A Call for Calm Regarding the NHL's Rejection of the New Jersey Devils Contract with Ilya Kovalchuk
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 6:40 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
Print
Many are up in arms both here, throughout the SBNation network, the local hockey media (Chere, Gulitti), and all over the national/general hockey media (e.g. TSN, ESPN, Puck Daddy, NHL Fanhouse, The Hockey News, etc.) over the NHL rejecting Ilya Kovalchuk's deal last night. Some are unhappy, some aren't unhappy that the NHL did this, and some are elsewhere in between (or not caring at all - but they won't be reading this). After a night's rest and a day of work, I have a few thoughts that I think would benefit all involved - from Devils fans livid with the NHL to non-Devils fans who are laughing about it to people in the media making opinions to anyone else who reads this.
Warning: There's quite a lot of reading ahead but there's one message that I want everyone to fully grasp. Don't worry, you can't possibly miss it, as it's in big, bold letters.
First and most of all:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
There, don't you feel a little better? This is a contentious issue with a whole lot of reports and speculation running rampant. This contract was massive at $102 million over 17 years. The player involved is a goal scoring machine. The team involved has been a contender in the Eastern Conference for at least a decade. This is A Big Deal. And everyone's interested in not only how this will play out for not only Kovalchuk and the Devils
There's value in discussing such an important event in the NHL. That will not be done, or at least done constructively, if everyone's not willing to have a cool head about it. So, again:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
Therefore, my fellow Devils fans, dump the cries of conspiracy or laments that the league is out to get Lou/New Jersey/Kovalchuk/etc. There's no definitive evidence suggesting that the league would unfairly punish one member club over another. Especially one whose general manager has been an ally for the league for so long and who has a league-recommended cap-ologist who actually helped write the CBA. This makes no sense; and such talk speaks far more about you - and not in a good way - than the issue itself.
Similarly, you may need to hear what others who aren't necessarily supportive of what the Devils have to say. Scott Burnside isn't well liked here because he seems to think the Devils are doomed from season to season. Yet, his piece at ESPN today has valid points and even some encouraging news (though I wouldn't fully trust it since it's from a "source"). The most condemning point is the possibility (confirmed by Gulitti, sadly) that Lou and the Devils were informed that the NHL would reject the deal and still went ahead with the press conference and advertising Kovalchuk's return - as odd as it may seem. That was wrong of the team to do and I recant my earlier anger at the league. The embarrassment is on the team and is deserved with this revelation. And I wouldn't have even thought about it if I just discounted Burnside because he thought the team wasn't going to make the playoffs last season.
Let's get back to the main point here, there are some truly untrustworthy people in the hockey media, yes, but it doesn't do us any good as a community or as a fanbase to only accept information from people who are associated with New Jersey. The truth is the truth regardless if it comes from Tom Gulitti, Adrian Dater, or even, yes, Mark Everson.
Those who are not Devils fans who have lamented this deal and/or ridiculed the team for this decision, take a step back and watch your own words. The word "circumvent" has been thrown around a lot but without a whole lot of definition. I've seen people throw out how unlikely it is for a player to play until he's 44, as if unlikely meant . Absurd, ridiculous, unfair, and stupid are all valid ways to look at the contract, but none of them mean the same as illegal.
Words are funny things at times and what you intend may not be picked up by whoever's reading what you type, much less whoever's replying to it. For example, some may take this quote by Lou Lamoriello as an admission of guilt:
"I might agree," he [Lou] said. "But there is nothing that we have done wrong. This is within the rules. This is in the CBA. There are precedents that have been set. But I would agree we shouldn’t have these. But I’m also saying that because it’s legal and this is something that ownership felt comfortable doing for the right reasons."
Yet, Lou had this to say today:
"We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. The contract complies with the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete."
Read what you want in the first statement, but there's a common link here: the deal was believed to be legal per the CBA. Read what you like but, these are not contradictory statements. Displeasure isn't the same as malfeasance. If you argue otherwise, well, I don't know what to tell you. My point is that you would do well to calmly, rationally explain what you mean so that your point is understood. Who knows, it may make it even more convincing and less likely to be shown up later on. Don't tell me that the deal was bad for hockey, was a joke, etc. and assume we know what you mean - explain it.
Above all, both sides of the argument would do well to listen to each other even if it means accepting truths that run counter to what we want to believe. The first step to do that is to:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
This whole issue is deep-seated in the NHL Contract Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Here is a direct link to the 6+ MB .PDF file that consists of the CBA from the NHL's website. Sure, we can rely on reports ourselves and argue endlessly about what is and isn't fair. The fact of the matter is that some of the answers to the questions raised are here in this file. Let's use the CBA to answer these instead of conjecture, assumptions, and prattle. For example:
- Does the CBA limit how long a contract can be for a player? If so, how long and is it by term or by age? Is 17 years too long; is 44 too old; and if either or both or true, where does it say that?
- Does the CBA limit a player's salary from year-to-year? If so, what are acceptable criteria?
- If the salary cap or CBA changes, what happens to the deals in place beforehand? Are they subject to further review or modification, or are they grandfathered in?
- What are the available procedures after a contract is rejected? What is and is not admissible in those procedures (e.g. comparable deals, precedence of events, etc.)? What are the potential penalties involved, if it comes to that?
- Can the CBA be modified in anyway to clarify an article ahead of the next CBA agreement?
- What actually is "cap circumvention?"
- Is utilizing a salary cap cost based on the average annual value of a contract really a loophole or a circumvention if that are how cap hits defined in the CBA?
The answers to these may be elsewhere, but why rely on someone else when you can look it up in the CBA and get the actual, written facts right from the source? State the actual text that addresses these questions and more? Why argue and/or claim something as amorphous as "spirit" of the rules when you can look up what the rules actually state? Sure, it takes some effort, but usually quality discussion doesn't happen from just quick, off-the-cuff ranting. The document is available online, take the time to read it, and cite it as needed. At a minimum, the discussion will be elevated by the presence of facts. Usually, that's what I think most people want at the end of the day: "Just the facts, sir/ma'am."
Of course, even if you're totally right on something and everyone else is totally wrong, citing it like a jerk actually doesn't elevate anything, so don't do that. To prevent that, I suggest that before commenting you:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
I think both sides should understand what the worst case scenario might be. If you opposed the deal, then I suppose that would be the deal being found acceptable as-is in someway and life moves on. If you supported the deal, I suppose that would mean a total rejection, Kovalchuk goes elsewhere, the Devils may face a penalty to their cap, and life moves on. In both cases, there will still be a league, there will still be a New Jersey Devils hockey club, and the sun will truly rise again.
Personally, if I had to hazard a guess, I think what will actually happen will be somewhere in the middle. More importantly and factually, many issues aren't resolved that. Feel free to speculate, but I wouldn't get worked up over something that hasn't been resolved yet and won't be resolved immediately. Did we not learn this from the three weeks prior to Kovalchuk announcing that he will sign with the New Jersey? If not, let's learn it now. When the news breaks, it'll break, we'll react, all parties involved will act accordingly, and life will move on.
Thank you for reading, and as an aside, a thank you to Sergei of From Russia With Glove who actually told me about the news first last night (I forgot to mention him last night, sorry Sergei). Please feel free to give your continued thoughts on the Kovalchuk contract rejection in the comments. If you do attempt to answer some of these questions, please do not be alarmed if I or someone else asks for the actual evidence in the CBA that backs up your answer. Again, it's linked in this very post for your convenience - check it out for yourself instead of relying on someone else.
Before you hit "POST" in the comments though, regardless if you're a new user, a longtime member, or even a blogger/reporter/media person, might I suggest that you:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
446 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
still confused
Is he a UFA now or do the devils have 5 days to deal with this, and if thy fail the case then hes a UFA?
if we cant sign him for that much, how many years can we sign him for, 15year/95mill?, will that work out still
all i really need to know is will he still be a devil, since he already said hes a devils for life and he wanted to stay, NHL videos (pressure vid)
PS3: J-CAMPS
kovalchuk is not a UFA now. the NHLPA has 5 business days to decide whether or not it wants to appeal, so i believe it has until monday of next week. if they choose not to appeal, and the devils do not renegotiate the contract in the meantime, he would be a UFA as of monday.
i think it’s very unlikely that kovalchuk ends up elsewhere.
Wysh wrote that the Devils will likely reconstruct the whole contract.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you guys think it is possible, that if it has to be restructured then it will work out better for the Devils as Kovalchuk will be forced to accept a reduced salary if he wants to continue to play in the NHL?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Depends on what the final cap hit would be. With the contract as-is, the Devils will have to dump contracts to make the cap ceiling this year; and will have to do so for next season to allow enough space to retain Parise without weakening the entire team.
So if Lou, Kovalchuk and Grossman come up with something that leads to a smaller cap hit; then it would be fantastic (and hilariously fantastic). If the restructure leads to a larger cap hit, it’ll make the already difficult challenge for Lou to clear space with no leverage a little (or a lot) tougher.
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 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. You all think that the Devils have contracts that could be dumped so that is not too big of a deal, except the means in which they get moved could cause problems (some of those contracts are pretty bad).
I don’t see how Kovalchuk can get away with demanding so much money. He is a great player, but only 2-3 players in the NHL probably deserve max salary, and he isn’t one of them.
Are the Devils so desperate to get him that they are willing to increase the cap hit?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
He would only be getting max salary for a few years.
Are the Devils so desperate to get him that they are willing to increase the cap hit?
I don’t know. I’ve argued otherwise in the past, but who knows what’s up with Lou and Jeff now that the league stepped in.
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 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but is he worth it even for those few years?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
That’s up to what Ilya does on the ice.
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 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Well if we only had to drop two years to appease the league the cap hit would rise by .8 million a year assuming the contract was 15 yrs for 102 million.
by KingHellfire on Jul 22, 2010 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
although many smart people (including puck daddy, as mentioned below) believe the devils have the option of revising and resubmitting the contract in order to avoid arbitration
I have serious doubts that they are allowed to do this. The CBA is quite clear that, once a contract is rejected for being an Article 50 violation, two things (both of which you mention) must occur. The NHLPA decides whether or not to dispute. If they don’t, he’s a UFA. If they do, it goes to arbitration and the arbiter’s decision is final. Nowhere in the CBA does it say that part of the contract rejection process involves giving the club a chance to fix the deal. Once the league declares it rejected as a circumvention of article 50, the state of THAT CONTRACT (not some new one) must be ruled upon. You obviously cannot negotiate one contract while the status of the original one is not known.
Also, the league has ruled this is a circumvention of article 50. That’s a serious charge that must be either disputed or not by the NHLPA and/or arbitrated. The league is accusing the devils of committing an act that is illegal under the CBA and also actionable with potentially draconian penalties. They’re not sending it back for revisions due to bad formatting or an adding mistake.
Wait till this year.
I tend to agree, the one aspect which does suggest that a restructuring is possible is Daly’s statement. He said “under the CBA, the contract rejection triggers a number of possible next steps that may be elected by any or each of the NHLPA, the Player and/or the Club.” Since the Devils can’t appeal (which we think is the only option other than the contract staying rejected) this suggests they have some kind of option.
totally. daly's statement gives me pause.
which we went over in some detail over in Kingsland.
Wait till this year.
Im reading some of the relevant sections in the CBA now, Article 11 deals with SPCs (Standard Player Contracts) it starts on page 58 of the pdf file. Section 11.6 is relevant for us (starts on page 60).
Per section X of article 11.6:
“if the NHLPA does not timely dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then
immediately upon the expiration of the time period within which the NHLPA may
dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection, the SPC or Offer Sheet, as the
case may be, will be deemed null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player’s Free Agency
and/or contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC
or Offer Sheet, as the case may be), and the Player shall not be entitled to any of
the rights or benefits provided for under the rejected SPC or Offer Sheet, as the
case may be;
Kovalchuk is not a UFA yet.
by drhgzang on Jul 21, 2010 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
See how informative that was? Cited the CBA and everything.
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 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess my biggest gripe with all of this is what if it were the Rangers, the Blackhaws, the Leafs or the Wings? Would the NHL have dared to tread in those big city waters? They sure didn’t in the past. Because it is New Jersey, the most picked on place, the NHL feels they can stick it to us again.
You are right, John, we just have to breathe, and I do think Kovy will be in a #17 red and black Devil sweater on opening night in early October. For right now on this God awful hot summer day, the ice I am thinking about is melting in my root beer.
Well, I’m glad you agree, but check out that beginning part about conspiracy. I’d drop the “NHL wouldn’t do this to _” point because there’s no merit there, really.
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 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh, wouldn't say the conspiracy thing has absolutely NO merit.
After all, contracts like Luongo’s, Hossa’s, Zetterberg’s, and Pronger’s were all accepted. Of course, I understand the length of the contract, and the substantial monetary drop, is what’s causing the NHL to believe both the Devils and Kovy expect him to retire before the end.
Simple solution: Restructure the money so Kovy would earn more at the end.
Expanded solution: Lower the years (say 15) and the money by a little bit (say 97/98 mill) to get a 6.5 cap hit. Restructure the deal so Kovy would earn more at the tail end like in the simple solution.
As John said, I’m confident Kovy will ‘stay’ a devil, so I’m not sweating over this. And while we’re on the ‘conspiracy theory’ subject, here’s one for you; what if Lou, in his ever present wisdom, purposely wanted the rejection announcement to come AFTER the press conference? To put more pressure on Kovy to stay for possibly less money/years? It would be a horrible PR choice to, after claiming commitment and dedication to a team who ‘signed you’ to then completely turn around and go to another team, no? If that wouldn’t look like a money obsessed player, I don’t know what would.
It would be extremely unlike Lou’s character to embarrass the team and a player just so we get a lower cap hit. I think Lou and Kovy knew what was going to happen before Kovy signed the deal.
They did this for something and probably have a handshake agreement on the next steps
Either taking the contract to court [which should be an easy win] or restructure the deal so it is a 15 year deal / 102 million contract adding the 1.1 million to the end of the deal like this.
2020-2021 3.5 million
2021-2022 1.3 million
2022-2023 1.1 million
2023-2024 550k
2024-2025 550k
2025-2026 550k
It would be a 6.8 million cap hit which I believe is still a bargain.
I agree with you. If it was the rags or the Hawks there would be no issue. I’m sure the NHL is not happy he signed with the Devils and not the Kings. They would have marketed the hell out of him in LA. The league is trying to stick it the Devils.
Lou is a mastermind with contracts. I’m sure he will stick it back to the league. So everyone can still place their orders for a Kovy jersey.
already ordered one and is on the way to my house..hope he does resign or else i have to sell my jersey :(
PS3: J-CAMPS
Kovalchenkov jersey!
Combined with number 2 and 7. 2 for Volch and 7 for Kovy.! Hard time between Kovalchuk and Volchenkov. Hmmm
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Jersey discussion is nice, but this isn’t the post for it. Let’s end the digression 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
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
From article 26 (on page 133):
26.3 Circumventions.
(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, including
without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations
of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost
Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
(i) Any act by a Club Actor that, if committed by the Club would
constitute a Circumvention, shall be imputed to the Club and shall
be deemed to be a Circumvention by the Club.
There is a ton more under article 26, too much to quote.
by drhgzang on Jul 21, 2010 7:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
OK. So let’s focus on the important word of Circumvention. How is that defined? If you can’t quote the whole thing, list the provisions (like 26.3.a or whatever).
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 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The section runs from page 133 to 136. Its all under article 26.3.
Section 26.3b through 26.3f covers circumvention by a player or player actor (presumably an agent but not defined as such).
26.3g and 26.3h covers circumvention by a team or team actor.
Im sure Lou will focus on 26.3i:
Any act, conduct, or activity that is permitted by this Agreement shall not
be a Circumvention.
And it seems like the explanation of circumvention heads of article 26:
Preamble. It is the parties’ intention that there be full, accurate and timely disclosure and
reporting of all revenues and financial information as required by Article 50, as well as of
any and all agreements involving payments to Players, and that such disclosures and
agreements be consistent with this Agreement, including but not limited to the provisions
of Article 50. This Article 26 is designed to prohibit and prevent conduct that
Circumvents the terms of this Agreement, while not deterring or prohibiting conduct
permitted by this Agreement, the latter conduct not being a Circumvention.
26.1 General. The activities described or referred to in, or expressly prohibited by,
Sections 26.2 through 26.7, and 26.15, whether completed or attempted, directly or
indirectly, shall be deemed Circumventions under this Agreement and shall be penalized
as described in and provided by Section 26.13.
Article 50 is titled: Team Payroll Range System and begins on page 178 of the pdf.
The plot…thickens.
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 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Aren’t the Caps a team from the KHL?? With all those russians on their team.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
No. Don’t be silly.
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 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Sarcasm
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions
yes
The NHLPA appeals and they win.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Then it is a done deal
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
“First and most of all:
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
There, don’t you feel a little better?”
No. No I don’t! Gaaahhhh
[runs from room screaming with arms flailing wildly]
But good article.
Seriously though, I have to admit that I’ve been surprised by the level of civility in the discourse on this site, both before and after this story broke. I’ve only been here a few days, but I am impressed.
You run a tight ship here, John. Asking people on the internet to be rational is usually like asking a wolverine not to eat a ham that you’re dangling in front of its nose, but this site happens to be conducive to the kind of conversation you’re requesting.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
john is the man no doubt. thank god hes our site leader instead of some goon
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
From another blog on fire and ice
Bill Daly wrote me back:
Thanks for the note and your support of the NHL and the Devils. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your "legal analysis" of this contract, especially as it relates to the provisions of our CBA, which I’ve had significant experience with both in terms of negotiating, drafting and administering. Our handling of this contract had absolutely nothing to do with the Players’ Association, and it had everything to do with protecting the integrity of the system we negotiated at arms-length with the players 5 years ago. We will see what happens. Bill
Can you actually link to what you’re quoting?
Actually, no, you can’t, Fire & Ice doesn’t have any permalinks for comments. Either way, how do we know this is really from Bill Daly and what was even asked of him?
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 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think a blogger on there would make up letters from him. I don’t know what the first letter said to him.
by LostNearHell on Jul 21, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Did TG post that comment? If not, it wasn’t a blogger, it was a user. Anyone can comment on Fire & Ice provided they fill out the comments.
