look past ownership’s mistakes and root for the team regardless?
Point was, and is, that your causality is flawed.
DON'T PANIC.
Really? The Islanders aren’t a historic franchise? The Blackhawks? Do you know anything about hockey history? When teams are this bad for this long, which this loophole is going to exacerbate teams are going to lose a ton of revenue.
And guess what… YOU DON’T HAVE TO PROVE HIS INTENT!
So long as the NHL believes this contract has the effect of circumventing the cap, it can be nullified.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 22, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The Islanders aren’t a historic franchise? Blackhawks?
Did I say they weren’t?
When they were winning they weren’t in the same situation now, where they? How does any of that help prove your point? All it demonstrates is that most people like a winner.
It says nothing about fans abandoning teams due to poor management decisions… which was your original statement, lest you’ve forgotten you’re point while setting up all these straw men.
So long as the NHL believes this contract has the effect of circumventing the cap, it can be nullified.
Well, it would be up to an arbiter who would hear the case from both sides, not the NHL, so what they think means little unless they can PROVE it to an arbiter.
DON'T PANIC.
I’m your fan John.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I'm your fan John
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
that's not what i am reading
if the deal is rejected, they have to renegotiate a deal that will be accepted.
Lou's Comments
I can’t help but think his comments about there being precedence has something to do with the rejection.
Meanwhile, the Kovy signing is still all over the NHL.com website.
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No, he won’t, he’s not actually the NHLPA commissioner. It appears that the union is still in disarray.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe not today, but I think this might finally be an issue to help make the PA realize they need a shark like Fehr.
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I cant
believe this right now, Im flabbergasted… I dont know what to think, and Im angry cause of the previous aforementioned contracts (Luongo, Hossa, Pronger).
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Exactly
It’s funny how the league lets these ridiculous contracts slide until NJ decides to get in on this loophole, and THEN the league says it’s too much. Lou and his lawyers need to lay a smackdown on these idiots running the NHL and tell them “sour grapes, fix it in the next CBA”.
i agree
absolutely should have waited to have the entire press conference until after the league approves the contract. Then comment on how you didn’t exactly follow the “spirit of the CBA”. The league had to reject, but they know the appeal will overturn their decision. This is a statement by the league that they will change this loophole asap, but the contract will stand
Did the NHL read this?
But seriously, we all knew it was coming at some point, that some length would be too long. Before this AO and DiPietro got long deals in RFA time, Hossa 12 yrs in UFA time. Kovy exceeded Hossa by 5 years, which is pretty significant. Too big of a jump I guess.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
Too big? Where in the CBA is there a term limit on contract lengths?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Chris Chelios played 53 professional hockey games last year at the ripe old age of 48. Yes 46 of them were in the AHL, but he nonetheless serves as the best example of how it is possible to be playing at the age of 44. The league cannot prove otherwise
Also, implying that a person of that age wouldn’t be physically fit to do so would be ageism.
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
there isn’t, but the CBA does reserve the right to reject a contract that violates the intention of the document.
i think it’s quite clear that the zetterberg, franzen, hossa, luongo, savard, keith, and pronger deals all violate it.
They clearly do and so does Kovalchuk’s. That said the NHL can’t make a stand now after precedence has already been created.
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
So 44 is the cutoff age? Or is it 43? 42 is ok but not 44?
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
there has to be a cutoff somewhere, doesn’t there? what’s to stop the flyers from signing carter to a 23 year, 92 million dollar deal next year?
league obviously should’ve stepped in on the zetterberg and franzen deals.
Not before they deal with it in NEGOTIATIONS in the next CBA, there is no cutoff.
Right now, nothing would stop them.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
the CBA has a clause in it which is basically anything we as the league see as a circumvention of the spirit of these rules, even if it isn’t a circumvention of the rules laid out in this document, we reserve the right to strike those violating contracts/trades/what have you down.
Which is totally ridiculous, and leaves the door both wide open for interpretation, and bolted closed to have the NHL do ‘whatever we want.’
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
How can you interpret "the spirit" of a rule?
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Too big of a jump
It’d be amazing if someone scored 80 goals next season, but if next season we had 60, then 62, then 66, then 71, and then five seasons later 80, it would still be amazing, but not as amazing.
I hope that clarified my POV.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Clarified yes, but scoring goals is not a fair comparable to “loopholing” the rules
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Did I say it was?
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I read with your clarification. If you would clarify further, please do so.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Amazing = bending the rules.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
So 14 years would be ok, and the next year someone could do 16?
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know for sure, but basically Kovy’s deal was competing with 12, and he went 17. Small steps like you said would make it seem better. It’s harder to draw a hard line when contracts are steadily getting longer, rather than when there’s a sudden jump.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
James Duthie is saying there’s two outcomes:
1. The NHL retracts its stance based on a PA grievance.
2. The Devils re-work the deal by adding to the front 2 years and removing some of the fluff, so something like $7M x 14yrs = $98M.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Jul 20, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jul 20, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
How about a link to Duthie instead of a quote of a comment of some other place referring to Duthie?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Touchy much?
Sorry, I don’t have a link, it was playing on the TSN. I’ll post one when I find one.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jul 20, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not being touchy. Here’s a quote from this very post:
Please link to actual news reports if you have them, I have zero tolerance for rumors at this point. I want facts.
I am asking you to do so. Please do so.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
My bad. Didn’t read that. I’ll find a link.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s probably on the right side of TSN (where they have videos), if any place. Maybe one of those PPP guys has DVR. If not, at least you chose to quote an editor.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
&*%$ this I'm buying the Kovy jersey anyway
I have faith in Lou.
by Scoob1978 on Jul 20, 2010 11:18 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Because it’s an issue between the league, one of it’s franchises, and now the union.
League sites normally don’t air their own dirty laundry.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but they should pull the Kovy to the Devils right? Seems to be sensible. They won’t comment yet on the dispute but at least pretend like it didn’t happen
by Tom Stivali on Jul 20, 2010 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
UN-BEE-LEEEVABLE
I can’t help but think the NHL has really stepped in it this time. Pronger plays until he’s 42, with his last five years going from $6.2M to $525K. Hossa plays until he’s 42, his last five years going from $7.9M to $1M. Kovalchuk plays until he’s 44, bell-curves his salary from $6M to $11M to $6M then last seven years goes from $6M to $550K. I’m no lawyer, but to me, these are very similar contracts. Almost identical, in fact, except the bell-curve on Kovy’s. Which unstated NHL limit is there that the Kovy contract exceeded? Max age? Min age? Max length? Max peak? Peak vs. floor ratio?
Maybe it’s just too complicated for the NHL to figure out, so they just said no?
I’d appeal for discriminatory reasons. It’s obvious Bettman has something against Lou. (just kidding…. maybe).
But seriously, I’d appeal.
First outrage
but the more I read about it, the more I think by the end of the week, this will be resolved by the NHLPA and it wont hurt the Devils or Kovy.
I feel this is a political move to set up for the next CBA
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
If I was Lou I would print up a copy of the Chris Pronger, Marian Hossa, and Rick DiPietro contracts and beat Gary Bettman to death with them.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
I've added another update
This time regarding about what will happen next, thanks to Gulitti.
I’m going to bed. Honestly, I’ve stated my disinterest in Kovalchuk re-signing earlier; but this is an awful turn of events. I still can’t get past the fact that the NHL just pulled the rug right out from one of their own franchises and embarrassed them. It’d be one thing if they rejected it yesterday or this morning; but they seemingly waited until after the Devils announced it publicly, made a big deal of it, took the pictures, answered the media, and such only to have a big egg on their face.
Some mock the Devils as Mickey Mouse. What do you call the league here?
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Oh one more thing
I look forward to seeing Hossa try and score on Luongo into my late 30s
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 20, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
James Duthie Tweet Links Explaining what could happen...
PA has 5 days to file grievance, then an arbitrator will decide
If grieved, the arbitrator is supposed to fix the contract so it conforms to the CBA
Kovy and the Devs can restructure the deal themselves to make it “conform”
Sorry, I screwed up the last link…
Kovy and the Devs can restructure the deal themselves to make it "conform"
the NHLPA will not like this powerplay by the league (i know this is no time for silly puns) they will file a grievance and the arbitor will look at the facts and cases presented by both sides. Arbitor will then make a ruling. based on similar contracts around the league, the contract will get through
Just came on the site and saw this. Here is my question, if someone knows the answer please reply:
How does the whole deal work with the arbiter? The NHL says that Nobody actually expects Kovy to play until he is 44, but, as has been noted, many players have played up to and even beyond that age. So, if this was in court, the NHL’s case would be dismissed before it ever went to trial.
How strong does evidence have to be if the NHL and NHLPA go to an arbiter over this? Unless the NHL has specific evidence demonstrating that Grossman, the Devils, and Kovalchuk have actually agreed that he will not play to the end of his contract, they have literally no evidence. The precedent for a player playing until he is 44 has been set and strengthened over and over.
many players have played up to and even beyond that age
In the NHL? Not true. Few have. It’s quite rare. I linked to a FanPost on PPP above and it had like 8 people in NHL history.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
8 is still more than none
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 20, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, but when I said, "many," I meant more than three or four. For our purposes, it is, in fact, many.,
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 20, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m guessing the league will point to the age in the final year of the contract. QuantHockey has a detailed post from January 2009 on the average age of NHL retirement. 0.02% of players retired at 44 (Kovalchuk’s age at the end of the deal) — that’s compared to 0.11% of players at 42 (Marian Hossa and Roberto Luongo contracts).
0.02% is not many.
link here.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
The difference between 0.11% and 0.02% is only 0.08%. And if 0.02% = 8 players than 0.08% = 32 players. So you are saying that the less than a tenth of a percent difference that only equals 32 people is the line between breaking the rules and being completely honest and legal… I find your concept of math very suspect…
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly, and % has nothing to do with it. If something has happened multiple times, you can’t build an assumption on the idea that that something can’t happen.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
and the AVERAGE retirement age is just shy of 28. By that logic, any contract that runs a player past 30 circumvents the CBA.
For our purposes? How so?
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
By setting a precendent showing that yes, players can play that long; moreover, that its occurrence has not been an isolated incedent.
If eight different players have done it, they can’t say that the people involved in the deal all know that Kovy won’t play that long. They can’t base an assumption on that when it has happened multiple times.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Of the thousands of players who have played in the NHL you are saying that 8 makes it not an isolated incident? It is a preposterous arguments especially considering that most of the old guards in the NHL are defensemen or at the very least checking forwards and not goal scoring snipers who flame out much quicker.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions
0.02% is not setting a precedent. It is showing how very rare a player will play till 44. How very unlikely you will find a player staying in the NHL to retire at age 44.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
The foundation of their assumption (if they don’t have any other concrete evidence) is that something will not happen, but that something has happened multiple times. You can say that it’s probable, but you cannot say so definitively in any way. Their evidence doesn’t prove anything, because it’s based on false logic.
But agree to disagree I guess. I have to go to bed!
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, that is precedent
The actual definition only requires one example of an occurrence. There are 8
The highly unlikely isn’t the same as “never going to happen.” As noted, there’s precedence.
It’s just as unlikely, in fact, as Luongo and Hossa going through the end of their deals, which also end well past 40. Yet, the NHL didn’t reject those deals.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 7:59 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, and they should have rejected them. They finally addressed what was going to be an issue of epic proportions in this league, the bottom line is that Ilya Kovalchuk was never going to play for 1 million dollars. The NHL simply enforced a rule they should have been enforcing for a while. The only reason you care is that it affected your team, but you really have no argument about the legitimacy of what they did other than that they hadn’t been enforcing the Cap circumvention rules.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Four players in NHL history, other than goalies, played at the age of 44: Gordie Howe, Chris Chelios, Doug Harvey, and Tim Horton. Also three goalies from the 50s and 60s when i guess goalies were in short supply. (Jacques Plante, Gump Worsley, Johnney Bower) and Moe Roberts
Moe Roberts is particularly interesting trivia answer because: 1) He played a grand total of 10 NHL games in his career. 2) He hadn’t played a hockey game in six years and an NHL game in 18 YEARS. 2) When he was 46 he played one period, and was dressed for zero games, but was the Blackhawks assistant trainer at the time. (Theres still a NHL rule that basically states if both your goalies are unable to play, you are allowed to put literally ANYONE in goal, though nowadays you must retroactively sign them to a tryout agreement) But i digress…
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
So if Marty and Lump were both injured, we could get a period or 2 out of Terreri? That’d be…neat.
( I don’t know why I called him Lump…I like it as a nickname though.)
(Theres still a NHL rule that basically states if both your goalies are unable to play, you are allowed to put literally ANYONE in goal, though nowadays you must retroactively sign them to a tryout agreement)
Didn’t the Capitals (almost) go through this last season, and it was their assistant webmaster or something who was the “ANYONE” in question?
Though to be fair to the capitals assistant webmaster, he was actually their practice goalie when the other ones weren’t there. (a lot of times its one of the coaches who does this instead of a web coder)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
He wasn’t until after that. Nowadays he is, but prior to that he just had his old gear hanging around and practiced pretty infrequently.
I was at that game, it was kind of cool having Leondhardt80 in then Varlamov coming in halfway through the first. Man, if Johnson had been hurt before that… (he was run over, but got up okay)
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
there’s a line in the CBA about ‘circumstantial’ but so long as Kovy says he intends to play out the length of the contract and nobody comes forward with physical evidence stating otherwise I can’t imagine the arbiter sides with the league. And you KNOW Lou is walking in with the Pronger/Hossa/Luongo/DiPietro/etc. contracts in hand.
Who the hell runs the NHL’s PR department? It seems like every time we think they can’t get any worse…
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 20, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
If we can pretty much tell that Kovalchuk doesn’t intend to play out the contract then I’m sure the arbiter can to. Like I said above, this is the longest deal in the NHL right now by 5 years essentially, by 29.4% relative to Kovalchuk’s deal and 41.7% relative to Hossa’s.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
If anyone bothered to listen to Kovy at the press conference...
…they would know that right now he has every intention of trying to play to the end of his contract. He even mentioned changing/increasing the level of his training when he’s 37 so that he will be in decent enough shape to be able to play until the contract ends.
If you think Ilya Kovalchuk is going to play for 1 million dollars for about 4-5 years you are absolutely insane. I hope he does, because by that point he’ll be useless and have a big cap hit anyways.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
The point is, it doesn’t matter what we think or what Bettman thinks. We can’t prove our thoughts. The only thing that matters is what Kovy has stated as his intention. It would be impossible for the NHL to disprove what he says regarding how long he intends to play which is what they would have to do to win their argument that he doesn’t intend to play until he’s 44..
no…we ASSUME he doesn’t intend to play out the contract.
It’s a preposterous contract. It’s a ridiculous contract. BUT UNDER THE NHL CBA, IT’S A LEGAL CONTRACT.
Unless any of you have the tapes to prove otherwise…? No? I thought not.
Richard Nixon Joke For The Win!!!!!!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
The above post was supposted to read
expitive deleted
Richard Nixon Joke for the Win!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s the longest free agent contract by five years. The Dipietro contract was for 15 years.
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 21, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Dipietro was Islander property when he signed the deal so that makes it less fraudulent???
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I was merely commenting on the following:
this is the longest deal in the NHL right now by 5 years essentially
However, Dipietro’s contract is not a good comparison other than length. The salary stays constant over the life of the deal.
The applicable comparisons are Hossa, Pronger, Zetterberg, Franzen, Lecavalier, and Luongo.
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 21, 2010 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
and length shouldn't count at all
unless there’s something in the CBA limiting contract length, which there isn’t. A player signing a 10 year deal at, say 25, is very different than a player signing a 10 year deal at 35. I don’t see that big of a difference between a contract ending when a player is 42 and a contract ending when a player is 44.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Actually the 10 years at 35 wouldn’t be questioned at all because the team would get screwed unless the player played untill he was 45 because of the 35+ rule.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
ok
10 years at 34 then
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
More length = more screwing with the cap.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
no
because he’ll actually be playing the same amount of time in either case.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
in fact
if you take 2 contracts, one given for 10 years to a 34 year old, and one given for 20 years to a 24 year old, the 20 year deal screws with the cap less, because the player will actually be playing for a larger percentage of the deal.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Our comparables deal with guys on UFA deals—Hossa, Lecavalier, etc. Not 24 year olds. Closer to 30.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
As I understood, the length of the contract matters not in accordance to the CBA. The issue it seems, is that the back end of the contract has such low numbers, why would it matter how old the player was when he signed it (unless over 35).