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 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
A second reply
"I can assure you the decision was not "baseless", nor was it made for the wrong reasons. As you might know, I am an attorney myself, and I am also a person who is very familiar with the intent, structure and language of the CBA (and the SPC), having been very involved in its creation. Ultimately, an objective third party will make a decision on our rejection. I’ll awit that decision and am very confident in what the result will be. Bill"
See above
But I’ll repeat it again to repeat my point:
Can you actually link to what you’re quoting?
Actually, no, you can’t, Fire & Ice doesn’t have any permalinks for comments. Either way, how do we know this is really from Bill Daly and what was even asked of him?
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 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I gave you a link http://blogs.northjersey.com/blogs/fireice/comments/lamoriello_kovalchuk_contract_complies_with_cba/P125/ Just search for it yourself. ITs comments to the story
by LostNearHell on Jul 21, 2010 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Why should I or any one who reads this do the extra work to see if what you put in is valid or even makes sense?
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 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m just putting something on here I found interesting…I highly doubt someone is making it up for the hell of it…if you don’t feel like looking through it then don’t
by LostNearHell on Jul 21, 2010 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
here john i think hes talking about this
My original e-mail:
Hey Bill, long time Devils fan here. It’s a bit confusing to me which part of the CBA the Devils violated in the Kovalchuk contract. Can you explain to us out here in Devilsland what section of the CBA is being circumvented here? Can you shed any light on the situation for us? Because it’s frustrating when our team signs the biggest free agent in our history, the NHL runs it on the front page and promotes the signing, and then within hours of the press conference, the League rejects the contract. I do genuinely feel that the NHL owes its fans an explanation of its decision, certainly more of an explanation than was expressed in the short Press Release blip that we were given. Thanks so much Bill, hope to hear from you soon.
Anthony Romeo
———————————-
Bill’s response:
Anthony – I cannot share more than what we have said publicly. But I would refer you to Article 26. Contrary to what some people believe, this is the type of situation that that Article was specifically intended to deal with. And I would argue that this contract, on its face, differs in very material respects from the "other contracts" that people keep pointing to. In addition, there are other elements here that compelled our action that are and must remain internal and confidential. But please be assured there is no "anti-Devils" agenda here. I would suggest if you are able to stand back and view this objectively, you would understand that we are simply attempting to protect the integrity of the CBA. Hope that helps. Bill
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Really.
Funny how Bill comes right out to claim no “anti-Devils” agenda when Anthony’s email said nothing of the kind. Anthony only demanded an explanation.
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 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
i dont think bill daley would answer a random email and reveal to this guy anthony more than he revealed to nhl.com and guliity. no way
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 21, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
it's certainly valid to be extremely suspicious
bu noteworthy that the emails also dont’ say anything
Wait till this year.
Page 1 of comments contains the first response
Page 5 of comments contains the second response
by LostNearHell on Jul 21, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions
video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qOpiHp8K-s
talks about how his wife just wanted to see what LA and more..
PS3: J-CAMPS
Still trying to sift through article 50 (a lot of it deals with team revenue so its irrelevant to the current situation) but the more Im reading, unless the NHL can successfully argue Kovalchuk has no intention of playing until he’s 44 it seems like the contract is a good one. The structure (the increases and decreases) pushes the limit of what is allowed but seems to be in compliance with the CBA.
that is the exact argument
and it’s a pretty solid one, if you ask me. (I know many MANY people disagree with me.)
just ask yourself this question:
would a 100 year contract be approved?
why not?
okay, how about 75 years?
50?
The CBA doesn’t specify a limit on term, but many aspects of every contract rely on common sense.
The point of my question(s) above is that it’s self-evident that there is a line somewhere that cannot be crossed. The line was not specified in the CBA, but the CBA reserves the right to challenge anything (i.e. any trick no one had thought of at that time) that has the intent of or the effect of circumventing the CBA. This is (I think, clearly) an example of that.
It’s not a valid contract if no one can have any reasonable expectation that he will be able to do what he’s agreeing to do. The player can’t agree to do something he has no reasonable expectation of actually doing. And the team can’t require someone to perform a task that less than 0.9% of the entire population of the NHL in a hundred years has ever been able to do.
Wait till this year.
962 players laced them up in the 2009-2010 season. .9% of that number is 8.658. Let’s be conservative and “round” down. That means 8 players who played last season, by your logic, will indeed be able to perform this feat. Not to mention that in 13 years, when Kovy is 40, there may be such advances in medicine that he’ll be more like a 35 year-old and the final 4 years on his contract won’t be a problem. Who’s to say Kovy won’t be one of those 8?
The arguments about what may or may not happen in the future can’t be used, there are no facts resulting from predicting that future.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
okay, well then I'm way off.
because it’s 9 players in the history of the league. So it’s more like 0.009% or some sufficiently infinitesimal number.
Wait till this year.
According to hockeydb.com, 6564 players have played in the NHL since its inception (which was an excellent movie, by the way). According to hockey-reference.com, 8 have played past the age of 44. This is actually .12%. So we were both way off; however, out of last season’s 962 players, 1.17 of them have an average chance to make it to 44. Since Ilya Kovalchuk is the only player to have a (proposed) contract that runs until he’s 44, I say he has a god possibility of being that player.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
‘god possibility’ should be ‘good possibility’. My PC doesn’t like repetitive characters.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Ilya = god, therefor he has a 'god possibility'
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
My PC doesn’t like repetitive characters.
So it’s a safe bet your PC won’t be going to see the latest Will Ferrell movie?
DON'T PANIC.
by elesias on Jul 22, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Contracts don't deal in hypotheical averments.
Only factual ones. If the NHL donot have proof of Kovy’s intent not to play at that age then thats it. What isn’t proven and what dosn’t exist are the same.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Jul 22, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Common sense isn't common
Given that the league set no specific limit on contracts, then yes, allow a 100 year deal. The league and PA have no one to blame but themselves for not making that a part of the CBA. Where in the CBA does this “reasonable expectation” come in? Especially a league where the average age of retirement is just under 28?
The larger question is where in the CBA does this qualify as circumvention? This contract is fine per 50.7, there’s no term limit defined in the CBA, there’s definitely no age limit, the contract does not exceed the maximum player salary as of now, and the Devils are within the allowable buffer of the salary cap Upper Limit. What is being missed? Why was thus rejected by Article 11.6?
I’m not being difficult but I don’t want made up lines in the sand; I want what the rules and regulations actually say. Just the facts.
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 22, 2010 7:32 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Average age of retirement is 28. Special provisions on “Over 35” contracts. So clearly there is an expectation that some significant portion of the player population will be playing beyond that age. 10 or 15 years from now, who’s to say that the average retirement age won’t be 35, with special contract provisions for “Over 42” deals?
Clarification
I’ve made a big assumption: that given the discussion about arbitration and the NHL and PA agreeing on an arbiter, the rejection and procedures follow 11.6.
Do I have that right? If not, I apologize for my stupid assumption.
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 22, 2010 8:34 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Extreme example: if a team offered a 50 year contract, that paid exactly $3 million every season ($150 million), would the league have any reason for voiding it? It certainly isn’t circumventing the cap, because he’s getting the same salary each season (why they didn’t even consider the DiPietro and Ovechkin contracts).
Let’s take that a step further: what if it’s a 35+ contract. The cap hit would remain on the book for the entire 50 years (which would probably be so stupid a deal that the GM would probably get fired… the owner would be in trouble also, for allowing his club to make that deal). Something I’m not sure about the 35+ rule: does the player still get the salary for every year after he’s retired? Since the cap hit remains, this is just a guess.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
I think all disicpline in both of those cases would be left to the angry mob of fans assaulting the GM for stupidity.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
But the last part was a serious question (although I’ll use the less-extreme example). Let’s say Rolston decided to retire today, for whatever reason (not injury). Because his contract is a 35+, his cap hit (a little bit north of $5 million) would still count for the next two seasons. But would he still get his $5 million salary for those two seasons?
But another “idea” of getting around these 35+ contracts would be, when a player decides he wants to retire, the team trade him to a team with plenty of cap space, and no real intention of getting close to the ceiling for a couple years. Trade him and cash considerations for a condional future 7th round pick (the condition being the pick goes to the player’s old team if the player re-signs, something that won’t happen if he retires) and let him retire there.
The team with the cap space would be on the hook for the cap hit, but it’s okay because they wouldn’t be near the ceiling anyway, so it’s not really hurting them that much
Technically, this would be an attempt to circumvent the salary cap, but I’m not sure the league could reject this trade proposal. What if that player just wanted to retire with a different team? Like what if Pronger decided today that he wants to retire, but wants to do so with the Blues (or lets say the Oilers, since they have the cap space… the Oilers don’t want him back for any reason, I’m sure, but lets just assume). Can the league step in and say “sorry, you can’t go to your old team”?
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
no, but if that player retired immediately after the trade, the trading team could be charged with circumvention and fined – though you’d still have the same ‘intent’ kinds of questions that would come up in arbitration.
also, remember that ‘cash considerations’ are illegal under the current CBA. you can trade picks or players only.
Really?
So there’s no limit to this and if the Penguins sign Thornton, Semin, St. Louis and Chara to 100,000 year deals next year to make an All Star team and the cap hit is 500k on each of them, you aren’t going to complain? Legal issues ARE NOT black and white, they put the “circumvention” language in there for a reason.
Not afraid to nitpick
*should they have gone after Hossa/Pronger? Yes
Should they have rejected this deal? Yes. Not doing the first doesn’t mean that it’s irrational to do the latter, which is even more egregious and obvious in violating the spirit of the salary cap.
Not afraid to nitpick
Ahem
From the post you’re commenting in:
The answers to these may be elsewhere, but why rely on someone else when you can look it up in the CBA and get the actual, written facts right from the source? State the actual text that addresses these questions and more? Why argue and/or claim something as amorphous as “spirit” of the rules when you can look up what the rules actually state? Sure, it takes some effort, but usually quality discussion doesn’t happen from just quick, off-the-cuff ranting. The document is available online, take the time to read it, and cite it as needed. At a minimum, the discussion will be elevated by the presence of facts. Usually, that’s what I think most people want at the end of the day: “Just the facts, sir/ma’am.”
Let me be more frank: I don’t care about the “spirit” of the salary cap because the “spirit” is just going to be whatever it is you want it to be. Give me facts; otherwise, quit while you’re ahead.
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 22, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The facts?
The facts are that there’s a 99.99% chance that Kovalchuk retires before the end of the contract and the Devils knew it, and aside from that, it’s a fact that you wouldn’t want to bet that a player is going to play till 44 even if the guy might physically be able to take it. That is as factual as can be.
The only reason they signed him till he’s 44 is to artificially lower his cap hit in order to circumvent the CBA. Are you even disputing that?
“Beyond a reasonable doubt”, another vague legal term known not to be black and white.
Not afraid to nitpick
Those aren't facts
The facts are that there’s a 99.99% chance that Kovalchuk retires before the end of the contract and the Devils knew it, and aside from that, it’s a fact that you wouldn’t want to bet that a player is going to play till 44 even if the guy might physically be able to take it. That is as factual as can be.
I’d love to see you prove any of this. Because if you can, then it would be factual. Until then, it’s baseless conjecture that adds nothing to the conjecture other than making a fool of yourself.
Take a deep breath Joker.
The only reason they signed him till he’s 44 is to artificially lower his cap hit in order to circumvent the CBA. Are you even disputing that?
The CBA bases cap hits on average annual value of contracts. Contracts have no term limits. This is not a loophole. This is the system. The Devils still need to be under the cap ceiling every season and the peak of the deal falls in line with the maximum player salary at the time of the signing.
What is the actual circumvention? Why is this such a difficult question for so many? Provide a rule that would actually say that this is illicit.
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 22, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
What I think the NHL is going to argue
isn’t that he won’t play that long, but that it’s completely impossible for him to play for that money in 12-17 years. The league minimum will have been raised by a significant amount and they all know that. Other contracts have low ends of $1 mil which makes an accomidation for that or it’s only one year at minimum making it statisticly insignificant. Also I’m sure that they can pull numbers about how a person playing at that age has never played for that low an amount of money which means that there isn’t a resonable expectation that Kovi will play for that much but that might not be needed.
If there is therefore no way he can complete the contract as it was written it’s simply to circumvent the cap and therfore invalid.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
Pronger and Savard are playing on approved deals that have them making $525k in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
If it’s reasonable to expect that the minimum salary will have gone up more than $50k in 13 years, it’s reasonable to expect that the minimum salary will have gone up more than half that much in half as many years.
Personally, I don’t think that’s what the league is taking issue with.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Prongers deal
doesn’t count in the same way since his is a 35+ deal. And while I don’t know the details of Savards it might not be a significant enough difference that they thought they could prove it to an thrid party
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
The 35+ aspect of it has nothing to do with how it relates to your contention.
If Kovalchuk’s contract was rejected because the league feels that the minimum salary will have gone up more than $50 in 13 years when he’s slated to make that much, then they should have had the same issue with both the Pronger and Savard contracts as they’re both scheduled to earn only $25k more than the current minimum salary six years from now.
If it’s reasonable to expect that the minimum salary will have gone up more than $50k in 13 years, it’s reasonable to expect that the minimum salary will have gone up more than half that much in half as many years.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Yes
but it obviously won’t have gone up nearly as much or have as large an effect on the cap hit as the Kovi deal will. That makes it much easier for them to show how it circumvents the cap to a third party which maybe they didn’t think they could on those deals.
That argument is basically saying since they didn’t pull someone over for going 5 miles over the speed limit they can’t pull you over for going 10 over which doesn’t hold any legal weight. If the effect on the cap is greater then they can get around the precident.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
it obviously won’t have gone up nearly as much
Obvious how? Where is the data that shows this?
or have as large an effect on the cap hit as the Kovi deal will. That makes it much easier for them to show how it circumvents the cap to a third party which maybe they didn’t think they could on those deals.
This is a different argument than your previous one and is discussed quite extensively in this thread.
That argument is basically saying since they didn’t pull someone over for going 5 miles over the speed limit they can’t pull you over for going 10 over
How so? I’m not calling on precedent at all to dispute your claims about minimum salary. All I’m saying is that if you can project that the minimum salary will have gone up more than $50k in 13 years, then you can also project that it will have gone up more than $25k in 6 or 7.
That means one of two things: either they don’t expect the minimum salary to have risen that much by then, or the league doesn’t consider projected minimum salaries as evidence enough to reject contracts.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
OK
You are saying that the minor effect on the cap that those two examples show are the reason that they can’t punish the larger effect it has on the Devil’s cap. That is how the speeding metaphor comes in, it’s not perfect but what metaphor ever is.
As to your request for data to prove the minimum will be higher in a decade .I could pull numbers on how much the minimum salary has gone up in the past to prove my point but this is a discussion on a web site and I don’t care that much. If you really think that the difference won’t be greater in 12 years then in 4 you need help.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
I’m not saying anything about an effect on the cap. We’re talking about league minimum salaries and where you’re projecting they’ll be in 6 years versus 13 years.
As to your request for data to prove the minimum will be higher in a decade .I could pull numbers on how much the minimum salary has gone up in the past to prove my point
Please do. And please include an explanation as to how past increases guarantee future raises at the rate you predict as “obvious.”
but this is a discussion on a web site and I don’t care that much
Ah. Gotcha. Wouldn’t want to back up what you’re saying on a web site.
If you really think that the difference won’t be greater in 12 years then in 4 you need help.
I’m not sure how to explain it any simpler, but you’re apparently not getting it… and since you don’t care that much I don’t feel especially obligated to help you understand.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
still, I think we all believe the minimum salary will indeed go up barring a depression in the mean time.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The NBA salary cap has come down in recent years based on the economy.
In addition, the economy is not in very good shape, and there is no guarantee that things will improve in the near future. At least to me, it seems there is a reasonable possibility the economy could remain flat enough in the next couple of years that the NHL’s salary cap will not rise very much from its current level (if at all), and that minimum salaries could similarly remain stagnant, at least for now.
NBA salary cap or minimum salary?
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The salary cap in the NBA has come down. Minimum salary doesn’t work quite the same way as it does in the NHL. Rather than one flat figure for everyone, minimum salary is tied to how long you’ve been in the league (the NFL also has this sort of deal), so a rookie making the minimum isn’t earning the same amount as a 10-year veteran making the minimum. Now, I think there’s a funky clause or two in the respective CBAs where teams don’t have to pay the full minimum on veterans, or take the full cap charge — at least in the NFL, the League covers some of each as not to encourage a situation where teams sign rookies over proven veterans — but I won’t profess to be a capologist or a CBA expert in either of those sports the way we’re all rapidly becoming the same here in the NHL.
So there’s no limit to this and if the Penguins sign Thornton, Semin, St. Louis and Chara to 100,000 year deals next year to make an All Star team and the cap hit is 500k on each of them, you aren’t going to complain?
Nope. There’s no rule. So what basis do I have to complain about?
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 22, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
...because there is basis to complain about it
There is language in the CBA that prevents this from happening.
I’m really not a troll I swear, but it’s homerism to the highest degree to say that the deal isn’t trying to “circumvent” the salary cap, which is the language of the CBA that gives the NHL the grounds to reject it. Other contracts were obviously designed to circumvent the cap as well, but this one is significantly worse than those and even more obvious. The line has to be somewhere, and the Devils have found out that they went too far.
Besides as a Blues fan, you guys never should have had Scott Stevens…karma!
Not afraid to nitpick
I’m really not a troll I swear, but it’s homerism to the highest degree to say that the deal isn’t trying to "circumvent" the salary cap, which is the language of the CBA that gives the NHL the grounds to reject it.
It’s homerism to challenge people to actually define circumvention? It’s homerism to point out that the CBA has no limits on how long a contract can be?
Gee, I’d love to respond to people who don’t like being questioned like that!
Besides as a Blues fan, you guys never should have had Scott Stevens…karma!
Too bad karma has nothing to do with this, as does Scott Stevens, the Blues, or your misuse of words?
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 22, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
My last line there was in jest, sorry
“Circumvention”: To avoid or get around by artful maneuvering; bypass.
The CBA has no limits on contract lengths, it does have limits that a contract can’t “circumvent” the salary cap. Are you really arguing that signing Kovalchuk till he’s 44 would be a business move that the Devils would make if it didn’t artificially lower his cap hit?
Not afraid to nitpick
you cant prove it. thats all that counts
by kewlnsimpguy on Jul 22, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Silly joker, if you go about reading thru the articles at ILWT and most of the comments given, you would understand that what we are upset with is the lack of language that allowed contracts like Hossa’s, Luongo’s, Pronger’s and even Lecavalier’s to go on without rejection, but somehow got Kovalchuk’s rejected. It has nothing to do with ‘homerism’ (that only helps with the ferocity of which we are discussing), but rather the NHL dictating its own terms without negotiation with the NHLPA.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I understand that
The Hossa/Pronger deals are bull too. The Kovy contract is significantly worse than those in how clear it is at “circumventing the cap”. Just because those were probably illegal doesn’t mean it’s okay for the Devils to do something that is clearly illegal, no?
Not afraid to nitpick
Joker, please take some advice and take a deep breath.
What have so many people here have been asking? Why have I posted a link to the CBA in a post where I clearly state: look up the rules to find what is actually wrong?
Because it is not clear at all.
That’s the point. Feel free to continue to not want to understand that, but don’t expect further discussion then.
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 22, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure you've already read 11.6
Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets.
C) because it is or involves a Circumvention of either the Club’s Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, and:
(x) if the NHLPA does not timely dispute and refer to the
Arbitrator such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then immediately upon the expiration of the time period within which the NHLPA may
dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection, the SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, will be deemed null and void ab initio (i.e., the Player’s Free Agency
.
If you would like to defend the contract in how it is a reasonable idea to have Kovalchuk playing when he’s 44, then go for it. But there are rules for how contracts can be constructed, and it is up to a “reasonable interpretation” of the law to dictate just what these terms mean.
Is it not a reasonable interpretation to say that the only reason a 27 year old signs the contract Kovalchuk did is to artificially lower his AAV cap hit, which is obviously circumventing the salary cap system?
Not afraid to nitpick
Who needs interpretations when Article 50 states it?
There are rules, yes, Article 50 goes in detail to state that there’s no limit on the length of a SPC that can be offered (I believe that is 50.2, Langer Monk and drhgzang quoted it later in these comments) and Article 50.7 regulates how salary can be structured. 50 also explains and defines AAV.
This contract meets those regulations; ergo, it is only “artificial circumvention” to those who believe in the “spirit” of the cap and not to those who actually understand and accept what the CBA says whether they like it or not.
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 22, 2010 5:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Because if you've taken contract law, it is clearly implied
That the “circumvention” clause was put in there to be interpreted. And yes, that implication matters a great deal and is valid.
The NHL lawyers didn’t reject this willy nilly, and if it was as black and white as you seem to think it is, this would have been overturned in an arbitration hearing yesterday but the PA hasn’t even filed the grievance…..obviously 11.6 is the clause that is the relevant point—-if it wasn’t, then Lou would really have signed him for a 25 year contract. I’m not even saying this is a slam dunk case, but the NHL clearly has grounds to at least challenge the contract. Whether the arbitrator agrees or not, I don’t know, but the debate is certainly on whether the deal violates 11.6.
Not afraid to nitpick
C) because it is or involves a Circumvention of either the Club’s Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, and:
The Devils are still bound by the “Club’s Upper Limit” (cap) regardless of what Kovalchuk’s average annual value is.
To be perfectly logical, the actions around no one single player can circumvent the “Club’s Upper Limit” because of the “Maximum Player Salary”. Think about it. It’s really the aggregate of ALL the Devil contracts that contribute to the cap. One player may help put them over it, but as long as the Devils are under the cap by the first game, the cap is not circumvented.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Huh?
So artificially manipulating a player’s contract so that the cap hit is lower isn’t circumventing the cap?
You can argue whether the contract is or is not artificially lowering the cap hit, but if it is, that is obviously an attempt to circumvent the cap.
Not afraid to nitpick
OK. Try this. EVERY contract that doesn’t have a flat salary circumvents the cap. Circumventing the cap, in it’s purest form, is black and white. If ANY contract that is not a flat salary throughout is allowed, then ALL should be allowed. To take a tangent on the cookie argument; if it’s against the law (rules) to STEAL one cookie, why is it more against the law to steal 20? By having unbalanced contracts, the owner/GMs are stealing a cookie. That stealing of a small number of cookie has been allowed for the duration of the CBA. Ergo, stealing multiple cookies has to be allowed as well.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Frank, this arguement is why the case cannot go to arbitration. Because the conclusion is not, “Stealing multiple cookies is legal” But the negation “All instances of stealing cookies are illegal, including events that have already occured” Is the one Gary will end up proving whether he wants to or not.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Besides the fact that in a few years, their salary cap would be so far out of a realm of possibility, it wouldnt work to begin with.
In order to punish someone for breaking the rules, the rules HAVE to be black and white
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
No they don't
Is “probable cause” a black and white term? Is “reasonable suspicion” a black and white term? We wouldn’t even need a Supreme Court if legalese was black and white.
Not afraid to nitpick
Interesting. So a judge can convict someone on the basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion? Really?
I believe there needs to be proof ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ in order to convict (or in this case, reject) someone.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Those were merely examples of "vague legal terms" that are not black and white
The laws are not written black and white, they are made for interpretation.
Not afraid to nitpick
You brought up the law terms. Here’s the easy difference, the CBA is not Law, it was a contract decided upon between two groups. If there is something explicitly stated within said contract, then it cannot be questioned. However, since the wording is terribly vague, how does one side lay down a punishment for ‘breaking’ the contract without the punished side having actually broken any rule of the contract?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
The area we are debating is "Contract Law", it is as "Law" as it gets
And terms do not have to be black and white, they can be and usually are written intentionally vague to leave it up for “reasonable interpretation” at a later date.
Not afraid to nitpick
Which this contract has exceeded in every way as far as "pushing the envelope" goes
Not afraid to nitpick
So did every one that came before it.
If I let my son have a cookie before dinner, I can’t tell my daughter she can’t have one before dinner the next day.
DON'T PANIC.
And then the next day, your son asks for 2 cookies you have to say yes?
And then the day after, your daughter asks for 3 cookies, you have to still say yes?
Repeat to infinity.
Not afraid to nitpick
Which is why, for the record, my kids don’t get cookies before dinner.
It’s not a perfect analogy, I’m aware, so don’t bother tearing it apart. It’s just to demonstrate how precedent works.
Give an inch, they’ll take a mile… that sort of thing.
DON'T PANIC.
I know I know
But at some point you draw the line, otherwise you are stuck with kids hopped up on 8 boxes of cookies each (delicious, delicious Girl Scout cookies)……and 17 year contracts!
Not afraid to nitpick
Well… if you draw the line at none, you don’t have that problem…
Anyone shocked that Bettman would be a bad parent?
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Would anyone be surprised if Bettman was bad at everything he tried to ever do?
Not afraid to nitpick
No, the next day he asked for 2 cookies to have over the following 2 days. He’s still averaging a cookie a day.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Sure you can tell your daughter she can’t have the cookie, but you have to expect her to say something about what you’ve done before.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Can somebody please show me the envelope that has been pushed! The terms of the contract are within the published “laws”. Seems to me the envelope is one of those large manila ones and we’re dealing with a letter that fits very nicely within it.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/7/21/1579736/why-ilya-kovalchuks-contract-was
Not afraid to nitpick
You're kidding, right?
Where in that article is the reference to the specific rule that was BROKEN? Not bent, not stretched, but BROKEN? Where in the CBA does it say that one person’s salary can’t drop off more than another player’s? Where in that article is even a SINGLE reference to the CBA?
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
(This isn’t actually directed at Skuba7, its mostly just to clarify some of the points you two disagree on).
The arbitration process is to determine whether an individual actually broke the rule. The rule in question here is whether this contract circumvented the salary cap. Its also worth noting, in system arbitration, there is a much lower burden of proof than there is in a criminal court of law.
CBA 26.13 The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.
Whether an arbitrator feels that the last 5 years of the contract can reasonably be explained by some factor other than cap circumvention will determine whether the contract stands or not.
Will they? Heck if I know.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Lower burden of proof or not, the second highlighted sentence appears to be the key here.
They still have to show that it cannot be reasonably explained, and it can easily be explained.
DON'T PANIC.
As evidenced by how heated the debate has been… I think it really depends on the arbitrator.
There’s another issue as well, which is, I suspect there is less than a 10% chance this contract ever actually gets dragged before an arbitrator.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
How about the fact that in 12 years it will impossible for him to play for that much
the minimum will have gone up by then. Most if not all of the other contracts don’t go this low and certainly not that low that far in the future for that long.
That alone could be considered circumvention to the right arbitrator
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
You don’t know for fact that it will have gone up by then. It’s assumed it will, and history suggests it will, but it’s not a guarantee.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
It's enough of a guarantee
to hold weight in this discussion. If they can prove there isn’t a resonable expectation for him to complete the contract as written it can be considered invalid. It’s all up to the arbitrator
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
They don't have to
they just have to prove that there isn’t a resonable expectation for Kovi to complete the contract that was signed. If that’s the case then it can be ruled invalid.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
Right, so how does one prove that there isn’t a reasonable expectation for him to complete the contract that was signed if they can’t prove that, as you contest, “in 12 years it will impossible for him to play for that much”?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
You seem to think
this proof would have to be a newspaper from the future showing what the number would be. It doesn’t have to be that concrete. If the arbitrator rules that it’s obvious that the base salary will be higher and therefore he can’t complete the contract that’s it and the contract is void.
Honestly I give it about a 50/50 chance of going either way if it does go to arbitration because it’s all about what’s in his head and how the two sides sell the way they view the wording of the contracts grey areas.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
Minimum Salaries....
….are something that is settled in a CBA negotiation between a Player’s Union and the League. We have no idea what the minimum salary will be a few years from now, as that involves at least one negotiation and perhaps more, depending on how long a CBA runs.
You can’t predict what the minimum salary will be in 2016, 2022, or any other future year that isn’t covered by the current CBA. It isn’t tied to a mathematical algorithm that says it goes up by a certain amount or percentage every so often, and it hasn’t grown in that fashion in the past (so precedent doesn’t count here). I imagine one of two things would happen if it rises above $525k in the next CBA. Either contracts that pay less than the new minimum get grandfathered in and left as-is…. or they get modified to adhere to the new minimum, and cap hits get recalculated accordingly.
For that matter, what if part of the give-and-take of the next CBA negotiation is a decrease in the minimum salary? What does that possibility do for your argument?
Nothing
in order to be turned down none of these things need to be 100% certain. They need to fit “circumstantial evidence” which is totally within the arbitrators mind. Hence the fact that in the past the minimum salary has continued to go up and up is enough or more truthfully could be enough for the contract to be bad.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
Hence the fact that in the past the minimum salary has continued to go up and up is enough or more truthfully could be enough for the contract to be bad
To relate this to a completely different walk of life…. this sounds like the logic all the banks used when they were justifying the housing bubble, and look where that got us. Just because something goes up, and has continued to rise for a considerable period of time without moving in the opposite direction is not proof that it will always continue to do so.
Besides which, if the minimum salary was the issue the league had with the Kovalchuk contract, I imagine they would have come out and said that in specific, rather than just a blanket rejection of the deal without further explanation. In addition, if minimum salary beyond the expiration of the current CBA were an issue, they likely would have raised this with the Chris Pronger and Marc Savard extensions before that.
It doesn’t have to be absolutely proven, but I imagine the onus applies to the NHL to prove that the contract circumvents the salary cap, rather than on the NHLPA, Kovalchuk’s camp, and the New Jersey Devils to prove it is legal. The NHL rejected the contract claiming it was illegal under the rules, so they’ve got to back that assumption.
Well, there is the whole minimum salary thing to contend with. And the players hearing it from their agents, who earn based on their salary, and the NHLPA who would have a legitimate beef with the precedent those players were setting for the rest of the league.
But other than the illegality of it, the un-savvy business sense of it, the self-defeating precedent it sets and the just plain stupidity of star players short-changing their own earning potential… what’s there to complain about?
DON'T PANIC.
technically on a 100,000 year for Thornton
at league maximum of 11.5 million for the first say 10 years (you know, until he retires) and then $6MM for a year, then $1MM for the next 99,989 years, that’s
99 trillion, 990 billion, 120 million dollars over 100,000 years
for a cap hit of
$1.01MM
Wait till this year.
OK. Make it happen.
If a team wants to do it, then go for it. Article 50 says there’s no limit and if the breakdown is compliant with 50.7. I won’t complain.
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 22, 2010 7:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I just don't get how this is unclear
11.6 clearly states that there are rules on how contracts can be structured. They cannot be structured to circumvent the CBA. There is no limit to how long they can be, but they can’t “circumvent the salary cap”. If you are seriously saying that a hypothetical 100,000 year contract isn’t designed to circumvent the CBA by artificially lowering the cap hit during times when the guy is actually expected to be alive and playing, then….just…..wow.
How about this example: Illitch of the Red Wings signs Kovy to a 15 year league minimum NHL contract, but then also signs Kovy to a 15M/year contract to perform marketing for the Detroit Tigers where he throws out the 1st pitch once a year, is there anything in the CBA that specifically forbids this in black and white terms?
(The answer is yes, contracts can’t be designed to circumvent the CBA)
You can’t circumvent the CBA, you can’t circumvent the CBA, you can’t circumvent the CBA. If you’d like to argue that signing Kovy till he’s 44 is not circumventing the CBA, then feel free, but this “there are no rules!” thing is just absolutely wrong. There are rules on how you can structure contracts and those rules are up for interpretation.
Not afraid to nitpick
Define salary cap circumvention and do it in a definative way.
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 can't give you black and white
Nor does it need to be definitive. That’s been my whole point this entire time.
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26.
I can tell you that it is extremely unreasonable to expect Kovalchuk to be playing when he is 44, and the only reason for a team to sign him to those final 6 years at near league minimum till he’s 44 is so that the cap hit when he is actually expected to be playing is artificially lower, thereby allowing a team to maintain a payroll that is significantly past the salary cap—-AKA the purpose of the salary cap has been circumvented by the structure of the contract. There’s a reason why you don’t see contracts like this in any other sport, and it’s because they can’t circumvent the salary cap.
(And yes again, the Hossa/Pronger etc deals were shady themselves and probably should have been rejected, but this deal is much shadier and I don’t see how that’s really arguable. You have to draw the line somewhere.)
Not afraid to nitpick
Damn the rules!
If you can find a way to get around the rules without being held accountable then you do it. Ruel are for the weak and this principle is tacitly acknowledged in all walks of life. Hate to burst bubbles but lets talk some truth here.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Jul 22, 2010 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions
and the only reason for a team to sign him to those final 6 years at near league minimum till he’s 44 is so that the cap hit when he is actually expected to be playing is artificially lower
No, this is one reason, not the only one. Another reason can be that the Devils want him to play out all 17 years and Kovy realizes once he gets his $100 million he can give the Devils a break on what can be his last years in the league. You can’t prove that this reason isn’t feasable.
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 22, 2010 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok, so if it’s unreasonable to be playing until 44, how about 43? 42? 41? No wait, we already have contracts for players until they’re 42 which doesn’t circumvent, so 43 is just be so unreasonable that it must be circumvention? 42 can be reasonably explained but 44 can’t? That’s a fine line, in my opinion. Plus, there are already contracts that have 3 or 4 years of minimum or near-minimum wage at the end. They can be reasonably explained, but 6 years can’t? Another fine line. Kovy’s contract has patterns which have precedents, but uses those precedents to more extreme. It may be eye-rolling, but I don’t think “cannot reasonably be explained.”
4.5 times as many players played at 42 then players than played at 44.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
43 times as many US Presidents were white than were black.
Does that mean another black President is impossible?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
No, because you have to restrict the population to “legitimate presidental candidates”, for which there was previously only 1 black man other than obama, and 0/1 isn’t as powerful a statistic that 4/1248 is.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Likewise you’d have to restrict the possibility of knowing whether he’ll be physically able to play at 44 by predicting the future, which runs somewhere in the neighborhood of 0/8,475,663,052.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I am only going on previous precendent, and if you’re curious, almost all of the oldest players started their careers in the mid-50s, not anytime recently.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
You’re using precedent to show it’s unlikely, but unlikely is still possible.
Not to mention no one can say where technology will take the medical and equipment fields in 10 or 15 or 17 years and just as the average age of a human has continued to grow, so too could the average age of a hockey player.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I could present decent evidence that in fact the opposite is just as likely.
There’s a difference between “Unlikely” and “Rediculously Unlikely”. However you are correct as we have not yet reached “Astronomically unlikely”, so the arguement is not yet applicable hard evidence, but still falls into the cirumstantial evidence category. As this is arbitration, that’s a good starting point.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
FYI, “Astronomically unlikely” is probabilities less than 10^-5% or so. Evidence with such a high degree of accuracy is considered hard evidence (like DNA testing, which is like 1 in 3 million or so…)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
It sounds like your best bet — if you wish the contract to stay voided — is to find an arbitrator who will rule based on “likely” vs. “unlikely”. If you go to an arbitrator who is going to use contract law, the CBA doesn’t expressly forbid anything the Devils have done. If you go to an arbitrator who will rule largely based on precedent, the Devils also have a strong case given all the previous contracts that were approved by the league.
The contract is questionable when you bring in the “smell test”. It seems unlikely that Kovalchuk will play out the full term based on the history of retirement ages in the NHL…. but there’s a great leap from that to proving circumvention or collusion. Unless there’s information that hasn’t been shared with the larger public, there’s no evidence to go on…. and not in the least because we don’t have a time machine to see 17 years into the future.
Maybe Kovy retires at 38. Maybe he decides to keep coming back because the team he is on is still challenging for a Cup and he wants one or two more to cap his career. Maybe he comes back because he’s nearing an individual milestone he’d like to get. Maybe he comes back because he’s just had another kid three or four years ago, and wants to give the little tyke a chance “to see Daddy play in the NHL”. Maybe his finances are a mess and he needs the money from continuing to play. Maybe there’s been expansion in the NHL to 60 teams, and the talent pool is so thin he’s still a Top 6 forward.