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
What I’ve been saying elsewhere is that this is 5 years longer than the comparable in Hossa’s 12 yrs with Chicago. That’s quite significant, 42%.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions
If you consider the players’ ages when the contracts were signed, Hossa was 30, Kovalchuk 27, so 3 of those extra 5 years could be discounted, so the career length difference is only 2 years, 2 / 12 = 16.67%
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
yes but
what you’re ignoring is that Kovalchuk is younger than those other players were when they signed their deals. That’s why, though his deal is 5 years longer, he’ll only be 1-2 years older when his deal is finished.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Actually Ovechkin’s is currently 13 years, AND Gretzky’s original Edmonton contract was for 21 years for a personal services contract.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Yeah that contract was when there was no cap genius which makes it utterly irrelevant to this argument.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks Chimp, nothing is irrelevant in this argument when no one knows the exact parameters of the problem the NHL has with the contract. One of the potential issues, as you yourself clearly state, is the length of the contract. Being that the Greatest ever had a contract that crossed over 3 decades means the NHL could never state a contract of that length (or in this case, 17 years) to be invalid.
I find it amusing that someone named Van Chimp calls someone else a genious sarcastically
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
The NHL does not have a problem with the length of this contract. That isn’t the issue at all and you talking about it makes no sense. If a 22 year old signs a 14 year deal it is probably fine, because it is at the very least somewhat realistic that he could play out the life of the deal at a reasonably high level. If a 34 signs a 14 year contract and the last 4 years average the league minimum well, that is pretty clearly cap circumvention, no 44 year old man is going to be playing for the league minimum with that contract simply because his skills won’t be worth the cap hit. It isn’t an issue of deal length, and it is only relevant in a cap era so Gretzky never should have been mentioned.
Keep the personal attacks coming, the name is a parody of a guy who went out and destroyed the man Ilya Kovalchuk takes the #17 after Valeri Kharlamov when the Flyers beat the Russians.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions
…except you still haven’t shown us the clause in the CBA that says a 14-year contract for a 22-year-old is ok, but 14-year contracts for 34-year-old players is circumvention.
All you’ve managed to say – over, and over, and over – is that somehow the Kovalchuk contract crossed a ‘line’ that doesn’t exist on paper. You can’t say the Devils got caught ‘going 90 in a 75mph zone’ because there IS NO SPEED LIMIT – at least not written in anything that is legally binding.
The issue isn’t the length. It is the clear intent of these deals, which is to lessen the cap hit and allow players to retire once they start getting paid small sums compared to their cap hit. If a contract is written to circumvent the cap the NHL can void it. The NHL then has to prove it’s case.
I think this is more of a precedent for the future CBA negotiations than anything, and that the Devils will probably win this one. It didn’t cross any line that hasn’t been crossed, it just crossed much more brashly and obviously than any other contract.
The League should have stomped this out a while ago, sadly it is probably too late under this CBA but I applaud the NHL’s effort because these contracts is bad for the game/fans/players/franchises… everyone really.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
here’s the problem – and I feel like I’m in the Matrix now – THERE IS NO LINE IN THE CBA THAT WAS CROSSED. Not for the Kovalchuk deal, nor the Pronger deal, nor any of the other long-term/low hit deals that were signed prior.
If a line is crossed when a contract is deliberately structured to lower its cap hit then ANY contract in which the salary isn’t consistent from year to year ‘circumvents’ the cap. That’s why there isn’t any language about this in the CBA – because it’s in the best interest of both teams and players to be able to negotiate long-term contracts with higher bottom lines but a reasonable cap hit.
The ‘bad for the game’ stuff is a little bit disingenuous. Teams like it (the CBA as written) because it allows them to lock up players for lower cap hits than they would have otherwise. Players like it because it gets them more money long-term (let’s face it – the only way Kovalchuk was going to get $100M was through a deal like this one). There’s no rule that says only the Devils, Flyers, Canucks, Caps, and Blackhawks can sign players to these kind of deals – anybody could have done it, because according to the CBA, it’s NOT illegal.
You could make the point that deals like this keep the cap from enforcing ‘competitive balance,’ but that’s not why the cap was put there – it’s for ‘cost certainty.’
The best you can do – the best ANY of us can do – is lament that the loophole exists and count the days until it’s closed in the next CBA. To say the NHL has a ‘moral’ case against contracts like this is fine, but you seem to be saying rather emphatically that they have a LEGAL case against such contracts, which they don’t – and that’s probably why you’re raising the ire of some folks around here.
by richer44 on Jul 21, 2010 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
In short, Ed, prove your claims. Why is this bad? What rules did this contract break? Don’t give me spirit of the law, give me the actual law.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually I have said multiple times I expect the NHL to lose the hearing. I think more than anything that the league is posturing for the CBA negotiations. I believe contracts like this are terrible and pretty much agree with this wholeheartedly:
The best you can do – the best ANY of us can do – is lament that the loophole exists and count the days until it’s closed in the next CBA.
Legally, the proof issue is one I cannot answer. The arbitration may find there is some sort of reasonable doubt as a burden of proof with these contracts. If so I think some of these contracts reach that threshold. If not, oh well.
The cost certainty issue is intertwined to competitive balance in my opinion. When teams spend themselves into years of terrible hockey their revenues are going to be atrocious, they’re going to be like the Coyotes, Thrashers, Islanders, etc. because if they have to buyout these contracts they will be on the books for close to 30 years. I don’t think these contracts are good for cost certainty or competitive balance and quite frankly I think they are quickly turning into a runaway freight train heading for a lockout.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Amazingly, I understood your parody, and thru that figured you were a Flyers fan.
I cannot understand why you would want to remind everyone of van Impe breaking Khalamov’s leg (along with the rest of the debauchery that was that game).
The Gretzky contract was brought up to show that the 17-year deal was indeed, not the longest contract in the NHL, no other reason.
I do not know you, so questioning the use of your name coupled with sarcastically calling out someone as a genious, is not personal. It is based solely on your actions here on this board.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Fire and Ice blog just added this paragraph to their post:
“One potential problem is that, according to the Denver Post, there is not "systems" arbitrator in place right now, so there is no one to rule on the grievance. Finding an arbitrator could drag out the case for weeks.”
I wonder if they (NHL) know this, and they know they would lose if it went to an arbiter, but are betting that the Devils will restructure it to avoid dragging it out just because there is no arbiter in place.
Being able to drag it out while an arbiter is found would seem, ironically, like a stretch of the rules, but the alternatives; that the appeal can’t be filed or that it is automatically approved/rejected, are not attractive.
DON'T PANIC.
the rules say it ‘shall’ be decided within 48 hours. They have to find an arbiter quickly, else the league is breaking their own rules.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
if the league were to drag their feet for the rest of the sumer AND basically embarass one of their franchise with no warning after they held a press conference it would be a travesty.
I still cannot get over how the league didn’t give Lou a little warning, unless it was a kneejerk reaction to the presser itself and more specifically, Lou’s comments.
Nick Kypreos is reporting that there was warning, and the Devils went ahead anyway.
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 21, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
If that’s the case then I’d be angry with the Devils.
That’s a big “if” though.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 7:16 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Shocking but not surprising
The NHL (and especially Bettman) have been doing everything in their power to make to more and more difficult for the Devils to be succesful. Everything from changing the puck handling of goaltenders because of how good Marty is at that to instituting rules to try to render the trap less effective has been created in an attempt to prevent the Devils and their system from being successful. I think the league’s hatred of the Devils began when Lou took the league to court during the conference finals against Boston. Ever since then, the NHL has been doing everything in their power to screw the Devils (case in point: the horrendous officiating of our playoff games). It’s ridiculous. And now the league knows that with Kovy and Zach the Devs are going to dominate once again. So, they are doing this to either a) cause us to lose Kovy or b) force us to restructure the contract such that the hit will be too high for us to be able to re-sign Zach.
It figures...
I work my butt off the today to write my first ever fan post. And when I finish it and press publish I come to the front page and its obvious that Gary Bettman has just up-staged me. So please, do me a favor and read my post, it should take your minds off this debacle.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
So Kovalchuk’s contract circumvents the cap but Pronger, Hossa, Luongo, and Zetterberg’s don’t. This makes sense how?
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
Because they play for teams that Gary Bettman is not trying to destroy!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions
except Pronger, the league really doesn’t care for the flyers either .
by st.pattysdaymassacre26 on Jul 21, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions
EVERY contract that isn’t flat year-to-year circumvents the trap.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Even if the deal “circumvents” the cap, the nhl should make rules preventing it, not just judge whether or not it seems fair. The Devils broke 0 rules, the NHL has 0 rules preventing this. If they don’t like it, hire people with double digit IQ’s and create rules preventing loopholes
this is not how collectively bargained agreements work.
by Triumph44 on Jul 21, 2010 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
kinda ticked off
If this were the penguins trying to ink crosby for life with the same EXACT deal I don’t think the league would have stepped in. Bettman knows who his favorite “kids” just look at the winter classic match up this year and the one from 08 and tell me Gary doesn’t show favoritism towards certain teams.
by st.pattysdaymassacre26 on Jul 21, 2010 12:52 AM EDT reply actions
jersey or no
i want to buy a kovy jersey maybe tomorrow or day after but should I
what are the chances of him staying in NJ, he did have a conference and said he wanted to stay and such..