We don’t know what will happen. But neither do you. Probability can only carry your case so far…. and scientificially your data would be flawed, because while you can say “only 0.58% of NHL players are 43 or above”, none of those players are Ilya Kovalchuk. Each player would have a set of probabilities unto himself, and your larger group of 1042 is simply a collection of 1042 disparate data points, not 1042 different data points collected under identical conditions from the same set of starting conditions.
OMG someone who knows statistics!!!
A rarity these days. I apologize for dumbing down my statistics then, I’m too used to dealing with people who only know the bare minimum about statistics.
You have indeed mentioned the question that analysts agonize over every day: “Is my sample a good representation of the entire population?” This is why i removed goaltenders and players that played <500 games, (i could well have chosen 400[pension requirement] or 600[closer to the number Kovalchuk has played], but as a statistician, i like round numbers.
Indeed, I cannot get an accurate result unless i cloned Ilya Kovalchuk 100 times, and waited to see when they all retired from the Devils (in 100 parrallel universes, of course). This, would, of course, take longer than 17 years…
I will, however, suggest that the .57%/.38% (depending on your cutoff) is at least in the correct ballpark (which would be .1%-1% of the true likelihood of Kovalchuk retiring before the end of his contract.) This would suggest that the AAV of the contract is incorrect, and should be closer to 6.8M$ at the very least.
This line of reasoning, of course, makes all front-loaded contracts circumvent the cap, and the only decision would be “how much is a significant amount?”
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
I apologize for dumbing down my statistics then
Don’t apologize. I have enough of a background that I can follow at least some of the high-level stuff, but a lot of people who read this don’t…. and I’d rather see the discussion stripped down to more of a basic level so the layperson can follow and contribute rather than being talked down to. It might be more educational for viewers to read the two of us argue at a higher level, but it might also look like reading a college textbook or something and scare off the masses. =)
I will, however, suggest that the .57%/.38% (depending on your cutoff) is at least in the correct ballpark
I won’t concede that point when it comes to arguing this particular contract, because there’s a lot that can change in the next dozen years or so. Much as we might all wish for the world to remain unchanging, the world will be quite different when Ilya Kovalchuk hits the tail of that contract than it is now. I’ve cited a number of reasons why Kovalchuk might make the decision on his own to keep playing. I could also cite the potential evolution of medicine, exercise, nutrition, etc., that can keep a person in better condition to a later age — not a stretch considering the differences from a generation or two ago to now.
I could also cite the evolution of retirement ages in other sports and how that has changed over the years. Some of that can be attributed to factors independent of health (e.g. expansion and rising salaries resulting in more demand for players and players desiring to play for longer periods of time), but if you ran the same exercise at different points in a sport’s history, you would likely come up with different results. If you picked up a player like Chris Chelios or Mark Recchi as they were now and dropped them down in another era, would they be able to hold an NHL job? This goes not just for time already passed (say, dropping them in 1983), but into the future as well (say, 2023).
I could even throw out some ridiculous, statistically unlikely scenarios that would impact the player pool to try and bolster my case. Something like a plague or a global war could dilute the talent pool in a hurry, and encourage older players to keep giving it a go based on an increasingly limited supply without a marked decrease in demand (assuming, of course, that Kovy survives either). Not saying that either would happen (and not hoping for them), but a rigorously thorough model would have to plan for such crazy contingencies. There’s no need to get so farcical for this discussion, so let’s just pretend this last paragraph was a flight of fancy and not take it too seriously.
The saying goes that there are three kinds of lies in the world: lies, “darn” lies [not the word from the saying, but I’m trying to keep it clean here], and statistics. Ask any GM about that one, while they are preparing a salary arbitration case and trying to make an argument as to why Player X isn’t as good as his numbers indicate and shouldn’t be paid as much. As to the case at hand, you could probably find a decent statistician to argue either side of our case any why this is or is not circumvention.
[For the record, Ubiqtuous, I’d probably take your side if this were any other team than the Devils. The heart trumps the head in this case, however. Objectively, I don’t find serious fault in the merits of your arguments or how you assembled your data set to come up with your numbers.]
That paragraph, was, indeed, a joke. I’m happy that you liked it. I feel bad if i post a page a statistics talk, make all these people read, and not have at least a little humor in it. (Like: “Except Glen Sather”, who pretty much defies logic, etc.)
The only real problem i have with the Kovalchuk contract is that basically nullifies the salary cap for the next two seasons. Hence, i would want it voided by any means necessary.
Also, that stupid “, of course,” which i deleted showed up again, like a ghost…
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
I could present decent evidence that in fact the opposite is just as likely.
That the number of players who will play to an older age will go down as technology advances? Please do.
Unlikely is still possible no matter what adjective you place in front of it, as evidenced by the fact that it has happened in the past.
If you bought a lottery ticket, the odds of you winning are [insert preferred adjective here] unlikely, but it could still happen.
That’s why people still buy lottery tickets.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
No, that advances in medical technology make younger players so much better than aging players, they are forced to retire earlier because they aren’t good enough.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
The best i could possibly do is break even with the opposite arguement, even though there is some precident. (and obviously some in the other direction)
The big tipping point you have is that as salaries increase, there’s more incentive to attempt to extend one’s career to make more money.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Advances in medical technology (and other related sciences, such as nutrition and exercise) can do all sorts of things.
It could make all players better, which would support your argument, as younger players would have received this benefit earlier and be better than the older players who didn’t have this advantage when growing up.
Or maybe it extends the period of peak production for players, which means “older is better” because they’ll still be better than the rookies coming in.
Or maybe it will slow the decline in the post-peak years, which again benefits older players because they’ll remain closer to their peak years for longer and still be better than the younger players (experience supplementing their abilities when things are relatively even, of course).
Advances can take a lot of forms. Not all of them play out in your argument’s favor.
Right Hossa/Pronger deals were BS, but this pushes it further.
The point isn’t that it’s impossible for Kovalchuk to play till he’s 44, but it is extremely unlikely. Extremely unlikely is sufficient for “direct or circumstantial evidence” IMO. The point is that the only reason a team would sign him till he’s 44 right now is specifically because of the salary cap implications under the contract structure and that it’s extremely unlikely they will actually have to suffer the consequences of having a 43 year old at a 6M cap hit. If there were no salary cap, do you think there’s a chance in hell that the Devils sign him till he’s 44 right now?? That’s the point, and it doesn’t have to be a black and white 100% answer to that question under the burden of “direct or circumstantial evidence”.
And yes it’s a fine line, but it’s one they just have to draw at this point (because they failed to do so earlier). It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a direct message that some team can sign Semin till he’s 46 or 47 next year because “it’s a fine line between 44 and 46”. They should have snuffed this out earlier, they didn’t, but that’s not an excuse to let it go further in every regard of pushing the envelope. If Kovy had signed till 42, everyone would roll their eyes and move on, but they pushed it past that previous precedent.
Not afraid to nitpick
If there were no salary cap, do you think there’s a chance in hell that the Devils sign him till he’s 44 right now??
If there was no salary cap, this long thread and related discussions wouldn’t happen — because you can’t circumvent a salary cap that doesn’t exist. =)
Seriously, however, you are right on that point. But if there wasn’t a salary cap, some team like the Rangers would simply have thrown 10 years and $100 million at him in the first place and been done with it…. while the rest of us cried about the lack of competitive balance and how the big market teams simply buy up all the talent. We wouldn’t have waited for three weeks on a decision, and we wouldn’t be debating the structure of contracts. At the same time, you wouldn’t have the similar contracts to guys like Hossa and Pronger, because there would have been no need to fudge the numbers for them, either.
If Kovy had signed till 42, everyone would roll their eyes and move on
I don’t agree on that point. I won’t subscribe to the Oliver Stone conspiracy theories that the league has it out for the Devils…. even though you have at least circumstantial evidence from which you could try and build a case. I think this is a case of the league trying to put its foot down, and would have done it in almost any case where this type of contract was signed. If you chopped a year off the front and a year off the end, and made it a similar contract with a slightly shorter tail to the tune of 15 years and $90 million, I think the league would have rejected it anyhow. Their case would not be as strong as it is for 17 and 102, but I’m not sure the League has a very strong case to begin with. Precedent isn’t on their side, the language of the CBA doesn’t give them a clear violation to show, and their case is largely based on circumstantial evidence and the theory that this was meant to circumvent the cap rules. If you’ve followed the statistical science argument above, there’s no way to prove things one way or another…. you can argue likely vs. unlikely vs. exceedingly unlikely, but you can’t prove anything.
That's basically what the NHL's beef is
Seriously, however, you are right on that point. But if there wasn’t a salary cap, some team like the Rangers would simply have thrown 10 years and $100 million at him in the first place and been done with it
That’s literally what the Devils did minus 5M, and that is why it’s a big deal to circumvent the cap.
I don’t disagree with the second paragraph, but I think everyone would be rushing to defend the Devils if they got screwed for doing exactly what the Stanley Cup Champions did—-I sure would, but they broke that precedent.
Not afraid to nitpick
That’s literally what the Devils did
That’s not literally what the Devils did. That’s not even figuratively what the Devils did.
but they broke that precedent.
Which precedent, the one about pushing the previously accepted contracts to new heights? They’ve all done that in their time.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Ummm
Let’s see, 10 years 95M + 7 tack on years where he’ll be paid nothing. In what was is that dissimilar to a 10 year 100M contract?
Not afraid to nitpick
It’s dissimilar in that it isn’t 10 years/$100m.
That’s what literally means.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
"That’s literally what the Devils did minus 5M"
“10 years/100M minus 5M”=10 years/95M, which is what his deal basically was.
Not afraid to nitpick
The point is that the only reason a team would sign him till he’s 44 right now is specifically because of the salary cap implications
That’s one interpretation, but not the only reason a team would sign him until he’s 44. This point is where you seem to be stuck. You have your interpretation and refuse to see that it’s possible there is another explanation.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
So
If there were no salary cap, do you think there’s a chance in hell that the Devils (or any other team) sign him till he’s 44 right now??
Not afraid to nitpick
How does this hypothetical scenario matter?
There is a salary cap. Period.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
How does it not matter?
The argument is that it’s completely unreasonable for a team to sign a 27 year old till he’s 44 for any other reason than “artificially lower AAV to circumvent the cap”. If they couldn’t circumvent a cap in this manner, then they wouldn’t do the deal.
Answer this then since there are “other reasons”, why would a team sign a 27 year old till he’s 44 and structure the contract for basically the maximum NPV?
Not afraid to nitpick
It doesn’t matter because any supposition about what would happen in that hypothetical situation doesn’t take into account how the entire league has acted under those circumstances since it’s an unknowable situation. One can easily say it wouldn’t happen because one can easily say anything would happen without fear of being proven wrong. It’s a useless exercise and a straw man argument.
There is at least one precedent, however, pre-salary cap… the Islanders locking up Yashin until he was 38. Who is to say where it could have gone from there? It could certainly be argued that the precedent was set and teams might start locking up players to lifetime contracts to maintain dynasties and keep from having to pay more to players every 5-6 years when they re-upped in a market of rapidly increasing salaries.
Answer this then since there are "other reasons", why would a team sign a 27 year old till he’s 44 and structure the contract for basically the maximum NPV?
Because they expect to receive his considerable contributions for the rest of his career? Because they know that even though his production may drop (as does his salary), by that time he’ll bring other things to the team like veteran leadership and, ideally, Cup experience?
Does there need to be any other reason then, “we expect him to play until then”?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Yes in fact there do need to be actual reasons
Because that one is not based in reality. Even you guys admit that it is extremely unlikely for him to be playing at 44, and “extremely unlikely” qualifies for “direct or circumstantial evidence”.
Not afraid to nitpick
What reality is there that Kovalchuk wont be playing at 43 years of age? (His birthday falls after his last regular season game in the Final year of his Contract). At the same time, Luongo’s Final regular season game, if he was to play thru the whole contract, comes when he is 43 years of age as well.
The whole point, or at least my whole point, is that the precedent was set for the Devils before the contract was written and signed for. Therefore, I cannot understand how the League can reject any contract that does not explicitly break these precedents, without there being a negotiation between the NHL and the NHLPA
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Ilya Kovalchuk is considered to be 44 under the CBA because his birthday falls before June 30. This is also true of all the other players and statsitics we have mentioned (though mine assume Feb. 1 as the age cutoff used to be earlier in the past when the seasons were shorter)
In fact, as Gary is the commissioner of the league and the league has to approve all contracts, then he can very well reject a contract “because i said so.” He didn’t though, because he’s trying to establish precedent for next year so he said “Cap circumvention”
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
And again
I agree that those contracts were BS themselves and the NHL should have stepped in then. But it’s undeniable Kovalchuk’s pushes every aspect of what made those contracts shady even further—-it goes beyond those precedents and they just had to draw a line somewhere. There are 7 tack on years for effs sake!
If the Devils get levied a 1M or 5M fine or whatever, then that’s complete crap and Bettman will really look like a joke, but saying “this contract is obviously trying to circumvent the cap and goes beyond anything previous, figure out something less ridiculous” is a pretty reasonable for the NHL to try to enforce the CBA.
This is my last post on this subject—-unless someone posts something that pushes the bounds of reality further out….ya know, goes Kovy on it haha.
Not afraid to nitpick
The precedent for penalties for signing an illegal contract was is a fourth round pick from the leafs earlier this year. (The leafs signed a top FA prospect to an illegal entry-level contract) They were allowed to redo the contract afterwords (or, technically, resign a “new” contract that looked almost exactly like the old one)
I imagine it won’t be much more than just the fourth-rounder, as this wasn’t a financial reporting violation, which seems to be what the fine was designed for.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Unlikely doesn’t mean impossible.
It’s as feasible that he will be capable of playing then as it is that anyone will be playing then, which we know from precedent, is humanly possible now in 2010… and who can say what will be possible in 2020 and beyond?
Those are actual reasons.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
43 actually, he will be 43 years of age the entire last year of his contract, until the Playoffs. Igor Larionov was 43 when he played his final game, why not Kovalchuk, or anyone else?
Likely or not, its not unprecedented.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Age in my data was defined as age on the Feb. 1st that fell on the season. I also calculated results for 43, for which the probability of a player of Kovalchuk’s stature making it to 43 is .58% (6/1042)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
You are mis-defining probability. 0.58% of all NHL players being age 43 or above is not the same thing as having a 0.58% chance of reaching age 43. It could be 0.2%, 0.6%, even some significantly higher number like 5%. Based on your argument, if I flipped a coin 5 times and it landed heads all five times, then the coin has a 100% chance of landing heads (which it does not unless it is doctored). Results often skew when you have a “lucky” streak or an “unlucky” streak of results. Over a very large sample, results have a tendency to regress towards their mean, but this is not an absolute.
The most you can do is use the assembled weight of evidence that NHL players rarely make it to age 43 as active players in the league, and therefore it is highly unlikely Ilya Kovalchuk will either. That becomes your best argument that the contract is designed to circuvent the cap, but you can’t prove it one way or another. Not only have there been players who played that long, but the events have not happened yet, and there is a lot that can change in such a lengthy period of time.
The error term on that probability is smaller than the number of decimal places i reported.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
My head hurts a little bit after that one...
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 there’s no limit to this and if the Penguins sign Thornton, Semin, St. Louis and Chara to 100,000 year deals
No, those would be rejected based on the expected life-span of a human male. Anything over 80 years would not be feasible. 17 years, while perhaps a stretch, IS feasible.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Ah, 100,000 years. I read it as $100k for some reason.
Yeah, there’s the whole living long enough to fulfill the contract part that sort of gets in the way. One could argue they’re immortal, but the difference here is that there’s no precedent.
DON'T PANIC.
But you can’t prove some one isn’t immortal with out breaking the law.
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'm aware
It’s completely ridiculous, yet Fischer is actually saying that this is okay by the letter of the CBA.
Not afraid to nitpick
It is ok by the letter of the CBA, as ridiculous as any of us may find it. Im not arguing aginst you here, it doesnt make sense necessarily. But, because the CBA was written without hard and fast rules, punishing someone (or in this case, the contract) seems to be the point of contention, on what is going on.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Excellent title!
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Jul 22, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Arbitrators go off of precedent, what kind of precedent have the prior contracts set? Players have played until they’re 44, its rare but its possible and thats all that matters here.
Given that the CBA sets no limit on the length of a contract, that the structure of the salary complies with whats allowed in the CBA, and in clause 26.3i the CBA itself says anything permitted by this document is not circumvention then how does the contract circumvent the CBA?
First, its not even close to a .9% chance, .38% of non-goaltender retired players with at least 500 NHL games have played at the age of 44. (.28% technically, as chelios is not yet retired.)
If you go to 43 instead, as he technically misses the 44 cutoff (on Feb. 1 for my data), the chance is instead .67%. this is however a cutoff 10 months younger than kovalchuk would be instead of 2 months older.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Again, how many previous instances are required to show precedence?
I don’t see the age he’ll be when the contract ends as the sticking point anyway.
DON'T PANIC.
Not that this matters now, but that comment was accidentally sent...
Heres the rest of it:
First, its not even close to a .9% chance, .38% of non-goaltender retired players with at least 500 NHL games have played at the age of 44. (.28% technically, as chelios is not yet retired.)
If you go to 43 instead, as he technically misses the 44 cutoff (on Feb. 1 for my data), the chance is instead .67%. this is however a cutoff 10 months younger than kovalchuk would be instead of 2 months older.
There are 204 non-goaltender active players with at least 500 games under their belt (Kovy has a little over 600) We would expect .77 of them to eventually play at age 44. (if you prefer, 1.55 at age 43) 1 of them already has (Chris Chelios), so we’re already over the mean. Or, at age 43, two of them already have (Chris Chelios and Mark Recchi will, though he was born on the cutoff date)
(By the way, the median age such players retire at is approximatly 37, this is an estimate, determined by inspection of a random sample.)
Goaltenders are not included because, like quarterbacks or kickers in football, they retire significantly later than most other players.
Another interesting note: everyone that played at age 43 is in the hall of fame. I make no conclusions based on this statement.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.
This is not a contract-friendly rule. The Devils have to literally prove that they added the tail years to the contract for a reason other than lowering the cap hit.
The other problem is the NHLPA has a serious risk in going to arbitration. If the arbitrator concludes a certain guideline on the length of contracts, Bettman could very well be forced to void all the other contracts of the same ilk (If the arbitrator concludes some guideline on what constitutes too front-loaded, the NHL is required to immidiatly void all contracts that are past that guideline), all of the games that were won when those players played, and all awards won by teams employing those players. This would not please any of the parties involved.
I’m convinced the only reason the Hossa contract was not voided was the situation described above. It was not significantly different than the other similiar contracts, and having to void them all would be a PR disaster. Bettman should thank lou for not just slightly going above precendent, because he can finally draw a line somewhere, anywhere on these rediculous contracts.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
The Devils have to literally prove that they added the tail years to the contract for a reason other than lowering the cap hit.
Well, they’d have to prove that they didn’t add the tail years just to lower the cap hit, and that shouldn’t be too hard. As many opposed to this kind of deal have shown, players at that age have diminished production and are worth less salary.
DON'T PANIC.
The salary is still too low. the precedent is the salary at those ages should be approximatly 2-3 million except possibly in the last year. (Teemu Selanne is a good example, and Recchi made about that much before age 41. Niklas Lidstrom is a bad example here.)
Also, I’ve declared that the Hossa contract should have been nullified, so please don’t use that. I’m convinced the only reason he didn’t reject that is because it would have required him to void Luongo and Lecavalier at the same time.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
There are also many examples of players nearing that age who make far less money after bringing home much large paychecks earlier in their careers. Chelios played for $700k last year. Brendan Shanahan made $800k in 08-09. Roenick took league minimum home in 07-08.
Why would the Hossa deal be inadmissible because you feel it should have been nullified? It wasn’t, for whatever reason or reasons, and therefore it counts as precedent.
DON'T PANIC.
They all retired the year they took league minimum, assuming Chelios does.
Also because though the Hossa deal looks similiar to Kovalchuks, Kovalchuks is 33% worse. Link The best analogy is pretend there is a speed camera in a 35 zone. Alex Ovechkin drives by at 36(though if it were actually him, itd probably be at 136, but his contract is going 36) and Hossa zips by at 44, no tickets, but then Kovalchuk zips by at 47, ticket. Its a completely arbitrary boundary, but it is one.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
They all retired the year they took league minimum, assuming Chelios does.
Not true.
Shanahan played one more year at $1m, Roenick one more at $1.1m.
Also, the analogy is inaccurate because the speed limit is a hard and fast, not to mention ridiculously enforced, law. Going above it is illegal.
Yeah, I’ve seen that post. What’s ignored is that, yes Kovalchuk’s is pushing the limit to new heights, but all of those other contracts did at the time as well and were accepted.
DON'T PANIC.
technically all front loaded contracts are circumventing the cap.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
technically all contracts that aren’t flat salary throughout their lives are circumventing the cap. can’t use that argument. even ever increasing contracts, which are more the norm, circumvent the cap.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The reason they don’t give speeding tickets at 1 or 2 over is because you can use physics to cast significant doubt onto whether you were truly breaking the speed limit or not. (not even counting that such speed-measuring machines have a degree of inaccuracy.)
(Note: This was what we covered in my first AP physics class back in the stone ages when i was in school. Best class ever.)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
The analogy is bad
Cuz this is more like the autobahn
There isn’t a real speed limit (or year limit in our case), but there is what seems right.
Should you be going 100 mph on the Autobahn? Probly not. Is there a law saying you can’t? No.
Against all odds, against all circumstance were you don't have a shot, you succeed
-Michael Strahan
All you hear about is the past, the past... the past is the !@#$ing past, this is the present.
THIS IS TEMPORARY! A CHAMPIONSHIP IS PERMANENT
-Same as above
by Willgfass on Jul 22, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Facts please
Is that all in Article 26? Is there a Systems Arbitration? Was there even an investigation with findings as noted in the snippet you quoted? Is it not reasonable to pay older players less money over time? Why is this contract even ridiculous?
Most of all, where oh where in Article 26 does it state that the Devils have to provide proof about the tail? It’s certainly not mentioned anywhere in the part you quoted; so where’s the callout? Moreover, would this not be between the PA and the league?
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 22, 2010 10:30 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is assuming arbitration. The point here is that i’m saying that i’m fairly sure no parties want to go to arbitration as it could well be a doomsday event.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
This leaves the following result: No arbitration, no circumvention penalty, contract renegotated to be similiar to Hossa’s, everyone happy.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
That is a reasonable outcome for most involved. The NHL makes their point, the rejection nullifies this and makes Kovalchuk a UFA again, and New Jersey can re-sign him to a different deal without penalty.
The union looks weak, though, especially without an executive director now.
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 22, 2010 10:37 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Bettman
According to GB. Its the “spirit” of the CBA that’s at stake. Whatever that means
by Devilman3030 on Jul 22, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Jul 22, 2010 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor point, but
There have been alot of comments about how this contract takes him till he is 44. Kovalchuk’s birthday is per capgeek in mid April. So unless the Devils make the playoffs, he would be 43 the entire final season of his contract. Am I miscalculating?
The way I see it, based on Hossa’s contract, a worst case scenario is that they make the Devils add say $1 million per year to the last 6 years to $1.55 million. That increases the cap hit by $350k a year. I cannot imagine Vanderbeek would balk at an extra $6 million at the end of the deal given what he has put in. If $1 million was OK for Hossa at the end of a high point of $7.9, there woudl be no basis to reject $1.5 on a $11.5 million high point.
I also cannot see how the league could mandate a shorter term. On the salary, at least they have some kind of basis in terms of salary percentage at end of contract vs. the high years. They would have no basis at all to reject on age – there are contracts going to that age out there and there is are at least a few players who went to that age.
As a fan I don’t want this to drag out – (I want to order my Kovy Jersey Mr Bettman). But there is no logical reason this SHOULD drag out. The league knows why they rejected it. They should be able ot give the Devils a very specific answer on what they would accept. If that answer is materially different than Hossa’s contract, the Lawyers could pounce on them.
by Devilssection21fan on Jul 21, 2010 8:00 PM EDT reply actions
Speaking of Everson
I think Everson’s initital report of 7-years/$60M may have some legitimacy. Now I think the Devils will restructure the contract. Lou is not a fan of arbitration and neither are most people who work for the league or for teams/PAs. I believe you can shift some money from 2021-22 and make sure that the salary does not drop 50% from year to year. I’m not sure why Lou attempted this deal in the first place, although there is the possibility that Lou is still not the one desiring Kovalchuk, but Jeff Vanderbeek (you may as well call him George Steinbrenner) is pushing aggressively to acquire Kovy. Vanderbeek isn’t stupid though, he’s watched this New Jersey franchise for enough time to know that an explosive superstar could jump-start this team to new heights again, and he also knows that this superstar WILL put people into the seats.
However, there is a very good chance that the Devils/NHLPA will defeat the league in an arbitration hearing, and Lou knows that too.
What confuses me is the press conference. As per Tom Gulitti at Fire and Ice, it makes absolutely no sense to fly in media members AND Devils teammates if Lou supposedly knew this deal would not go down, but I will stand by my statement: Lou has a master plan for this franchise, and it certainly includes Ilya Kovalchuk. Kovy represents changing of the gaurd, as the center of attention has been Martin Brodeur, almost since he was called up. Now offense seems that it will shine in New Jersey, with Kovalchuk and Parise being the center of attention. The Devils aren’t drafting big physical defensemen consistently anymore, it’s the strong forwards, the Parise’s, Zajac’s, even Bergfors, plus Tedenby, Josefson and deeper into the draft we’ve picked up Palmieri, Zharkov, Henrique and others along the way.
I’m trying to put words together here, but I think Lou knows what is going to happen, and he knew all along.
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
The reports on Lou's prior knowledge
Seem to have started as vaguely as the NHL indicating there was a good chance of the deal being rejected, to now people have begun to say the NHL told Lou they were going to reject the deal (See: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=5398555 for an example). This may seem like nit-picking, but the initial way of saying it makes me think Lou was trying to call the NHL’s bluff (although I still don’t agree with it), whereas the second way is just mind-boggling as to why you would hold an almost faux-press conference if you had been told the deal would definitely be rejected.
NOTE: I tried to find a source for my initial assertion, but given the vast quantity of articles/blogs/etc. I’ve read in the past 24 hours, I had trouble, and ultimately gave up. So, take it for what it’s worth.
As per the CBA (looking for it) The Arbitrator can also adjust the deal so both parties are happy that is also an option
Thats a special case though (again from page 60 of the pdf):
(ii) If an SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, is rejected for
reasons other than those specified in (i) above, and:
(A) if the NHLPA does not timely dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then immediately upon the expiration of the
time period within which the NHLPA may dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection, the SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, will be deemed null and void ab
initio (i.e., the Player’s Free Agency and/or contractual status shall revert to the status he held prior to signing his SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be), and the Player
shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits provided for under the rejected SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be; or
(B) if the NHLPA does timely dispute and refer to the Arbitrator such rejection in the manner set forth in Section 11.5(g) above, then the Player shall be entitled to play under such SPC, but not under an Offer Sheet, and shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits provided for under
such SPC, but not under an Offer Sheet, pending a resolution of such grievance by the Arbitrator.
Couple that with subsection iv:
(iv) If the Arbitrator sustains the League’s rejection of any such SPC pursuant to subsection (ii) above, then the Arbitrator shall reform the SPC such that it conforms to the requirements of this Agreement, in a manner such that the term of the SPC shall not be
modified and the aggregate compensation to be paid to the Player pursuant to the SPC shall, to the extent possible, be preserved. In such event, immediately upon the issuance of the Arbitrator’s decision, the SPC shall for all purposes be deemed to be amended in accordance therewith and the Player shall be eligible to play. The Player and Club shall be free to agree on a different conforming SPC within three (3) days.
So the Arbitrator can restructure the deal but only if its invalid for reasons other than what the original rejection was for.
no, he cannot, when the rejection is due to an article 30 violation
you’re reading from subsection (ii) when you should be looking at subsection (i)
Wait till this year.
50.7
Page 237
“100 Percent Rule” for Multi-Year SPCs. The difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); and (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount).
There are examples as well, but it goes basically like this:
The first two years at $6M set up the rules on how much the salary can go up or down over the course of the deal. The 3rd year can’t be more than $12M (which is why they chose $11.5M). Any decrease later in the contract can’t be more than 50% of the $6M, meaning $3M (which is why it goes down by $3M or less each step, from 10.5 to 8.5 to 6.5 to 3.5 to 750k to 550k).
The deal doesn’t violate this part of the CBA.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 9:08 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Page Number
Page 237 of the PDF – it’s numbered page 219 inside the document itself.
That’s absolutely correct. Thank you.
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 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
With regard to whether or not Lou knew that they would reject it before they did…
Look, there has been so much wrong information throughout this whole mess that people shouldn’t just start believing something because two or three sites say it’s so. Chere just made a post about 25 minutes ago, and at the end it read this:
The Devils did not expect the NHL to reject the contract.
“Obviously,” Lamoriello said. “Let’s leave it at that.”
There are many things we should learn from the last three weeks; one of those things is looking with extreme skepticism on everything that’s reported. I’m not saying that Lou is telling the truth here, but he might be.
Length of Standard Player Contract
To answer another question raised in this post – is there a limit to contract length?
No:
50.2 (b)(i)© under the Bonuses section:
such Players are not limited in the length of an SPC they may sign,
Page 189 of the Document, Page 207 of the PDF
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think after this whole thing plays out, some of us should go and try taking the bar. We might pass.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah cool. I’m starting at Fordham law in a month. Orientation is August 23
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. From what I understand, everything about the first year sucks. I’ll grin and bear it like everyone else. I’m excited now, but we’ll see how long that lasts once I get started…
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 21, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Cool. I nominate you to be “In Lou We Trust’s” official barrister!!
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Thanks. Particularly if I can get paid and stop wearing ties daily.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s great you’re starting law school, good luck to all in school.
But this has nothing to do with Kovalchuk or the CBA regarding his deal.
So let’s end the digression 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
by John Fischer on Jul 21, 2010 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t be sorry, I just don’t want the post to stray too far from the intended point.
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 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I was going to put that up. The whole paragraph reads:
As to paragraphs ©(2)(ii) and ©(2)(iii), such Players are not
limited in the length of an SPC they may sign, but in the event any
such Player signs an SPC with a term of longer than one (1) year,
the SPC shall not be permitted to contain Performance Bonuses.
It is in the bonuses section and makes reference to two paragraphs above it…
Performance Bonuses shall be allowable under this
Agreement only for:
(i) Players with Entry Level SPCs under
Article 9 of this Agreement;
(ii) Players aged 35 or older as of June
30 prior to the League Year in which the SPC is to
be effective, who have signed a one-year SPC for
that League Year; and
(iii) Players who are “400-plus game
Players” for pension purposes, and who: (i) in the
last year of their most recent SPC, spent 100 days or
more on the injured reserve list; and (ii) have signed
a one-year SPC for the current or upcoming League
Year.
So there is no limit on how the number of years Kovalchuk (hes played 62 games) can sign for, it says it flat out in the CBA.
by drhgzang on Jul 21, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the thing in bold refers to performance bonuses allowed for players who were injured the year before
like gaborik last summer. it doesn’t have anything to do with this situation.
however, it’s a fact that the CBA does not specifically limit term of contract.
that doesn’t mean it doesn’t implicitly limit term of contract, and this is what the league will argue.
Wait till this year.
Also while the section is about bonuses it essentially says these players are eligible for bonuses. If a 400 + game player signs more than a one-year deal they’re ineligible for them. This is followed by:
As to paragraphs ©(2)(ii) and ©(2)(iii), such Players are not
limited in the length of an SPC they may sign, but in the event any
such Player signs an SPC with a term of longer than one (1) year,
the SPC shall not be permitted to contain Performance Bonuses.
So it is clearly stating there is no limit on the number of years a SPC can be.
Fantastic. Thank you.
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 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Kings fan here…
First of all, Lamoriello is in the Hall of Fame! He knows what he’s doing, and what he did was part of a plan.
Personally, I believe he’s trying to get Kovalchuk to take less money for less years… he knows there’s absolutely no way, especially considering the great comments he had at the presser yesterday, he goes anywhere. (And the only two teams make no sense; he said he didn’t really want to go to LA, and visiting LA made his choice “easier”. And he couldn’t possibly leave his own house if he went to the rival Rangers).
I don’t think Lou told Kovalchuk he thought it’d be rejected before the press conference. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said all those things he did about how NJ was always the place he wanted to play in because now, LA won’t want him, and NJ won’t let him go to the Rangers.
I think Lou kinda (maybe a bit conspiracy-theory sounding here) tricked Kovalchuk… Maybe not, but either way, this doesn’t look good. I’ve always thought the Devils were the greatest-run organization in the NHL, so much that I actually left the Kings and signed with the Devils in NHL 09 Be a Pro mode… I’ll be honest, I don’t necessarily feel that way anymore.
After this, I’m not sure if free agents are gonna want to go to New Jersey because of this controversy. People are gonna look at this, and I’m sure lots of people feel Lou played the situation to get the best player he could at the lowest possible cost. And he SAID he felt the league would reject it. Why would he go forth with the press conference anyway? Yes, he probably wanted to sell more season seats and increase jersey sales. That probably worked, but he KNEW there was NO WAY, after all this, Kovalchuk could possibly play for anybody else but the Devils (unless he bolts to the KHL, which remains a small possibility, IMO)
Maybe I’m reading this all from an outside point of view. I don’t know as much about your organization as you do, certainly… I’m a Kings fan, and this is just how I interpret it.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
I don’t know what your reading but I have yet to read anything that says Lou thought the contract would be rejected. Everything I read says that Lou believes he has followed all the CBA rules. The only statement he made was that he doesn’t think these kind of contracts should be in the NHL. But as it stands now these contracts are still legal. I’m sure if your team made this deal you would be feeling differently.
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
I think Lou kinda (maybe a bit conspiracy-theory sounding here) tricked Kovalchuk… Maybe not, but either way, this doesn’t look good.
Regardless of what team you support, I suggest you have some proof of this
After this, I’m not sure if free agents are gonna want to go to New Jersey because of this controversy. People are gonna look at this, and I’m sure lots of people feel Lou played the situation to get the best player he could at the lowest possible cost. And he SAID he felt the league would reject it.
The beginning makes no sense. Free agents will go where the money and situation are right. The end is patently false. Lou has consistently said that this deal was legal under the CBA. He didn’t say he felt the league would reject it. I’ve even quoted him twice saying this. Would you like a third? Here, per Rich Chere:
I asked Lamoriello if he was considering reworking the contract. “I don’t want to go any further because I’m going to get off track,” the GM said. “Like I said in my statement, we’ve done nothing wrong.” The NHL feels the contract is too long and that Kovalchuk will not be playing in the final few seasons for a $550,000 salary. He will be 44 in the final year of the deal. The Devils did not expect the NHL to reject the contract. “Obviously,” Lamoriello said. “Let’s leave it at that.”
You’re more than welcome to comment but I’m disappointed that you believe such falsehoods. Kevin, Y do you believe that?
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 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a weird situation, no doubt… Lou was right in saying that there was a precedent set in allowing the Hossa and Pronger contracts. I said to myself on Monday “I don’t like these type of deals… but I wouldn’t expect the NHL to reject it because of the precedents set last year”.
I’m wondering if Bettman’s decision to reject this contract has anything to do with the fact that the CBA expires soon. This was something that everybody said needed to be fixed, and he’s trying to make a point in saying that these circumventions won’t be tolerated, maybe to strengthen this stance in the next CBA.
Lou never struck me as the kind of GM that would offer this kind of deal. Don’t think anybody felt this was like him. To me, it’s certainly a surprise that this offer came from him. But that being said, the precedent was set, and I’d be disappointed in the NHL if they decided to further discipline the club by “circumventing the cap”.
I don’t know what goes on in Bettman’s mind… There’s obviously something in the CBA about how you can’t circumvent the cap, and there’s something he saw in this Kovalchuk deal that wasn’t in the others. Because of the precedent, I’m surprised… as an NHL fan, I’m glad this happened, because as Lou himself said:
"I might agree," he said. "But there is nothing that we have done wrong. This is within the rules. This is in the CBA. There are precedents that have been set. But I would agree we shouldn’t have these. But I’m also saying that because it’s legal and this is something that ownership felt comfortable doing for the right reasons."