PS3: J-CAMPS
99%
that he stays. now that all this happened lou will already bring the cap hit up just to keep him. also if they do go to arbitration unless the arbitrator is rigged or bribed we will most likely win and keep the same contract
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions
not worried about it,,,
To be honest, I am not really worried about this NOT going through. Its wicked similar to the other ridiculous 10+ year contracts signed. Not only that, but at the very least, take three years off of it and make Kovi’s salary $1M the final 5 years. Then its still only a 6.25M cap hit, and that is even assuming the NHLs forces the Devils and Kovi to restructure, which I don’t think they have any basis on which to do so.
I am still getting a Kovi jersey. He was my favorite player BEFORE he came to New Jersey. I’d never believe Kovi would be playing his career in NJ if you told me so even half-way through last year.
Im not worried about signing Kovy, but its just disrespectful and unprofessional the way the NHL handled this whole situation.
by st.pattysdaymassacre26 on Jul 21, 2010 1:21 AM EDT reply actions
This comment above indicates that there was no disrespect or unprofessional action from the NHL. It could be wrong, but we don’t know either way, so it’s better to hold off until the picture gets more clear.
I think you’re also forgetting that when you have two documents (the CBA and Kovy’s contract) which are enormously long and full of legalese, you’re not going to get quick and rash judgments, especially if it involves doing something this radical. Sure it would have been nice for the NHL to call Lou one second after the press conference (and there’s evidence above they got to him before), but that’s just not how things like this work.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Easy Solution:
Instead of having it like this-.
Make it look like this:
2010-2011 $6,000,000
2011-2012 $6,000,000
2012-2013 $11,500,000
2013-2014 $11,500,000
2014-2015 $11,500,000
2015-2016 $11,500,000
2016-2017 $11,500,000
2017-2018 $9,500,000
2018-2019 $7,500,000
2019-2020 $5,500,000
2020-2021 $3,500,000
2021-2022 $2,750,000
2022-2023 $1,050,000
2023-2024 $1,050,000
2024-2025 $550,000
2025-2026 $550,000
2026-2027 $550,000
This new deal is the same length and amount just structured slightly different to make it so Kovalchuk will get paid more in some of his later years. It would be really hard to suggest this is circumventing because it is more of a reasonable decline than before.
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
Reverse logic
2010-2011 $6,000,000
2011-2012 $6,000,000
2012-2013 $11,500,000
2013-2014 $11,500,000
2014-2015 $11,500,000
2015-2016 $11,500,000
2016-2017 $11,500,000
2017-2018 $9,500,000
2018-2019 $6,000,000
2019-2020 $4,000,000
2020-2021 $2,500,000
2021-2022 $1,750,000
2022-2023 $550,000
2023-2024 $550,000
2024-2025 $1,550,000
2025-2026 $5,550,000
2026-2027 $550,000
Doing this means when Kovy retires at the age of 40, he leaves $8 Million on the table, which wouldnt make him happy.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
After running the numbers...
That contract would likely get accepted, according to precendent. If it wouldn’t, arbitration would probably reverse the decision as the math put its closer to the other contracts (ignoring the 450% higher chance of early retirement.)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
I'm mad that Lou...
Made comments saying that the contract was “bad for the league,” a rare screw up by Lou but that definitely didn’t help and was a bone headed move
Marc R.
Ditto
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
Don't be
Maybe Lou knew there was no way in heck the league could win the battle so he goaded them into rejecting the contract. When they lose the arbiter’s decision because they’ve allowed the previous contracts that are similar in nature, it’ll be the league looking like egg-nog.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
I’m extremely frustrated right now… First of all, after seeing everything that has transpired in the past 24 hours the NHL has to recognize the enormity of this deal and what it means to the Devils and Kovalchuk. The NHL also has to realize that it has allowed multiple front loaded deals in the past year and must allow this to continue until the correct forum (the next cba agreement) is available to correct the loophole. This is why Gary Bettman get’s booed everywhere he goes and why the NHL has remained a second rate league behind the NFL, NBA and MLB.
Marc R.
Couldn’t agree more, the good news is that the Bettman has no case, and at the end of the day, the Devils are stacked
ZachJac
Silver lining?
When Parise negotiates next year, the Devils can’t get too outlandish reminding him of what happened here . . . .
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
Slap in the face
Or just say, “Forget this,” have Parise and Elias as your top two left wings, use the extra cap space for 2011-12 for Parise’s extension, and fill in minor spots as needed? As bitter as this tastes, I don’t think that’s so terrible. But that’s me.
I think you may be half joking John, but do you seriously think LKou takes this slap in the face? And don’t sugar coat this; this is exactly what that is. The NHL waited until AFTER the press conference, bush league if you ask me.
Lou will find a way to save face here. Bank on it.
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
Well, it may not be up to Lou to take it at this point. Either he will or he won’t.
I will say the Best GM in the Game Today isn’t happy and other teams should be concerned with what an angry Lou can do.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 7:21 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY CAP!!!! ARGH!
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
LAMORIELLO SMASH!!!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
LAMORIELLO HUNGRY... LAMORIELLLO ANGRY!!!!!!
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
*JELLY JAR EXPLOSION*
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"We're looking at hiring the Red Army choir to perform at half-time along with Russia's top dancing bear collective." -Mikhail Prokhorov
"Don't worry about my cap" - Lou Lamoriello
NHL statement
Which is a whole lotta nothing
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
I’m still waiting on anyone, anyone at all, to come up with an actual, indisputable fact that proves circumvention.
I have the sick feeling that there may not be one more than: “We think this is circumvention, and so it must be.”
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 7:43 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
We can’t prove with a fact that anything other than the few laws that govern our universe. The bottom line is that teams have been getting more and more rash in their circumvention of the cap and this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Everyone knows it, and it is the right thing to do, sadly it is about 2-3 years late.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
When did you try to get metaphysical on us Chimpanzee? Im surprised, of all the fans that would complain about such deals, that you are a Flyers fan. Pot, meet kettle.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I have stated many times that the Pronger deal is BS…. because unlike you I have the ability to look objectively at these things even if it affects my team negatively.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
To Ed Van Chimp:
You can’t possibly say with a straight face that the Devils are guilty in the Kovalchuk matter unless you’re also willing to accept that the Flyers are at least equally guilty with the Pronger contract. You can make any claims you wish about how Kovy will never play out the entire contract but will retire at 39…. but none of us have any clue what the situation might be like in 10 or 12 years. Maybe health and physical conditioning of players will have improved to the point where there are three dozen 40+ players in the league, and maybe there won’t be any. We’ve seen this in baseball and basketball, and even in football to a lesser degree, where players are having longer careers and maintaining their peak numbers to much higher ages and later in their career arcs. Sure, some of it is likely due to steroids and other PEDs, but some of it is athletes taking better care of themselves (and teams taking fewer risks with them) in a day and age where there is a truckload of money out there just for hanging around a league and being mildly productive.
The problem with trying to predict far into the future is that there are so many variables, which makes it extremely difficult to determine anything with any degree of certainty. I’ll bring up an example I used earlier (not sure if it was this thread or not): major party candidates for President of the United States. We can predict with some confidence who we’ll see in 2012 — one party’s nominee is all but certain, and we can narrow the pool to a double handful or so for the other. Past that, anyone who tells you who will be on the ballot in 2016 (or heaven forbid 2020) is peeing on your leg and telling you that it is raining.
Getting back to lengthy NHL contracts and the players who sign them…. I believe you could make a much stronger case that Chris Pronger will retire after five years of his contract and will never show up for Years 6 and 7. While things certainly change all the time, you’re looking at a much more limited window of time in which things can radically depart from today’s norms. If Pronger thought he was still going to be active and an elite NHL d-man at that age, I can’t see why he’d possibly sign a contract that gives him four really good years of pay, a fifth year at about half that, and then two years at league minimum.
Similarly, you could make “cap circumvention” arguments on the contracts Philly negotiated with Danny Briere ($6.5m cap hit, $5m total salary in ‘13-’14 and ‘14-’15), Kimmo Timonen ($6.33m cap hit, salaries the next three years at $7m then $5m then $3m), and Mike Richards ($5.75m cap hit, salaries declining from $7m to $3m between ‘14-’15 and ‘18-’19).
because unlike you I have the ability to look objectively at these things even if it affects my team negatively.