He explains both sides here… It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me for a GM to sign a player to a contract, and say “this shouldn’t be allowed”.
As far as the “Lou said he felt it’d be rejected”, that’s possibly just one of those rumors that floats around from a “source”. I think ESPN first reported it, and granted they aren’t exactly the company that knows the most about hockey. I’d “heard” it from a few other people on Twitter, but no, I haven’t been able to find a direct quote. So I withdraw that argument.
Although I’m still nearly 100% sure he’s a Devil at the start of the season. Don’t see any way he could possibly go to another team after the comments he made at the press conference, as I said near the beginning of my post. There are only two ways (in my opinion) he’s not a Devil, the first of which I’m not sure is even an option. If the league comes out and strictly says that the Devils aren’t allowed to sign him, he won’t be a Devil. But I don’t think there’s anything in the CBA that would allow the league to have that kind of power.
The second way would be if Bettman hands down a hefty fine on the club. I read on the Kings’ SBN blog something about how a fine could be handed down on the team within the range of $1-$5 million (at the discretion of the commisioner), and that would also count as a penalty on the salary cap. If it’s on the higher end of that scale, the Devils might not be able to clear enough cap space (as this deal, if I’m not mistaken, put them over the $59.4 million cap ceiling, at about $61M) to sign him at the money he’s looking for.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
The second way would be if Bettman hands down a hefty fine on the club. I read on the Kings’ SBN blog something about how a fine could be handed down on the team within the range of $1-$5 million (at the discretion of the commisioner), and that would also count as a penalty on the salary cap. If it’s on the higher end of that scale, the Devils might not be able to clear enough cap space (as this deal, if I’m not mistaken, put them over the $59.4 million cap ceiling, at about $61M) to sign him at the money he’s looking for.
The only penalties I see for circumvention are from Article 26.13. That only kicks in if a “System Arbitrator” rules there’ was a circumvention. I don’t even know if the situation is at the point for ANY arbitrator.
I’m reading through Article 26 a bit and it’s not really stating what a circumvention actually is. As noted earlier in these comments by LangerMonk and drhgzang who cite the , it can’t be the length of the deal, how old the player is at the end, or the salary breakdown.
So what is it? This is one of the main thrusts of this post. Take a deep breath, look for the answers. If it turns out the CBA has nothing, then there’s nothing to worry about.
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 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m not even sure on what grounds the NHL would be fining the club. If an arbiter rules in favor of the NHLPA, then nothing… Would there be any fine if the Devils/Kovalchuk re-negotiate and agree to a new deal? What if the arbiter rules in favor of the NHL?
I just hope the people that really matter know what the rules state, what is called for in the CBA, and how to handle every aspect of this matter. Everybody should probably just calm down and let the situation play itself out. And what happens happens.
Mr. Fischer, I’m curious as to what you think will result from all this. Do you think Kovalchuk will be a Devil? Will it go to arbitration, will it have to be a new contract, any penalties, et cetera…
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
One would think that the Devils are fined for circumventing the cap in two cases: (1) contract is not appealed by NHLPA, not restructured before the deadline for the appeal, and not challenged by the Devils under some under legal means; or (2) if the contract goes to an arbitrator and he/she rules in favor of the NHL, thus agreeing that the contract circumvents the cap.
And I find it hard to believe, that between the Devils, the NHLPA, and Kovy and his agent, that they don’t know what direction to go in, and get things worked out timely.
Since we can’t find a specific provision that’s been violated, I think we’re dealing with this general, vague idea of cap circumvention. I’ve called it “It just looks fishy”. Others elsewhere in cyberland have pointed out – there’s no such thing as cheating a little bit and cheating a lot. If the Hossa’s, Luongo’s, Pronger’s, etc are okay, this deal should be as well.
(Assuming there isn’t an unknown provision that may violate the CBA – such as this lockout insurance that has been mentioned but I’ve not actually seen).
I believe Absolute worst case – the Devils and Kovy have to submit a brand new contract. There’s little reason at this point to suspect Kovy will suddenly jump to another team or league over this.
Finally, what concerns me most (and not to add fire to the general sky-is-falling feeling) is what this means for the new CBA negotiations. I think the league has made a terrible mistake in causing ill will now for little benefit.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think the dispute is whether the deal “circumvents the cap” or not, although the definition of that term is debatable. I think every SPC (that isn’t straight-forward salary-wise, like DiPietro’s, or even Ovechkin’s) has some circumvention.
I think there’s one key reason why Lamoriello added on those extra years: to cut down the cap hit. There’s a possibility (and this would likely be part of the NHLPA’s defense) that Kovalchuk would be playing in the NHL in 2025, and the structure of this contract was so that they could commit long-term to a player, but not have to commit a large salary to a player for a season 15 years from now (because we don’t know what revenues or “capology” will be like in the distant future, so this would help as a bit of a cushion). I’m not sure how strong that defense is though, because nobody had ever signed a deal at such a young age that takes them beyond the average age of retirement, so you can’t really argue that a player does or doesn’t intend on playing at a certain age.
The legalities (based on precedent) are probably what’s most disputable here, and where the cutoff is between circumventing the cap and blatantly circumventing the cap. I can’t say what that is, and everybody has their own ideas of how to fix the loophole. And you can bet this will be rectified in the next CBA.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
The NHLs press release from Bill Daly stated:
“The contract has been rejected by the League as a circumvention of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Under the CBA, the contract rejection triggers a number of possible next steps that may be elected by any or each of the NHLPA, the Player and/or the Club. In the interim, the player is not entitled to play under the contract, nor is he entitled to any of the rights and benefits that are provided for thereunder. The League will have no further comment on this matter pending further developments.”
The circumvention is the issue.
I don’t think the dispute is whether the deal "circumvents the cap" or not, although the definition of that term is debatable. I think every SPC (that isn’t straight-forward salary-wise, like DiPietro’s, or even Ovechkin’s) has some circumvention.
If every SPC is circumventing the cap, the nothing can be circumventing the cap? Everyone’s at fault, therefore you cannot just punish only one. There must be something else.
This is why I keep insisting: Look at the CBA, point out the articles, find out what is so different about this contract that it had no known investigation just a straight rejection. And to do so in a non-obsessed manner over the player involved.
I’m not sure how strong that defense is though, because nobody had ever signed a deal at such a young age that takes them beyond the average age of retirement, so you can’t really argue that a player does or doesn’t intend on playing at a certain age.
Not to be nitpicky but the average age for retirement in the NHL is 27.96 per QuantHockey for all players. Surely some young players have been signed to go past age 28.
But I do agree with the larger point – you can’t argue that a player intends to retire at a certain age.
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 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
26.13(b)
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on
direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or
any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct
prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant
to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator
under this Section 26.13.
In other words, the only way they’d both agree to a 5 year part of the contract at $550k/year is not reasonable except as a mechanism to defeat the salary cap. That’s I believe the case the NHL would try to make.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Was there even an investigation?
OK, now we’re getting somewhere even though I’m rolling my eyes at the part about circumstantial evidence being a deciding factor. Still, I’m not seeing how the low end of the contract is not reasonable given other deals that go by the same logic. Are they just unhappy with how low it goes, though? (This is rhetorical, I don’t expect an answer)
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 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Investigation isn’t a necessary step, just a permissible one. (26.10 says they may start one).
Obviously I agree it is ‘reasonable’ for a number of reasons, including and especially the fact that other similar contracts had been accepted by the league.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably not…
But if the league minimum goes up, his salary that year would have to go up and change the cap hit (presuming he plays at 44).
That might be another complication, because it doesn’t make sense, if the cap hit is the AAV, for it to be $6M next year, yet in 2025 have to be different because of a forced increase in salary.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
are you sure that's how it works?
I was under the impression that league-minimum salaries apply only for new contracts, not existing ones..
Somebody respected in hockey circles, I believe (stress “believe”) posted on Twitter that it would be bumped up. But I couldn’t find it. With so many tweets the past couple days, you could imagine how difficult that’d be.to find, right?
Could be wrong, however.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
Actually, now that I think about it, because it will be a new CBA in 2025, this contract might’ve been grandfathered, so like you said, I don’t think it would’ve been changed.
But who knows?
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
In fact if the minimum goes up, it is illegal for a player to be paid a lower number. This has happened with Lecavalier (his contract calls for 500,000) and nobody knows what will happen when he gets to those years. It is theorized those years will have a higher cap hit, or something like that, but nobody really knows for sure.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Citation please
I’m curious, what part of the CBA says that?
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 22, 2010 12:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Its not in the CBA, that’s why no one knows what will happen.
the section is 11.12a.
The assumption is that the progression will continue (when Lecavalier signed his contract the 2011-2012 line didn’t exist because the CBA wasn’t extended, hence the incorrect salary), which would change all the contracts and hence the cap hit. The problem is Kovy’s years are so far away the difference will probably be over a million dollars, which makes it much more significant than the <100,000 problem the other contracts are facing.
I actually think it explicity states the minimum will increase at a constant rate in one of the 20 or so addendum letters signed with the CBA.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
That’s why I think it comes down to “where do we draw the line” on these long-term, salary drop-off deals.
I don’t think the CBA actually spells out what counts as “circumvention”. As far as I’m aware, it’s all up to the discretion of the Commissioner. But they surely look at it case-by-case, although this brings an interesting point: if the Hossa, Pronger, Luongo contracts were signed today (the day after this Kovalchuk deal was rejected), would the NHL be able to defend those as “not circumventing the cap”? I’d imagine it would be hard for the league to say Kovalchuk’s deal circumvents the cap, but not those. You could say “it’s not nearly as blatant”, but you can’t half-cheat. Either you’re cheating or you’re not. It’s either a goal or it’s not. So I don’t think it’s fair to give some a pass and not others just because it’s worse.
That could be a defense for the NHLPA to allow the contract. But again, it’s case-by-case, and where you draw the line… and that’s the huge problem with the CBA, because it doesn’t say where the line is drawn, so it’s all up for interpretation.
Also, surely this can’t have been the first deal the league has ever rejected, is it? It’s at least the highest-profiled rejection.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
Martin Erat had a contract rejected for violating 50.7. It was fixed, and registered.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, because the league did not allege circumvention
they essentially pointed out an adding mistake. the league is alleging intent here. Which is an order of magnitude different than “oh you can’t do that because this has to be half of that in column a, see, so just switch that….”
Wait till this year.
But htis contract conforms to the structure reguired by 50.7. Point of contention is that there is no language in 50.7 to indicate that Player must make at least some percentage of his first 2, or highest 2 or whatever in the last year or years of the SPC. It would have been an easy situation to avoid.
Again, from 50.7
100 Percent Rule" for Multi-Year SPCs. The difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount); and (iii)Player Salary and Bonuses during the final two League Years of the SPC may not be less than 50% of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC
Bolded text mine, added to remove the issue at hand.
Article 26 lays out the potential penalties for circumvention.
the arbiter will rule next week, assuming they can agree on one. :)
Then, if the league’s rejection is upheld on Article 50 grounds, Bettman will have many potential penalties and remedies at his disposal.
It says what a circumvention is. It is anything the league and/or the NHLPA decides (and/or an arbiter rules) is a violation of the intent and purpose of the CBA. It’s necessarily broad.
Wait till this year.
Doesn’t that require an investigation? Because rejection of SPCs are handled in Article 11.6.(i), no?
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 22, 2010 12:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Oops
The Article is actually 11.6.(a) with clauses (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) being applicable.
None call out other clauses.
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 22, 2010 12:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
John, there's no investigation in 11.6a(i)
investigations are covered under 26
the league has decided there is a circumvention. now arbitration (unless the NHLPA doesn’t dispute).
Wait till this year.
Exactly.
There’s no investigation, is there? And if there was, we wouldn’t be waiting on the PA, would we?
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 22, 2010 7:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
And he SAID he felt the league would reject it.
Link? As I recall, he said he DIDN’T expect the league to reject it. Unfortunately there have been way too many articles since the initial signing, I can’t find the article that said that.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
It's been an interesting 48 hours...
And all along I’ve been doing what John has suggested above…I’ve taken a deep breath (and thrown out a few quips here and there perhaps).
I think this move is bull, I think there’s precedent to accept the contract, and I think I’ll wait and see how the rest of this little sage plays out.
Modification of the CBA
I cannot find a single provision that governs the modification of terms of the CBA.
It’s not my specialty, but since we’re talking about a Collective Bargaining Agreement, absent a specific provision that would allow the league to change anything in this agreement, the NHLPA would need to agree.
Might be a silly question
But has anyone seen a reaction from Kovy about any of this?
by devilstuckinkansas on Jul 21, 2010 10:15 PM EDT reply actions
good or bad?
since we gone through every page basically, does this look good or bad for us
kovy still a devil?, will he make less or more money
PS3: J-CAMPS
Kovy will be a Devil
Just a matter of time. I guess they have 4 days more of this. I would think it would carry out til the 3rd or 4th day.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 21, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
so this could be a good thing then?
contract was to high, lou “knew” about it, then resign him for less, right?
PS3: J-CAMPS
Could be a good thing
However, I wouldn’t say Lou knew this exact situation would happen, but he’ll find a way
ZachJac
good thing
because (almost) every GM will now think twice before attempting a similar deal.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I honestly can’t stand this nonsense because so many people seem to be misreading things and spreading rumors. I respect all these ILWT readers who have done their research and have been helping others make more sense of the situation. I am choosing to just wait this out and not look too much into it. Hopefully this gets done swiftly and we can move on with our off-season.
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
Thats why i have been fairly silent as this website says in Lou we trust, and i certainly still do. At the end of this mess Kovy will still be here and Lou will win thats all I got to say.
by KingHellfire on Jul 22, 2010 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I honestly can’t stand this nonsense because so many people seem to be misreading things and spreading rumors.
Hence, my iron hand (which can easily be a fist) for such a thing.
I am choosing to just wait this out and not look too much into it.
This is probably the smartest approach. You gain nothing but knowledge by getting into this issue; you and I will have zero effect on what will happen, though. So enjoy yourself in the meantime. Remember to take deep breaths.
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
I frankly believe that Lou Lamoriello, the mentor of Dean Lombardi, is a genius to be worshipped and studied.
Respectfully, though, I believe the league has a good argument to make. It will go to arbitration, and the arbiter will decide.
(in case you think I am hoping Kovalchuk gets to sign with the Kings, I am not; I was ambivalent about him coming before, and this whole process, as fascinating as it is, is exhausting me more than anything else.)
Someone else said it here, but I am impressed with the civility here. Check out lakingsinsider comments section for a rare demonstration of apoplectic hysteria on all manner of topics. Truly a sight to behold.
Wait till this year.
haha
so true. for the sake of all your sanity do not read the comments from that site. your face will explode. it will destroy your computer. your wife will leave you. they really need a disclaimer for the comments section that its hazardous to your health.
screw it
I bought a Kovy jersey today. It’s my birthday and I have faith he’s a devil.
If this goes to arbitration..
Does it really matter if Lou thought this was going to be rejected? From what I’ve been reading from the links in the comments, even the worse possible outcome isn’t so bad. I’m not upset with Lou that he and Kovy agreed to the contract with this risk. Here’s my reasoning:
In Section 11.6 (b) (ii) of the CBA; page 64 of the pdf (emphasis mine):
(x) If the Arbitrator sustains the League’s challenge, then
the Arbitrator shall reform the SPC so as to conform it to the
requirements of Article 50, in a manner such that the term of the
SPC shall not be modified and the aggregate compensation to be
paid to the Player pursuant to the SPC shall, to the extent possible,
be preserved. In such event, immediately upon the issuance of
such decision, the SPC shall be deemed to be amended in
accordance with the Arbitrator’s decision and the Player shall be
eligible to play. The Player and Club shall be free to agree on a
different conforming SPC within three (3) days.
So this means that the arbitrator must find certain sentences and phrases in the contract between Kovy and the Devils that are in violation of the CBA. If the arbitrator does, then those are the only areas he/she can alter on the contract to literally make the SPC legal. The Devils and Kovy’s team have three days to agree on the legal, altered contract. What’s good is the term of the deal can not be altered (this coincides with the CBA rule of no limit of contract length/player age, etc.). The total salary may be altered, but not drastically. If Lou believes this is within the rules, then any changes to the contract and/or salary will be minor.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Jul 21, 2010 11:36 PM EDT reply actions
The challenge though, as I understand it, would be under 11.6 (b) (i) for violating the Upper Limit (the cap). What you quoted is for other circumventions under article 50 – things like the problem with Erat’s contract a couple years ago, where the yearly dollar amounts violated 50.7
So then you go to 11.6 (b) (iii) and (v) [(iv) refers back to (ii) again], namely void it or accept it.
Also, the more I read this, the Article 26 Circumvention stuff is sort of a parallel set of circumstances above and beyond the Article 11 Standard Player Contract violation. Meaning, I think, that the arbitrator can void the contract under 11 without finding the Devils violated 26, avoiding any of those punishments.
by Langer Monk on Jul 21, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
The Big One
26.15 Examples of Circumvention. The following is a non-exhaust ive list of activit ies
that either constitute a Circumvent ion under this Article 26 or from which a
Circumvent ion may be inferred:
(a) A Club has a Club Salary that would exceed the Upper Limit, other than
through the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Except ion or the “Performance Bonus
Cushion,” such as by virtue of an undisclosed agreement or undisclosed payment to
Players on its roster.
(b) A Club has an agreement to pay money or anyt hing else of value to a
Player not expressly permitted by this Agreement, or makes such a payment to a Player.
© A Player enters into a sponsorship or endorsement arrangement with a
local sponsor or entit y with which his Club does business, in which the Player receives
something of value that is disproportionate to (i.e., clearly in excess of) the fair market
value of the services rendered by the Player on behalf of the sponsor or endorser.