The Flyers did an awful lot to get us here. Funny how that wasn’t part of any of your arguments…. and if the league starts chucking all the contracts that they believe circumvents the spirit of the cap rules, there will be a ton of unemployed Flyers joining Kovy on the bread line.
if the league starts chucking all the contracts that they believe circumvents the spirit of the cap rules, there will be a ton of unemployed Flyers joining Kovy on the bread line.
That’d be one way to un-Holmgren their cap situation…
DON'T PANIC.
It would accelerate that process, but the Flyers would probably stink for a year or two. You’re looking at their top defensive pairing, plus a pair of Top 6 forwards…. and the cap would be difficult for a year as well. I can’t see how you invalidate those contracts for violating the cap, and not drop a huge piile of penalties on them at the same time ($4-20m of lost cap space for four separate violations). In addition, there’d probably be a lot of scrutiny if the reaction after voiding four contracts was to promptly re-sign all four to cap-friendly contracts.
Is this:
I have stated many times that the Pronger deal is BS
that hard to understand? Learn how to read for the love of god, I’ve mentioned both Briere and Pronger’s contracts. I consider them an embarrassment to hockey and honestly not good for our team either. You can have Briere’s contract voided and off our books, be my guest on that one.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 21, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Another interesting tidbit from Gulitti
Oddly, the Devils’ "cap guru", vice president of hockey operations Steve Pellegrini, used to work for the NHL as the league’s cap regulator and knows the CBA inside and out.
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
One possible explanation
Allan Muir of CNN/SI says that this has nothing to do with Kovalchuk or the Devils per se and is simply Bettman flexing his muscle against the PA and Donald Fehr. Let it go to arbitration. I think there’s a good chance it will be upheld as the CBA does not explicitly forbid this type of deal. Sure, you can argue that it violates the spirit of the CBA, but allowing the Hossa, Pronger and Luongo deals to stand without challenge hurts the NHL’s position.
Agreed
The NHL had to stand up at some point with the future looming and this may just be it. It’s a stand by bettman that he may nbe prepared to lose. Just a message.
I have respect for most sports fans with 2 exceptions: NY Ranger fans who grew up in New Jersey, and Dallas Cowboy fans who can't name the capital of Texas.
Most definitely a message
There’s no doubt that the NHL wants to make a statement that will generate more discussion and a clear stance on these issue before the next negotiation. But he’s sending a message that Lou agrees with for the most part. If Bettman does not have an enemy on this issue with Lou then why not make that phone call. I’ve never liked Bettman’s ideas and his stances regarding the CBA…
This is more then just the Kovy deal.
Check out this post. Lots of players are “cap friendly” with these type of deals. I think a rule needs be set on how much a deal can decline over the course of the term. The cap was made to spread out talent, and it wont work if long deals can open up the amount of pie there is to go around.
Coincidence that two teams that have “cap friendly,” starts in Pronger and Hossa make it to the cup?
http://www.japersrink.com/2010/7/21/1579936/kovalchuk-contract-nhl-was-correct
See that post sums up my frustration over this “circumvention.” There is still no proof of intent that Kovalchuk will retire early. The structure may provide an incentive; but given that most players tend to decline in older ages, they don’t get paid as much to play. That should not be seen as evidence of foul play.
No offense to you but it’s ultimately conjecture, and while popular, it’s proof of nothing.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 9:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The league’s front-office is like “sh…., the Devils are stacked right now, well at least we can void the Kovy deal and say that Lou isn’t fooling anyone with that 17 year thing.”
…Bettman strikes again (he’s probably laughing so hard right now while chatting it up with David Stern at the NBA Summer league)
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
If is fails arbitration...
I guess they net out at 13 years/85 million on a similar percentages of the Hossa deal. The real goal is to keep the cap hit below 7 million as they will most likely have a similar deal on the books next year with Parise.
I must agree in the “bad form” by the league. If the deal was essentially done on Saturday, and they waited to announce it on Monday afternoon, and scheduled a presser, the NHL should had said “slow down”.
I don't think an arbitrator can reform a contract in this situation.
From the CBA:
If the Arbitrator rules that the League’s rejection of an SPC or
Offer Sheet, as the case may be, pursuant to either subsection (i) or
(ii) above was not proper, then the sole remedy the Arbitrator shall
be authorized to provide shall be to direct the League promptly to
approve and register such SPC and to direct the Club to pay to the
Player such Paragraph 1 NHL Salary or Paragraph 1 Minor League
Salary, as the case may be, and Bonuses, including such Signing,
Roster or Reporting Bonuses, if any, that the Player would have
earned had the SPC been registered and approved as of the
deadline set forth in Section 11.4(d) above through the date that
such SPC is in fact registered and approved (i.e., the period of time
missed solely as a result of the League’s improper rejection).
Further, if the Player missed a games-played bonus by one (1)
game, then the Arbitrator shall have the discretion to award the
Player such bonus. The Arbitrator shall not be authorized to award
any other bonuses, payments, damages or other equitable or legal
relief to the Player.
by Doctor Smack on Jul 21, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, I misread the title of your post
I thought you meant “If it falls to arbitration.”
My bad.
by Doctor Smack on Jul 21, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I hate there is no "edit" function
Sometimes I have fat finger syndrome.
What is likely is that they restructure the distribution of the money in the contract. Instead of 11.5M, they might stretch that out so Kovy still makes his $102M, or maybe they take a year or two out, since the league isn’t exactly convinced that Kovy will be playing hockey outside of a beer league at 44 years old, and let’s face it, Lou and Ilya aren’t expecting him to play either.
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
17 not so lucky for Ilya after all?
I could sit here all day pointing out all the "17"s in Kovalchuk’s life, but not to waste time, I am furious at the NHL as usual for not coming out BEFORE THE PRESS CONFERENCE and announcing something by then.
As far as I’m concerned, within six hours of the looming press conference, that should be it, over, done. A press conference is not an easy thing to put together, for the players that showed up and the media that flew in from all parts of the U.S. and Canada.
Now Kovalchuk will be tested, we know that. Kovalchuk said he intended to stay here and really didn’t consider actually inking pen to paper anywhere else. Is this true? Who will give in, Lou or Ilya? I think 7-years/$60M has some possibilities right now, but maybe 8-years/$62M or so just to balance the cap hit a slight bit at this point could work? I think Kovy has to look at it this way: he probably won’t be getting a monster contract from anyone else, except maybe the KHL.
I still don’t understand why the league let other long-term deals go through: Pronger has the cheap years at the end of his deal, Hossa obviously does, interestingly enough, Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin have consistent deals to an extent, with no “cheap” years at the end of the deals. Neither do the Sedin’s.
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
I agree with user Zontar and Allan Muir and ultimately am not worried and here's why...
This move by the league stinks of Bettman trying to flex his muscle against the NHLPA, be it Fehr, or whoever assumes control. I think NJ and Kovalchuk happen to give hime the opportunity to do something he’s wanted to for a while. I don’t think he wants to ruin the Devils. I also don’t think Lou’s comments helped the situation any… maybe there’s a reason he’s always been at such a distance from the media?
Ultimately I’m not worried and this is why:
1) If this is a muscle flex it’s just to show that the NHL doesn’t like these sorts of deals, I don’t think their goal is to “win” but show they are not going to put up with it anymore. But ultimately they have no leg to stand on in arbitration because they
• Can’t prove Kovalchuk doesn’t intend to play to age 44, when others have played into their 40s and he’s publicly stated he intends to do just that.
• Have allowed similar structured deals like this go by unscathed in the last few years. You can’t have one set of rules for some teams and another for the rest of the league.
I have full faith an arbitrator while agreeing that this may not be “in the spirit of the CBA” it is not illegal and the NHL themselves have set a precedents allowing it.
2) Even if the contract is voided… I can’t see Kovalchuk playing anywhere else. It would be such incredibly bad PR for him and his three week decision making process didn’t exactly help his public image. Does he really want to tarnish it more and risk some lucrative sponsorship money? I doubt it… right now is when he should be winning the fans back not pushing them further away.
He’s just publicly stated that “I want to be a NJ Devil for Life,” even if you want to argue “maybe he didn’t mean it” it doesn’t matter… what other team is going to want to touch him after that knowing that and pay him 100 million? That could easily become a huge locker-room and marketing nightmare. This isn’t a guy who is asking for a couple of mill a year that you can swallow your pride for and just let it be, this is going to be your highest salaried player. You really want to invest in him after he’s publicly stated that he wants to be on another team? And the only reason he’s here is because the NHL won’t allow him to be there?
by Zelepukin on Jul 21, 2010 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Well said, sir.
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"We're looking at hiring the Red Army choir to perform at half-time along with Russia's top dancing bear collective." -Mikhail Prokhorov
"Don't worry about my cap" - Lou Lamoriello
Just a shot over the bow
It seems the league is challenging this one (probably at the bidding of many pissed off not as smart owners/GMs) to flush out both the NHLPA and team response. Clearly this loophole will be closed with the next CBA, but I tend to agree with alot of the posters here who seem to know the CBA inside and out that given the current wording this is legal. Lou is genius, and will get the Devils through this.
I think you are certainly on to something. This gauges how the rest of the League feels about the contracts, and it certainly has shown how fans feel about it. In that realm, the NHL has the upper-hand, and can use that in the next CBA. But without negotiations and no explicit rules within the CBA, how this contract can be deemed circumvention without other similar deals being deemed the same, is beyond me.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
A few observagtions
1) I have generally had a positive view of Bettman, I think in alot of ways he took the league out of the dark ages. However, with this, no question that he and the NHL head office looks foolish. The press conference was announced more than 24 hours in advance. In addition, the news was all over the place in advance of that. Nobody from the League Office was either smart enough or had enough courage to call either Lou or Vanderbeek and say hey, you may want to hold off on a press conference?
2) I don’t see how the League has a leg to stand on. I think the Devils were very smart in picking age of 44, you can say it is a stretch, but it is not at all unprecedented – its not like they did it to the point where he would be the oldest player ever.
3) I would think the argument easily could be made that, "we do anticipate that in the final years of his contract Ilya’s role will change to be an on the ice mentor for our younger players and this contract reflects that.
4) as noted in other posts above, this is easily resolved by just slightly playing with the payouts in the late years
5) Worst case to me is that they have to shorten it by say two years. It’s still a manageable cap hit
6) My only other concern is that somehow even if they restructure the deal, that the League somehow still penalizes the Devils for their “attempt”. Does anyone know if that is a possibility
by Devilssection21fan on Jul 21, 2010 9:51 AM EDT reply actions
Score one for the NHL (for the moment) for embarassing the Devils….. again. I can’t see any way this ends well for the League, however. Time to start pulling out more historical precedent on this one.
First, the whole issue of the arbitration hearing, because it is safe to say we’re going to get a grievance filed by the NHLPA. I thought I saw a comment somewhere (from reading the last ten hours of comments) that perhaps the league is hoping the Devils will back down based on the lack of an arbitrator at present. If that is Bettman’s strategy, I would bet my life’s savings it will backfire on him. If there is no arbitrator to give the team a hearing within 48 hours of a grievance filing, Lou will do something similar to what he did in 1988 during the Schonfeld/Koharski “have another donut you fat pig” affair, and similar to what the Minnesota Vikings have been doing the last two years with the NFL trying to suspend two of their best players — you’ll see the team run to a friendly judge, either in New Jersey Superior Court or U.S. District Court and get an injunction against the NHL’s rejection, with the argument for said injunctin being that the lack of an arbitrator makes it impossible for them to get due process from the League. Lou did this in 1988, getting a Bergen County Superior Court judge to grant the team an injunction against Schonfeld’s suspension on a Sunday morning from his house (the regular refs for Game 4 of the NJ/Boston series promptly walked off the job in protest)… and the NFL has been trying to get an injunction against suspensions overturned for almost two years now without success.
Second, the longer-term case. I don’t see where the league has a leg to stand on here, as well, after approving all the contracts that do something similar, just under a lesser term. The CBA is deliberately vague, as it states it will reject contracts that circumvent the spirit of the CBA without stating the standards by which that clause will be enforced. If this is the league’s standard, I could see Lou going to the courts to get a ruling that all those other contracts are now null and void . If the league is going to say “contracts above a certain length” circumvent the cap, Lou can easily argue that no term limit is written into the CBA.
A compromise solution can be had here. We all remember the Sean Avery incident from Game 3 of the 2008 Devils/Rangers playoffs series, and how the very next day the league came out with an amendment to the interpretation of the Unsportsmanlike Conduct rules. I don’t see why the league, the NHLPA, and the Board of Governors (as representitive of the GMs and owners) can’t sit down in emergency session and define what they consider to be cap circumvention — and then apply that one against all future contracts without opening up the legal can of worms that would be retroactively applying it to contracts already signed. This would close the loophole without waiting for 2012, and set down specific ground rules that have to be followed before this incident repeats itself.
Finally, the issue of the NHL embarassing the Devils, which I recall seeing in other comments (perhaps attached to the FanShot on the contract rejection that isn’t there anymore). It is my belief that the NHL enjoys embarassing the Devils, given their bias towards the Rangers (perhaps not really there other than as hobgoblins in the minds of us Devils fans). This would hardly be the first time (in my opinion) that the League has tried to do this sort of thing to the Devils. I’ve already detailed the sparring involved in the 1988 playoffs. There was 1995, when the Stanley Cup Finals were overshadowed at times by rumours the Devils were going to move to Nashville as soon as the series ended. There was 2003, when Bettman seemed to take quite a bit of pleasure in waxing poetic about how wonderful JS Giguere was despite being outplayed badly in the Finals (while handing him the Conn Smythe). There’s also the fact that you have an ex-Rangers head coach as Bettman’s right hand (Colin Campbell, the discipline czar), and I’ve always had the impression there’s some anti-Devils bias there.
To me, Bettman is a clown, and it has long gotten past time for him to be nudged out for some more competent leadership. I think he tries too hard to be his mentor (David Stern, the NBA commish for whom he used to work) when he isn’t fit to carry that guy’s jock strap. And if he persists on this course, I imagine he’s about to get beaten like the proverbial red-headed stepchild for his troubles.
Don't forgot about Shanahan....
Bettman has nothing that he can use to win. You can forget about Pronger’s deal since he was over the age of 35 when he signed it. I don’t get that he accepts Hossa’s deal without looking at it, or DiPietro, or Richards, and Luongo… Realize that all of those teams play on NBC except the Isles. Chicago, Philly, and the Canucks sometimes. Wonder if has anything to do with TV ratings for the NHL…. Hmm. The Devils haven’t been on NBC for 3 years. When we had Gomez, Rafalski, and Gio and others. And that was the playoffs! The NHL thinks the Devils have no market at all. Explains why the Devils were a team at the top of the rankings for ticket sales following the “original 6”. The NHL knows they will lose, they just want to send a message that none of these will be accepted in the future. Pellegrini WAS the NHL Cap guy. He now works for the Devils. Think he had nothing to do with this? No. An arbitrator will find the Devils favor since this is nothing illegal. It’s just a matter of time.. Again.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
You can forget about Pronger’s deal since he was over the age of 35 when he signed it.
The 35+ tag on CapGeek didn’t show up until very recently for that extension. I think there was a period of time where the Flyers argued that it shouldn’t be bound by the 35+ rule because it was signed before Pronger hit that age.
Actually, if I’m Lou, I use the Pronger deal as evidence of a “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” kind of deal where it is expected the player is going to retire, because you’re talking a much shorter window of time. You can make a stronger argument to most judges that Pronger is expected to retire after the 2014-2015 season, and that this has been agreed to by a handshake and otherwise not mentioned anywhere. As for Kovy, while you could apply that logic and say he’s expected to retire 12 or 13 years from now, an awful lot can happen between now and then that can change one’s mind.
To put it another way…. it is one thing to try and predict the near future. It is another thing altogether to try and predict the more distant future, when there are a lot more variables and things can change significantly more. As a more concrete example: we might be able to predict who the Republicans will nominate to run for President of the United States in 2012. It is quite another to figure out who our choices in 2016 will be…. let alone 2020 and beyond.
the NHLPA doesn’t even have a head. expecting them to re-open the CBA and collectively bargain on this item, which affects 1% of players, is a tad extreme. either the devils will re-negotiate and this will go to arbitration. and the devils can’t run out and find a judge that will approve this, the framework for doing this is established very clearly in the CBA – that an arbitrator must be appointed and agreed upon by both sides.
given that it’s a dispute really about relative pennies – kovalchuk could easily sign a 15 year, 101 million dollar deal which moves some of the money towards the back of the deal, where he’d lose out on $2 million, and the nhl would have no choice but to accept that deal given the hossa contract – i don’t see anything extreme playing out here.