(d) A Club having access to the Averaged Amount Joint Exhibit and
Averaged Club Salary Joint Exhibit and charged wit h the knowledge that it does not have
sufficient Payroll Room to sign an SPC, as required by Art icle 50, proceeds to sign such
SPC. Although it shall not be a Circumvent ion attributable or imputed to a Player if such
Player signs an SPC that puts his Club out of compliance wit h the Payroll Range, the
Certified Agent represent ing the Player in such circumstance, having access to the
Averaged Amount Joint Exhibit and Averaged Club Salary Joint Exhibit, shall be
charged wit h possession of the knowledge that the signing of that SPC will put the Club
out of compliance with the Payroll Range.
(e) A Club and a Player, during the Player’s act ive career, agree that upon the
Player’s retirement, he will receive a sum of money for services to be provided to the
Club after retirement.
(f) A Club or Club Actor pays a Player or Player Actor for a “no-show” job,
or for a job in which the payment to the Player or Player Actor clearly exceeds the fair
market value of the services rendered.
(g) A Club fails to report sales from one of the ticket windows in its box
office.
(h) A Club has an undisclosed agreement to obtain payment for tickets
reported as complimentary tickets.
(i) A Club has an agreement below fair market value with a Club Affiliated
Entit y to broadcast or otherwise present footage of the Club’s NHL Games.
(j) A Club fails to disclose a barter arrangement that should have been
included in its HRR Reporting Package.
(k) A Club fails to report revenue generated from mascot appearances.
No where in this article is their an example of circumvention which the Kovy deal violated, I expect this to be reversed in arbitration court.
Marc R.
So circumvention is not only poorly defined in the CBA, it’s definition can be changed on a whim?
I’d love to hear an arbiter’s opinion about that?
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 22, 2010 12:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If anything, it might be 50/50 which side the arbiter agrees with. You can make arguments for both sides. It just depends on which side the arbiter’s on. (In fact, if I were the arbiter—and there’s probably a good reason why i’m not— I’m not even sure which side I’d be on.)
And don’t the league and player’s union have to agree on this arbiter? How are they supposed to do that, if the league wants one that they feel would reject the deal, and the union wants one that would approve it?
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
Good point. Theoretically, it could take forever if one or both sides refuse to compromise on an arbiter.
DON'T PANIC.
They should just go on Judge Judy or something… I’d be curious how that would play out.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
That’s the best idea I’ve heard since this circumvention mess began.
I imagine that she’d insult both parties, kick them out of her courtroom, and claim the contract for herself for everyone wasting her time… ;)
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 22, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe I suggested People’s Court (Marilyn Melian) in another thread. You could certainly turn it into a ratings blockbuster if you did a special two-hour show in primetime (and NBC would jump all over it — have you seen their summer programming?) and expose your product to a completely different audience.
Given I’m on the side of having the contract upheld, however, I would not use either of the named television judges as my arbiter. My mother watches their shows whenever she can (I work from home, so I do listen in from time to time), and both of them strike me as the type who would dismiss the contract as a violation of the CBA because it fails the proverbial “smell test”. The problem with a TV judge is that they aren’t always obliged to go by the letter or even the spirit of the law — they can depart rather radically if they feel it is warranted, so long as they aren’t permitting the breaking of laws.
I think I found the perceived problem with Kovy's contract
Everyone and their mother knows that Rolston cannot be traded due to his NTC.
The more astute also know that Rolston’s contract cannot be hidden in Albany, because he falls into the 35+ rule where even players moved to the AHL will count against the salary cap.
Capgeek says Ilya was offered a NMC for 2010-2011 thru 2016-2017 seasons, and a NTC for 2018-2019 thru 2026-2027.
Ilya’s birthday is April 15, 1983. This means he turns 35 April 15, 2018.
Or, to put not to fine a point upon it, this means he will be 34 for the entire 2017-2018 season, at which point he would have neither a NMC nor a NTC and his salary could be hidden in the AHL and come off of the NJD salary cap for that year.
Am I interpreting the 35+ rule properly?
by Diesel Statistician on Jul 22, 2010 12:13 AM EDT reply actions
If I’m not mistaken, the 35+ only applies to those players who are 35 years old on July 1 of the year that they sign that contract.
The fact that he turns 35 before July 1, 2018 doesn’t mean anything unless he signs after that date.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
You are correct, its about the age when the contract is signed.
by devilstuckinkansas on Jul 22, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
no
the 35+ classification is only for contracts SIGNED when the player is 35 or older. Theoretically any player who signed his contract before age 35 without a NMC can be stashed in the minors and his cap hit goes with him.
HOWEVER the team still has to pay the player the salary agreed upon in the contract, whether it’s league-minimum or $9 million. That’s why you don’t see it happen too often; teams are loathe to pay a guy millions of dollars to play in the AHL.
Actually gents it is when the deal kicks in, now in a UFA and most RFA cases this is going to be when the contract is signed. However in an extension not always, so if a 33 year old with 3 years left on his current deal signs a 5 year extension that is a +35 contract for the last 5 years even though he was 33 when he signed. It is rare, but it happens.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 22, 2010 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I believe this....
…. is the correct interpretation.
If I recall correctly, the Flyers tried arguing the other side of the case where Pronger was concerned — that the 35+ provision should only apply if the player in question was 35 or older when he signed the contract/extension, as opposed to being 35 when the contract/extension kicks in.
Is that what happened with the Pronger contract?
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 22, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
nevermind — didn’t fully read acasser’s post just above.
by HockeyWeasel on Jul 22, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know Disel but you just gave me a headache, hopefully someone else can answer your question and get me some motrin
ZachJac
HEYO
Just found this interesting tidbit, from Article 50 [50.5(e)]
(ii) Creation of Payroll Room. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit a Club from creating Payroll Room by Assignment, Waiver, buyout, or as otherwise permitted under this Agreement.
So theoretically structuring a contract to give it a lower cap number is “Creating Payroll Room” and valid under the CBA?
How about we just watch Strange Brew tonight?
John, I apologize for my lack of contribution, but here, in a hopefully “deep breath” way is a link that will make people laugh and chill out . . . a little.
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.
in Lou We Trust, remember?
I think Lou’s motive for holding the press conference is obvious: he knows he’s right and the league is wrong. With neither a contract’s length nor player’s age being limited by the CBA (correct me if I’m wrong), the “spirit” or even “intent” of the CBA is debatable, as is how Kovy’s contract circumvents it.
Is it too long of a contract? That crazy 15-year DiPietro contract ain’t all that crazy anymore, is it? And that was four years — and 13 or so 10-or-more-year contracts — ago.
As for the age of the player by the end of the contract, I don’t find it all that far-fetched that Kovy could be playing at 44. Does anyone expect Marty to stop playing at 40? Assuming he doesn’t stop, would it be forbidden to give him a four-year contract?
When the league called and essentially said to Lou, “you crossed the line,” I can imagine Lou replying, “What line?”
I didn’t find the conference either disingenuous or distasteful even if Lou did know about the possible rejection. I think Lou did it for the team and the fans, to bring THE player (or keep, depending on your viewpoint) to New Jersey and give us a real shot at the Cup this year. And he did it for Kovy, to make him the spotlight player of the summer, if not the season.
In the end, I think Kovy will be a Devil for a long, long time. And I think every other team’s fans have a new reason to hate the Devils. Bring it on. But wait until I clear my schedule for next June so I can watch us bring the Cup back to NJ.
It's that word "debatable" that's at the center of this thing
Once it goes to a arbitrator anything can happen. If he feels it violates the intent of the contract even though it abides by the letter of the various terms he can let the rejection stand.
Also while it was killed for cap violations we haven’t seen the actuall language of the contract and therefore we are all speaking without all the information.
I actually say it’s about a 75% chance it goes through but truthfully anything can happen.
No one knows why, but second only to eating the brains of the living, the dead love affordable pre-fab furniture.
The People’s Court
Seriously…. wouldn’t you have a made-for-primetime blockbuster ratings spectacular if you used this particular forum to hash it out? Think about it. You get your rapid resolution — expand People’s Court to a two-hour special (say 8 PM – 10 PM EDT) for the sake of arguing the case, and have a verdict delivered at the end of the show. You can expose your product (in a fashion) to an audience that otherwise doesn’t give a hoot about the NHL. And then we can all get on with our lives.
Naa they moved on I guess
He already committed to NJ and smacked LA in the face in the press conference.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 22, 2010 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I would be very surprised if they had serious interest in persuing him, regardless of this ‘source’. Kovalchuk has already expressed his interest in remaining a Devil for life. This would look seriously bad on not only his end but also the Devils end if he didn’t end up a Devil when all is said and done.
"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
The Kings might not, but I could see a renewed push from the KHL and Kovy giving it a long listen if this fiasco in the NHL continues. He’d get his money, he’d be guaranteed to play in Sochi in 2014 (and likely be the centerpiece of the team even over Ovechkin and Malkin), and he wouldn’t have to deal with this particular salary cap headache. Especially if he thinks Lou and Vanderbeek went ahead with the press conference knowing full well that the contract would be rejected as a way to secure negotiating leverage.
Yeah, I don’t think the Kings are going to pursue Kovalchuk… Nobody believed anything the Kings have “leaked” to the media the last three weeks (“we’re out… we’re back in… we’re out, back in”), and the Kings didn’t believe anything else being said in the media (Dean Lombardi himself basically said he didn’t believe the Devils’ offer was real).
This is probably just a play by Lombardi to put more pressure on the Devils. If Lamoriello felt he was the only possible destination for Kovalchuk, then Kovy would have very little leverage in the negotiations (if we assume that he really wants to play in NJ, and I think he does). This would work in favor of Lou Lamoriello, and could be why he went ahead with the press conference if those reports are true.
So Lombardi’s probably letting it slip out there that he “remains interested” in Kovalchuk in the hopes that it would drive up the deal to Kovalchuk, jack up the cap hit, and make a player like Rolston more available in trade for a cheaper price (although $5M for two seasons on a 35+ LW, when you already have Ryan Smyth for two years and $6.25M per, wouldn’t really be a smart move). Or it could be that Lombardi really wants Parise, but he can’t really want ANOTHER strong pending RFA for next season, on top of Doughty, Johnson, and Simmonds.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
Just a theory
Is there any proof of possible "issues" between Lou and Bettman? It may be just a conspiracy theory but one I could believe. Consider this conversation…..
Lou: Gary, I really think these contracts (pronger and hossa) are getting out of hand.
Gary: I understand Lou but there is nothing illegal about them.
You can fill in the rest of the conversation as needed.
Sometime after this conversation we all notice the above mentioned players not only benefit from that contract but their teams benefit as well. I can assume that both playing in the Stanley Cup finals this year would prove this.
Given the above circumstances I believe this may be the work of Lou just sticking it to the league. Of course there is risk assumed by the Devils with this deal, but this was part of the plan. That may help explain the press conference and Lou’s conflicting comments. Yes mr. Bettman… take that.
Just a hunch
As a non-Devils fan, I’ve gone back and forth over this over the last couple days. When I first saw the contract, with 5 years of salary at the league minimum I kind of chuckled and thought “leave it to Lou to manage the hell out of his cap hit to make this work.” My thoughts were basically the same as what Lou said the day of the press conference, that these contracts are bad for the game, but they’re legal, and its not like he’s the only one doing it.
As the actual details of the contract came out, followed hours later by the news that the NHL rejected it, I looked at the contract, and taken on its own (as in, disregarding the Luongo and Hossa deals) it looked to me like “circumventing the cap.” Still, I felt the ruling was a load of BS, because the contract can’t be taken on its own, it has to be taken in the context of other contracts that have been approved despite treading similarly close to the line.
So I compared and contrasted mostly the Hossa and Luongo contracts with Kovy’s. Ultimately, I have arrived at the conclusion that the NHL is probably right, and the Devils’ management was just a little too bold. I speculated pretty early that Lou was pissed about either these types of contracts undermining the CBA he worked so hard on, or he was pissed at the outrageous demands Grossman was making, so he got together with Bettman to make a point. I still strongly suspect something like that is at play here.
What makes Kovy’s contract unique, is the 5 years of league minimum salary tacked on the end. Obviously the Hossa and Luongo contracts have cheap years tacked on their contract that reduce their cap hit, but in those cases, the teams weren’t brazen enough to tack on years at the league minimum. The Flyers did this with Pronger, but the Flyers only managed to move the cap hit from year to year (since its a 35+ contract), they realize no benefit if Pronger retires early. If you think about it, Kovalchuk doesn’t have much reason to sign a contract which includes years on the back end at the league minimum. If he’s a serviceable NHL player in those years, he would be able to play for many teams for the same salary, which would allow him to move to another team if, for any reason, he decided he wanted a change of scenery. By signing for those years, he does guarantee that he’ll be able to play somewhere, but the incentive to do so is minuscule for a guy who will have made $130M playing hockey up to that point.
Then there is the fact that in 12 years, the league minimum salary is likely to be more than the $550,000 in his contract. In the last 10 years, the league minimum has gone from $150,000 to $525,000. Assuming 2% inflation for the next 12 years, and assuming the NHL increases the base salary by only the amount of inflation, the base salary would be just shy of $700,000 in 2022. In the Hossa and Luongo contracts, the late years tacked on to the contract leave much more room for the league minimum to grow. Add to that, the guys who have played in their late 30s and 40s the last few seasons haven’t been playing for the league minimum. Shanahan was making $1M in his final year in the NHL at 40. Chelios made $750,000 in ’08-09, and $850,000 in the three years prior to that.
I suspect if the contract had been structured just a little bit differently, it would have passed muster with the NHL. As its currently written, Kovalchuk gets $750k in year 12, and $550k in years 13 through 17. I suspect if the Devils had signed the deal for $2.5M in years 12 and 13, $2M for years 14 and 15, and $1.5M for years 16 and 17, the NHL wouldn’t have liked it, but would have approved the contract. The Devils would have been able to point to Shanahan and Chelios’ contracts late in their career and shown the salaries provide good incentive for the player to continue to play, and that the Devils would be paying him a reasonable wage to do so. The Devils would also be able to make the perfectly reasonable argument that the salary reflects the expected decline in Kovalchuk’s ability over the course of the contract. The result would increase the cap hit by $500,000 per year, but I suspect it would have gotten the contract past the NHL, as it achieves two important objectives: 1) it allows for reasonable growth in the league minimum salary, and 2) it provides the player with a reasonably compelling incentive to play out the contract. Plus, lets face it, a $6.5M cap hit for Kovalchuk is still a heck of a deal.
I’m sure there are many counterpoints to be made, but those are my thoughts on what it would take to make this contract palatable to the NHL.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
Assuming 2% inflation for the next 12 years, and assuming the NHL increases the base salary by only the amount of inflation, the base salary would be just shy of $700,000 in 2022.
What would it be in 2015-16 and 2016-17 when both Pronger and Savard’s approved deals have them scheduled to earn $525k?
I don’t think the minimum salary aspect is a concern. They’d probably just grandfather clause pre-existing contracts, or they might just make teams pay the league minimum and (somehow? I’m no capologist – and if my experience with contracts is any indication, it’d be counter-intuitive) adjust the cap hit accordingly. After all, every year we year about the possibility of the cap going down… so who could predict truthfully where the cap would be in 17 years?
DON'T PANIC.
a problem about these below minumum deals has been acknologed, but no one knows what will happen. The problem is the difference in the other deals will be negligable, which kovalchuk’s offset will be in the millions.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
How do you know it will be in the millions? What if the next CBA lowers the minimum salary, or take the NBA’s take on minimum salaries and make them in the $150K+ range instead.
None of us can predict it, regardless of what past inflation has been. What if the NHL decides that the high-end contracts are eating up all the Cap space, they dont like the setup, and allow the owners to alleviate this by lowering the minimum to $100,000K. None of us know.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Around $580,000.
I doubt they’ll grandfather in salary levels below the league minimum. The league minimum salary (I’m calling this “LMS” going forward) for the remainder of Pronger’s contract will almost certainly be negotiated in the next CBA. I suspect what you’ll see is the amount of the difference between the LMS and the salary specified in the SPC will be added to the players’ cap hit for the contract years remaining after the new CBA goes into effect. So if the new LMS is $600k, and Pronger’s contract calls for $525,000, they’ll make the Flyers spread the $150,000 shortfall over the remaining years of his contract.
When the 2005 CBA was negotiated, they let the clubs buy out all of their bad contracts for 2/3rds of the remaining contract value, with no hit against the cap. If the Flyers are given the same option when the CBA is renegotiated in 2012, they will almost certainly take advantage of it, which is why I am strongly opposed to allowing that to take place. Because, well… F the Flyers.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Also keep in mind that under 26.10, if the NHL announces it is “investigating” a contract, the team can modify it and then the results of the investigation are not released. I find it interesting that Hossa’s contract numbers changed from those that were reported initially in the tail of the contract.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Interesting indeed, why allow for “investigation” into a contract for Hossa’s (or any other contract) but flatly rejecting the Kovalchuk deal?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Lou forced their hand with the press conference. This would explain the warned part. they probably said “Don’t announce this, we’re investigating.” And then lou said “Nah” so they just rejected it instead.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Which is actually a huge, huge, huge benefit for the Devils.
I’ll explain tomorrow but compare Article 11.6 to Articles 26.10-26.13. The differences in procedures are massive and so far, based on what’s been reported, the procedure being followed ain’t in Article 26.
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 22, 2010 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
From your point of view, yes, thats a convenient explanation of
the warned part.
However, how long does it take the NHL to tell a team “There is an active investigation, do not proceed with any press conference.”
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I could be wrong, since I don’t know how the whole deal with signing and submitting contracts, but I’d think the league would’ve told them when it was submitted to NHL Central Registry.
When they received it, and see a 17-year deal, it’s obvious it’s not gonna be approved as quickly as a 2-year/$6 million deal, right?
As far as the press conference… it doesn’t make much sense to me for any team to hold a press conference announcing a signing unless the signing was “official” and “approved” by the league, and was told directly from the league that it’s a valid contract, unless they were trying to either sell season seats and jerseys, or one of the conspiracy theories being thrown out there.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
it doesn’t make much sense to me for any team to hold a press conference announcing a signing
Unless, like the team said, they had no reason to believe it wouldn’t be approved. Consider this possible discussion:
NHL: Lou, we’re going to investigate Kovalchuk’s contract.
Lou: Fine, go ahead, it’s legal.
NHL: Well, we suggest you cancel the press conference.