I fully expect Lou to use this ruling to save some cash. So really, cancelling the contract was a favor, though a bit of a hassle. Now Lou can say "Well, we tried to give you 100 million, but mean ol’ Gary wouldn’t let us, so here’s 95 million instead.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
the NHLPA doesn’t even have a head. expecting them to re-open the CBA and collectively bargain on this item,
The lack of an NHLPA head didn’t stop the league and the players from amending the rules regarding blindside hits. Even if you don’t just hand the job to someone like Donald Fehr on an interim basis for this issue, you could have the players executive committee send a couple of representitives to bargain over this issue and figure out the new rules.
This is a much, much bigger deal for the union, as it goes to the core of their mission — getting the most money possible for their players. The NHLPA ought to love this kind of deal, because it pays players far in excess of their cap hits, thus increasing the total payouts to players in general (and allowing teams to exceed the cap as the system currently is). If this premise holds, the NHLPA would go to the wall for Kovalchuk, so that everyone who comes after him has the same opportunity…. or so that if they give away this loophole in the CBA, the players get something substantial in return for it.
the NHLPA should hate this deal because it steals from everyone else to make ilya kovalchuk richer. it’s not good for the union to have front-loaded contracts like this. now they will probably go to bat for him because it is a huge contract and they like huge contracts, but if they thought about it for a bit, they’d realize that this isn’t good for them.
here’s a nice article that details how it steals from the rank-and-file:
It sucks they have to pay in escrow, but I can’t be sympathetic for the players in that case because they willingly agreed to this in the CBA.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Who’s to say that this will not be the norm for many years to come, in front-loading deals, especially from GM’s that know they will not be around for the back-end of those deals.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Whether the deals are front-loaded or ever increasing, the effect on escrow is the same.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Next move...
Lou announces a 14 year $90M extension deal to keep Zach here for his career. Heavily front loaded. Let them arbitrate 2 of them at once.
Not even a phonecall before the presser…not even a phonecall. You seriously think he’s going to take this like a poke in the belly? FFS Pelligrini had to have been the one to create the structure in the first place.
Feed the ravenous, jealous masses. We’ll wait.
I am going to guess in the next CBA that front loading a contract will be illlegal. Which I believe it should be. And this over 35 rule to be gone with all together.
I wonder if they would have done this to the Devils if Kovalchuk was Canadian instead of Russian.
I am hoping Lou presses the league hard as hell.
Now I know why Lou kept on using the word “Legal” in the press conference.
at least we will get an answer sooner then we think. If the NHLPA files a grievance, the case must be heard and decided upon by an arbiter within 48 hours.
reference article 11.6 section a part y of the CBA
There is no arbiter, so they’d have to find one first.
I also don’t think the NHLPA will file a grievence as, economically, they shouldn’t like front loaded contracts. Plus, they have no leadership, constitution, and in fact, no one appointed that would be responsible for filing such a grievence.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
if they dont file a grievance we have to make him a new contract? that sucks! theres nothing wrong with this one!
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
The NHLPA will file a grievance even if they don’t have a leader as of now. You can get a guy that just passed the BAR to win this case for the Devils/Kovy. It is too easy. Precedent had been set.
The only reason why Bettman did this was because there is no arbiter as of now. So they will use that as a threat to change the contract. That would be a win for the NHL. (Flex of the muscle)
But we have Lou. Lou will file a junction to some judge because the Devils will not have due process and then Bettman will look like the idiot he has been.
The guy that did the Cap for the CBA is our VP of operation.
I think the lack of arbiter may mean that the NHL has already lost the case. Once the PA files a grievance, it is the league’s responsibility to provide an arbitration process within 48 hrs. Why did they do this then? It’s just posturing. It’s just Bettman saying, “if this happens again, we WILL have an arbiter ready and there will be a fight”.
A problem could arise, though, if the league tries to hastily appoint an arbiter and the PA has to agree to use that arbiter before proceeding. The selection of an arbiter could potentially drag out the process for a long time
no, actually it allows Kovy to play under the terms of the contract, see section 11.6, page 46, item (B). For whatever reason, I can’t copy/paste from pdf…
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The NHL will lose to case though. No judge in the world is going to say that this breaks the law. The judge will look like a fool and damage his reputation.
I agree, the NHL will lose the case, but the process of finding a judge or an arbiter could potentially take a while. I’m not sure what the process is like for arbiter selection, but it could prove to be so arduous that Lou and Kovy end up restructuring the contract rather than fight it. The NHL tells Lou on the side that only small adjustments need to be made to get approval. Lou and Kovy do it, the NHL approves, and the NHL comes out a winner, having made their point and flexed their muscle. Lou and Kovy get their deal without appreciably changing the heart of the contract.
Thats what I said
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, the NHL will lose the case, but the process of finding a judge or an arbiter could potentially take a while.
That it can, if the two sides play games with nominees. I still think if it comes down to finding an arbiter, Lou will find a friendly judge in north Jersey or NYC to grant the team a preliminary injuction upholding the contract. It isn’t hard, because there are a ton of judges — you’ve got tons of county courthouses in north Jersey (and a Superior Court judge can grant the injunction rather easily), plus US District Courthosues in Newark, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Trenton who you could enlist as well. It also isn’t hard, because you can find a judge in one of three categories who will do it:
- A judge who believes the NHL and Bettman are overstepping their bounds. This would be most ideal, because he would be ruling based on merit.
- A judge who is a Devils fan, and will grant them an injunction based on personal bias. This isn’t so good, but you put the onus on the NHL at that point to prove a judge’s personal bias interfered with the case…. and there’s precedent against that. One of the NFL’s special masters/arbiters is a Redskins season ticket holder, and he was permitted to rule on an RFA contract grievance involving a free agent who jumped ship from the Jets to the Redskins. It might not stand up to a legitimate challenge, but Lou buys time here.
- A judge who just wants the popularity. I wouldn’t particularly want to go with this option, as they might just as easily side with the league based on their own opinions of the CBA…. but it is better than nothing.
Those are all very valid points, but at this point I just want someone capable of reading what the CBA says.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
So do I. My point was simply that you’re looking for a judge to block the NHL from immediately throwing out the contract while the NHLPA and the League Office haggle over an acceptable arbitrator…. and said judges are easy enough to find. By getting a judge to grant an injunction on behalf of the Devils and the NHLPA, the pressure shifts back to the League Office because they have to find an acceptable arbitrator who will then throw the contract out. Right now, the PA (and the team) would have to find an acceptable arbitrator would will then uphold the contract.
An injunction isn’t meant to short-circuit the process, simply to reset the playing field into something more favorable for us. To bastardize Sun Tzu, a large part of winning a battle is picking the terrain on which you fight. Setting things up so the Devils start with the advantage would help in that regard.
lou doesn’t get to choose the judge. both sides have to agree. if lou got to choose, why bother going through the process?
I wasn’t referring to finding a judge to be the arbitrator in a grievance. Rather, I was referring to finding one judge to grant an injunction, similar to the Schonfeld/Koharski fiasco in 1988.
You’re not choosing a judge to make a final ruling. Simply to step in for the moment and prevent the NHL from taking action to invalidate the contract. This sort of thing happens all the time in the business and political worlds, where the powerful and wealthy will handpick a judge to get their injunctions and hold up something they don’t want to happen. It doesn’t mean they win in the end, just that they’re getting their way for the moment.
I don’t think they want to go there. John can argue all he wants against league bias against the Devils on this, but there is NO argument that can be made against league bias after the “Go have another doughnut you fat pig” incident.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
how can there be no arbiter...
if there are scheduled salary arbitrations starting this week
O yeah
Now it is even harder to get one.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Its a different arbiter. They would need a CBA arbiter instead of a contract arbiter, these are apparently (according to people that know more) not the same type of arbiter.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
O ok
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
There is no arbiter, so they’d have to find one first.
That’s the league’s problem, it still has to be ruled upon within 48 hours of being filed.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
if im the devils
i sign parise to a long deal and zajac too. just to piss the crap out of the nhl off. there is NO RULE to voiding this contract. technically if the nhl broke the rules by voiding it … isnt it a crime?
Commisioner Lou!!!!!
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
i sign parise to a long deal and zajac too. just to piss the crap out of the nhl off.
Not like the Kovalchuk contract I don’t. That would give ammunition to the League’s argument that the team is deliberately attempting to circumvent the cap by running this route multiple times, because then it looks like it was premeditated.
The CBA, in fact, does not require proof of circumvention, only to prove that by existing the contract circumvents the cap. Though by this logic, Bettman could easily have cancelled all the 10+ year front-loaded contracts if they wanted to (especially hossa, though this deal is, statistically, about 4.5x worse than Hossa’s in terms of likelyhood to retire and 33% worse in amount of cap circumvention). I expect Lou will work out a deal that he actually approves with less term, money, and front-loading, (he distanced himself from the 17 year contract almost right away) of and then all of the parties will be satisfied.
Kovy will certainly still be a devil, only the islanders actually have the money to throw at him, and they have no intention of spending it, (they actually seem ready to circumvent the cap in the other direction by signing Weight to a contract with a few million in performance bonuses to hit the floor, which is the actual point of the 35+ rule.)
You’ll find that the CBA is a lot more player-friendly than it is made out to be, though not in this case, unfortunatly.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Lou isn’t going to change the deal at all. It is a legal contract. The NHL will lose the case. Lou is going to give the NHL hell for trying to embarrass Kovy and the Devils.
But....
Would you rather risk the chance in losing the appeal and maybe losing Kovy OR just take a few thousand off and donate it to the later years to fill it out more. Same years, same 102 million, NHL gets what they want and the Devils get what they want.. Kovalchuk and a 6 million cap hit. The guys at Blue Shirt Banter did a good piece on the Kovalchuk rejection.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
No. The chances are less than 1% they lose in court.
It isn’t fair to Kovalchuk. If you move money around (to the back end )then because of time-value of money, Kovalchuk will have a lower contract even if it is the same 17/102 million deal.
except the people paying that extra money aren’t the owners. Its coming directly from other players through escrow. Unfortunatly, it seems the players are not smart enough to realize this.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
But ALL the players are subject to escrow, good and bad. Kovalchuk would be getting a very large contract regardless of how it is structured, so it stands to reason the escrow would be very very similar regardless. Who knows, the structure could even help the escrow, where his salary is larger, the revenues were more towards even then when his salary is smaller, the revenues were huge.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Kovalchuk’s 11.5 million years will directly cause Alex Ovechkin to lose $35,000 (an average, more earlier and less later) a year in escrow. Basically, the salary cap/floor are created so that players will make the correct amount of money each year, when players have a higher salary than cap hit, the money comes from escrow, assuming no outragous jump in revenue
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
You are fudging numbers there buddy. When his contract is $550,000, how much do the players stand to gain? Either way, Kovalchuk is getting the money, it doesnt really matter when.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
The stuff with escrow is supposed to even out if a player plays the entire length of his contract. It won’t if he only plays part.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
When the numbers are $550,000, how much of a difference can that make? Kovalchuk, with or without this contract, would be earning (or at the very least receiving, hehe) a similar amount of money, regardless of the structure of his deal, dont you think?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Over seven years @ $1 million per, roughly, quite a big difference. He makes up the earlier profit with relatively more payment as his salary dips below the cap hit (at least that’s my understanding).
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jul 21, 2010 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, which means it will come out even at the end, as long as he plays until he is 43 (Ilya actually turns 44 after his contract expires)
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
No, he is now 27. His 17 year contract expires 6/30/2027. He’ll turn 44 on 4/15/2027, probably right after the regular season ends, but before his contract.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Which, by percentage of his $9,000,000 salary, equates to $194.44 for someone making $50,000 per year. Break that up over the 7 months of a hockey season, $27.78/month. Yeah, that hurts. Dang, Ovie has to settle for a Ferrari rather than a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud. My heart bleeds for him.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
It, in fact, circumvents the cap even if Kovy doesn’t retire as 550,000 will not be the minimum player salary in 12 years, in fact, under this CBA it the salary would be 850,000., which means his cap hit would have been too low by 100,000 even if he plays the whole contract.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Leave it to Maloney to adress the "trap"
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Gotta love a rowdy hockey crowd!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Pardon my ignorance but...
it seems to me as far as Kovie’s contract goes the first 11 years are the most important and the last 6 are for virtually nothing (in terms of the money they make anyway, I’d love to make NHL league minimum). That being said would it be possible to sign him to a deal that is the first 11 years of the contract without the last 6?
Sodomize Intolerance
by sonicdeathmonkey on Jul 21, 2010 11:48 AM EDT reply actions
Yes but the cap hit would be horrific!
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Grossman's version of "Don't worry about my cap"
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
by slackdog_rm on Jul 21, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently we have nothing to worry about
like usual, other teams were happy to hear the contract got rejected, but one guy from a habs blog made a pretty good point,
“If the NHL and Kovalchuk’s camp go to court, Kovy will win and get this same contract signed and delivered. I was listening to a radio show last night, and they pointed out that there is no rule in the CBA that restricts teams from signing players to deals like this. The judge would ask for proof of where it states in the CBA that this contract is illegal, Bettman will say it’s not in the CBA (but
(but the deal isn’t logical), so the judge will grant Kovalchuk his 17 year deal because there’s nothing stating it’s illegal in the CBA.
So while most of us were excited and happy upon hearing the news that this contract was rejected, it will probably still pass."
haha what a bunch of haters
and on the upside
when this test case is actually done and proven, Lou will know right where the line is and start marking up the Parise deal.
The unsaid thing here is that this deal as contrived, while it helps the Devils put a good team around Kovy during his prime, it will saddle the team with his cap hit if he cannot play due to injury or even retirement for the full (or almost) 17 years. There will be the Devil to pay at some point here so to speak, so it’s not like Lou is totally beating the system.
Sportsnet.ca reporting Devils won’t appeal Kovalchuk ruling.
If I understand correctly though, the NHLPA still has ~4 days to if they choose.
DON'T PANIC.
NJ CAN'T appeal the ruling
They’re not allowed. All Sportsnet is reporting is fact under the CBA. Only the NHLPA can appeal this ruling.
NJ can either
1) rework the contract with the NHL
2) Take this to court
3) wait for the NHLPA to appeal the ruling.
Putting in their own appeal was never an option. Sportsnet’s report is akin to saying “Man refuses to breathe underwater.”
i hope #2 so that gary bettman gets it up the you know what
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, that’s not surprising. I don’t think the Devils could appeal even if they wanted to; it’s up to the PA to file a grievance.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 1:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Just my opinion, but this kind of looks like an attempt for Bettman to save some face. The NHLPA will undoubtedly appeal this ruling because there isn’t a rule in the CBA against signing players to contracts like this. It’s perfectly legal. A loophole in the system, yes, but legal. This is just a way for Bettman to raise attention to the situation while also saving some face. It will be a subject appropriately brought up at some point in the future to change the rules. But for now, Bettman doesn’t want to come off as sitting on the sidelines while the longest deal in NHL history is signed by finding a loophole in the system. That would just make Bettman look bad.
"We aim above the mark to hit the mark." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"We're looking at hiring the Red Army choir to perform at half-time along with Russia's top dancing bear collective." -Mikhail Prokhorov
"Don't worry about my cap" - Lou Lamoriello
Couple Questions
1) Has the NHLPA filed a grievance yet?
2) If they do and looking for an arbitrator takes a while the process will get dragged on. Does Lou still try to move Zubrus or/and Salvador? With time moving quickly into the next season he may have very little time to make his moves.
3) Or can he somehow barry money in Albany?
Joshd12
Brock University
BA. Sports Management, 2014
BA. Recreation and Leisure Studies, 2011
by joshd12 on Jul 23, 2010 10:14 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
1. No. If they had and someone knew about it, you can bet it’d be on the front page.
2. I’d think he might try to move Salvador just because he’s redundant at this point regardless of what happens with Kovalchuk, and the move could either free up $2.9m in cap space, which never hurts to have, or could possibly help bring in another player the team feels it needs.
3. Burying contracts in the minors is a possibility, but not a desirable one.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Thank you. I was just worried that if it took a while Lou might run out of time but the odds of that happening are probably very slim. I was pretty sure those guys didn’t have a NMC so if something happened late we could send them down.
Joshd12
Brock University
BA. Sports Management, 2014
BA. Recreation and Leisure Studies, 2011
by joshd12 on Jul 23, 2010 11:47 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Thank you. I was just worried that if it took a while Lou might run out of time but the odds of that happening are probably very slim.
Apologies for the quibble, but it’s not up to Lou – it’s up to the PA. Lou can only sit back like you and me regarding the procedures in 11.6.(a).
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 24, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Hilary Duff to attend Pittsburgh games; also, Comrie signs with Pens
- Kittens: The key ingredient to any intimidating KHL goalie mask
- Puck Daddy chats with Paul Bissonnette about his triumphant return to Twitter, plans for a bum tattoo
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