Lou: Then it’s a good thing you’re not me. We believe the contract is legal and will be held up and Ilya will be a Devil for the remainder of his career, your investigation is a trivial issue.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
As long as it took “fans” and media and critics to ‘figure out’ this was a bad contract, the NHL Central Registry could have explained to the Devils within an hour that they should halt all proceedings.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
They knew the NHL had five days in which to review and approve it. The NHL didn’t even have to warn them before the press conference. The Devils wanted to go forward with it anyway.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Ok, that takes care of the Devils side, that they know for any contract, there is a 5 day window. Now if you are the NHL, why would you not inform a team in your League not to go ahead with any press conference or even an announcement when they must have been aware they would possibly consider the contract to be rejected?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
It occurs to me that the League may be more invested in having this decision upheld than we might think.
If the deal was accepted as it was, with another off-season between now and the next CBA, it’s highly likely that one or more of the next crop of free agents gets a similar, if not more boundary pushing deal.
Now that the deal has been rejected, to have the decision overturned not only puts the league back in the same position as far as having to accept these front-loaded contracts going forward, but also shows that they aren’t able to stop them even when they want to and that may embolden someone to push even harder, knowing there is a small window of opportunity and nothing the league can do to stop them.
DON'T PANIC.
This is why i concluded of “Any arbitration = doomsday for all parties and probably a lockout” and concluded that there would be no arbitration.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
It’s in everyone’s best interest for the following to happen:
1. The Devils swallow their balls, put away the guns and respectfully acknowledge that they pushed an already existing boundry to the breaking point and apologize to the League Office. This establishes, that while “legal” according to the language of the CBA, and supported by precedent, they may have taken it a little too far, while allowing the league to remain firm on their stance that contracts like these are not good for any part of the league. I don’t think anyone wants, or thinks it would be okay, if the coming crop of RFAs renegotiated deals like this, and UFAs next summer were able to do this before the loophole is closed.
2. Mr. Kovalchuk respectfully asks the NHLPA to not file a greivance on his behalf. Doing so will prevent #3. Should this go to arbitration and the Devils win, the floodgates are open and it’s a free-for-all, the League wins, then they should use all the tools at their disposal as indicated in the CBA and recognize the precedent deals as invalid and apply appropriate countermeasures to those deals as well. See 26.10 of the CBA. No limitation to when the investigations of circumvention can occur. Do they really want to apply the rules across the board and have a Cup with an asterisk, or completely strip Chicaog of the championship? I doubt it, but if they didn’t react, we, the fans, would have to question why it is that rules apply to one team and not to another.
3. The Devils and Mr. Kovalchuk work out a new deal. 105/15, with the last 3 years at 1M per achieves the same payday for Mr Kovalchuk, reduces the term by 2 years, and only increases the cap by $1M.
by Murdoc on Jul 22, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
How about asking the League Office to sit down the with NHLPA and the Board of Governors? Get all the interested parties into one room, come to a conclusion about what is legal and what is not, and publish it far and wide so everyone knows the ground rules and there isn’t this grey area to exploit.
As part of these discussions, decide where you put the Kovalchuk contract in relation to these rules…. and hammer out a solution that avoids grievances and mobs of angry fans bearing pitchforks to the NHL offices in midtown Manhattan.
Unfortuantely, that sounds too much like renegotiating the CBA, and I don’t think that’s possible at this point.
I think we’ve got to swallow our nuts on this one, admit we pushed it too far, and avoid the arbitration process for the good of the league. I know Lou likes to win, but there’s gotta be a lot of thinking about this one. Winning this thing in arbitration is not good for anyone who cares about hockey.
The reason to find a way to re-negotiate this part of the CBA is to remove all the ambiguity, and so everyone knows what the rules are and they can be applied equally to everyone. It is possible…. it isn’t easy, but all the parties ought to recognize that it is in the best interests of the sport to do just this, put aside some of their petty grievances and provinciality, and get it done.
I could see Lou laying down this fight “for the good of the sport” — it wouldn’t be entirely out-of-character for him. That doesn’t end this battle over these contracts, however…. I think it could make it worse. Just because the Devils back down doesn’t mean an idiot GM like Glen Sather or a cap-strapped GM like Dean Lombardi (considering all the RFAs he has coming up) or a desperate GM on the verge of being fired won’t try the same thing. Maybe it’ll be a Hossa contract, maybe it’ll be a Kovalchuk contract (under the aegis that it is legal and the NHL has overstepped itself), and maybe they’ll pick a spot in-between and re-start all the “grey area” arguments. And maybe it’ll be a bunch of them at once, which makes the NHL’s job a lot more complex.
Winning in arbitration may hurt the sport…. but this relative anarchy is what got us here in the first place. Work up some rules that everyone can abide by, and take it from there. I don’t care if the process to create said rules is difficult, but it is clearly something that needs doing, and before we go through another two summers of these kinds of contracts.
agreed. the simple inclusion I added earlier to the salary structure portion of the “100 Percent rule” would most likely suffice to stitch up the wound. (the bolded text below)
100 Percent Rule" for Multi-Year SPCs. The difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of that same amount); and (iii)Player Salary and Bonuses during the final two League Years of the SPC may not be less than 50% of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC
To play Devil’s advocate, your inclusion still leaves a huge loophole. The way to exploit your inclusion would be to pay the player an artificially low salary in their first two league years, then to raise their salary up to where you want it over a few years, only to drop it back down at the end of the contract.
Its not as easy to exploit, but you could still take advantage, just not quite as much.
You could do something like this: 4-4-8-12-12-12-10-8-6-4-2-2-2-2-2
Which would be $90M over 15 years, cap hit of $6M per year.
I think… my math may be off though, I just ran the number quickly in my head.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
That kind of twisty logic was the first thing I thought about when I saw the proposal. The easiest solution to that issue is to address contract length, whether through an arbitrary maximum length or by stating how long you could run that minimum number for.
Even with your 15-yr/$90m model, it isn’t quite as useful for cap circumvention as one would imagine. At least in the early parts of the deal (or the first year, anyhow), you have a situation where the cap number is higher than salary paid…. which makes it more difficult to use that sort of deal to get yourself out of a cap crunch. Take your example — a team is paying $8 million in the first two years, but suffering from $12 million in cap space lost. That difference adds up, especially if you use this trick multiple times…. and works contrary to the concept of signing this contract so you can cram more players (and $$) in for the same cap number.
I don’t know how many players would go for a bell-curve contract that is middle-loaded, but first having to suffer being “underpaid” for a few years in the process. For that matter, I don’t know that agents and the NHLPA would be all that keen on it. But that’s just me.
A finite limit on contract length combined with Murdoc’s fix would solve most of the problems. And a limit on contract length would not be totally unprecedented in major North American sports — the NBA has one now.
I actually would never have thought of reducing the salary in the first couple years… that’s actually Lou’s work. Its how he made the Kovalchuk contract work. Apparently at least one agent, and an NHL player were ok with taking less up front, and more in the middle, since, well… Kovalchuk signed it.
Keep in mind, the Devils will be taking $6M cap hit for a 44 year old player who gets paid $525k a year… eventually…
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
And taking a salary Cap hit of $6M while Kovalchuk gets paid $11.5M as well. So what consequence does it have?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Because acasser mentioned that a team would have a hard time taking a $6M cap hit for a player that’s making $4M. Which is the same thing that happens on the back end of the Kovalchuk contract. The only difference is the timing, which may actually work better for a team that is below the cap now, but will be near the cap when they resign their RFAs.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
If you’re below the salary floor, it can benefit you to inflate the cap hit relative to the monies you are paying out — it gets you closer to the floor without costing you anytyhing.
Once you get above the salary floor, that benefit vanishes. In fact, it is very easy for a team to get themselves into trouble in this fashion — you’ve got “dead” cap space, which may come back to haunt you during the season if you’re close to the upper limit. After all, a lack of salary cap space turns into a lack of flexibility when it comes to making roster moves.
Right now, the team that would benefit from the hypothetical bell-curve contract is the Islanders — they’re beneath the floor (and need to add salary/cap), and that sort of deal would let them save money and make it to their required levels.
The bell curve style contract benefits any team that has ample cap space, but looks to be facing a cap crunch in the future. You’re shifting cap hits away from the years where you’re likely to be in the most cap trouble.
As for dead cap space… Kovalchuk’s contract has 6 years where he eats $5M+ in cap space above his actual salary.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 23, 2010 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Easier solution – No single year of a contract can be less than X% of the maximum annual salary. I think X can be anywhere between 25 and 50 and still be reasonable from a player perspective.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
The Cap hit increasing by $1M is a TON of money, that would be terrible for the Devils IMO. We are all stuck on Kovy still getting $100M total, but if he were amenable to bring it down to, say, $98M total, the deal could be shortened by two years and increase the Cap Hit by only $500K instead of $1M.
If the problem is the amount of his salary those final years, make the last 5 years $750,000 each season, and lower one of the ‘Max’ years by $1M.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I think you’re spot on. Aside from Kovalchuk and Volchenkov, this year’s free agent class was pretty ho-hum. Next season, there will be several attractive targets hitting the market if they’re not resigned by their current clubs. I think we can fairly assume there will be some new guidelines when the CBA is renegotiated, so it may be the last chance to sign some players to long term, cap friendly contracts.
It has the potential to be a total disaster.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 22, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Also keep in mind that if they wanted to “Beat the system” they can also extend any player with 1 year left on their deal as well. Like, for example, Crosby.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
not really. an extension is still a standard player contract or SPC as it’s called in the CBA, and is therefore still bound by the same ambiguous rules.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I think your wrong. I think the league showing that they will challenge a contract like this will make GMs stray away from it in the future. I’m sure no GM would want to go through this process that the Devils are going through now.
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
Which is why it cannot go to arbitration. If the Devils win, there’s no reason (aside from a bit of assumed risk balanced agianst a friendly cap hit) not to negoatite these kinds of deals dfor the coming FAs. If the league wins, they should be obligated to investigate the other shady contracts. Not that I’m holding my breath on that one, but I know that at the very least, I would demand to why those other contracts, particualrly the one that belongs to the reigning Cup Champs, is not a violation.
I think this logic makes the most sense. We talk about the how the precedent was set in the past by allowing contracts similar to this to pass. Now you would have to assume the precedent has been set going forward (Until the next CBA meetings), that they will reject contracts similar to this.
Regardless of what the outcome is for this particular instance, moving forward common logic would assume that they would “have” to reject these type of contracts, no? So why would a GM and team want to deal with the headache associated with it?
Depends on what happens. If the rejection is overturned, it’s just further fuel to the fire of precedence that they league has to accept them whether they like it or not.
DON'T PANIC.
Now you would have to assume the precedent has been set going forward (Until the next CBA meetings), that they will reject contracts similar to this
You only get closer to defining the imaginary line with a precedent for voiding a contract. It turns into a numerical solution converging on a point that doesn’t really exist. Okay fine, we accept Hossa, but deny Kovalchuk. Is the line exactly in the middle with 3 or 4 years of “tail” at age 43? Or is it 2 years of tail and 42? League min for last few years or $1M?
Structure yourself a Hossa contract, and you will have to be approved, otherwise the league admits Hossa’s deal is bad as well, and that has HUGE implications.
That why the League better hope it doesn’t go to arbitration. Pronger and Hossa extreme drops at the end were put into place to lower the cap hit. The same reason we added the 5 moneyless years at the end of the deal.
I just wonder if Lou really is going to give up this fight. I know the NHLPA doesn’t want to look weak….but if Lou thinks he is right I sure he will back down to the league demands when the Blackhawks and Flyers broke the same rule.
Well, right now, it isn’t Lou’s fight. It’s NHLPA’s fight. They get to decide if they want to file a greivance. Mr Lou and My Kovalchuk can attempt per persuade the PA to go in either direction should they choose to.
The league got itself into a tough spot, and they have to be banking on the case where a greivance isn’t filed, Kovy simpy becomes a UFA again, and a new contract is created, probably as close to the Hossa deal as possible, and it would have to be accepted.
All the Devil’s have done is essentially determined that the League’s line for this type of shenanigan is the Hossa contract.
While it’s apparent the leagues line or tolerance on this type of contract has been crossed, I’m not sure I see the benefit to take a stance on what is arguably an “imaginary” line. Especially if a grievance is filed, goes to an arbitrator and is overturned. Wouldn’t the league be banking on the chance the arbitrators view of the CBA and circumvention is the same as theirs?
I suppose as you mentioned above, the leagues best case scenario would be no grievance to be filed and the contract gets restructured by the team and player.
On the surface, yes, you’d think that league would like a “win” out of it. But voiding a contract this contract for circumvention and allowing others with, obviously, the same cap circumvention methodology puts them in a position to explain, at a very minimum, during the next CBA negotiation exactly why the rules and the “spirit fo the CBA” apply to some teams and not to others.
all of this attention is good marketing for the devils.im almost certain kovy will get and sighn a new deal he clearly wants to stay in my opinion.
by Imperator_Celtic on Jul 22, 2010 1:40 PM EDT reply actions
take a breth
I agre with you I red about the CBA thanks for your
insight. It will all work out Lets Look foward to this
seesion
There is an obvious hole in the CBA. Other GMs were going through the hole. Lou took a train through. I sorta want to know why he did that to begin with.
The problem with the deal is the last 5 years on the contract were put in to lower the overall CAP.
I think the Devils will win the arbitration case because other contracts have done the same exact thing. But I don’t think the NHL lets it go that far. Since there is no Arbitrator in place and that can take a lot of time for both parties to agree on [unless Lou files an injunction which is very possible] the league figures it is a good chance for them to put and end to these contracts. They speak to the Devils and tell them to shorting the deal and add some money to the end of the contract so that Kovy gets the same total amount [keeping Kovy/his agent/NHLPA happy] or else they are going to delay the heck out of this arbitration. That could be a time problem for Lou since he needs to do some more moves to clear cap space.
Atleast this offseason hasn’t been as boring as last years.
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
by C.J. Richey on Jul 22, 2010 6:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I thougth salary cap circumvention was put in to address monies not being paid under the cap, but off the books.
Examples would include the teams providing benefits like free housing, cars, business interests, etc., which could be listed at amounts far lower than fair value to make the deal worth more than it was listed for on the books.
See, that is an understandable statement.
But apparently “circumvention” now means using the defined system of rules in a way other teams/fans do not like. Shame, really.
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 22, 2010 9:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
ILWT vs. JFtC Debate
John,
Is it too much to ask for you try and have a formal debate with Quisp from JFtC about this? Since you’re both heads of the respective team blogs that the Summer of Kovalchuk affected the most, i think it would make for a good read and back and forth.
While sure his endless ranting and raving are rather tiresome and this just stinks of bitterness I think what’s more unbearable is he’s suddenly become a lawyer and expert regarding the CBA.
And truthfully I’d just like watch the two of you get into a spirited, while civil debate.
by Zelepukin on Jul 22, 2010 7:29 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
+1
At the very least, it will be two talented blog writers who know what they’re talking about. In other words, it would be an excellent read and a great promotion of ILWT.
"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
+1
I’d also like to see this sort of debate, as long as we remain civil about it. This sort of cross-over is always fun to read…. does everyone remember the joys of the “What would you trade for Ilya Kovalchuk?” threads across various SBNation sites back in January?
Nah.
You’ll see what I mean tomorrow.
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 23, 2010 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't mean to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but...
Quisp never claims to be an expert of the CBA, but for whatever reason, he’s seems to have found an immense interest in learning the inner workings of the CBA, and posts his thoughts as he discovers things. This is the first time something of this magnitude has ever happened, and the ramifications, or lack of ramifications, is interesting no matter which direction it goes. I haven’t done as much searching as other bloggers, but as far as elucidating the CBA, I think he’s done a tremendous job. Additionally, there really only a few readers at JFTC that really feel a strong need to bring Kovalchuk to the Kings; it seems that most of us are of the mindset that Kovalchuk is only worth having on the team if he comes at a price that enables us to re-sign all of our prospects in the following years. It’s searching like that that helps other readers gain a firmer grasp of the contracts that bind all the players together, and we’ll all learn more once the eventual ruling is finalized.
Much like the interpretation of this contract’s legality, there are different interpretations of his near-obsessive interest and condescending tone.
Maybe I’m just a homer, but I originally went to JftC because of his analysis but was quickly turned off by both of those things and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
As has been said before, it’s his site and he can run it however he chooses, but if I were a Kings fan looking for discussions and analysis of prospect camp or the other free agents available to fill out perceived roster deficiencies, etc., I’d be disappointed.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I too, went to JFTC to learn of the Kings fans take on the matter, and too many of the articles and comments are made with so little objectivity, that they become unreadable.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Then i’d suggest just reading the articles, because quisp is much less biased than the fans.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Who among us is the arbiter of objectivity?
He has his own style and his own tone. He can do whatever he wants. It’s a blog. And you definitely don’t have to read it.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Yep, everybody's entitled to their opinion
So anyways, just wanted to chirp in and at least offer perspective from my side. Honestly, the articles seem pretty objective to me. The fans may not always be, but on which site are they?
I do think the obsessiveness of his writing is part of what makes it fun though. Personally, for me, this whole Kovalchuk saga has tired us all, but there is something so exciting about all of it that its hard to look away. And take his tone for what it is, he’s just saying things in his opinion, and if you write in the comments, he or someone will usually address it if it advances the discussion.
should have been a reply to Zele’s post
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Something I haven't really heard talked about is...
what is the possibility that the Devils could being shown in a different light to Kovy? I say this based on the events that have already occurred; ie: Proceeding with the press conference when the Devils knew the contract would most likely be rejected as noted Here and the chance that the contract may need to be re-worked pending a grievance being filed and a arbiter siding with the league.
Lou has already stated that he believes the contract follows all guidelines set by the CBA. So if he were to have to restructure the contract, I can’t imagine he would be very pleased. Depending on how the Devils handle that situation, could the team come away being seen in a negative way by Kovy?
i have a feeling
for some reason we wont have kovy, i dont know why :( and my kovy jersey just came in today also…
i dont get why lou doesnt re-negotiate with Kovy/grossman, i dont see why kovy wants 10mill and/or 100mill, if he really wanted to stay, wouldnt he ask for less so then we could sign/resign other players
i hope we dont lose kovy,…Lou better get him back!!
PS3: J-CAMPS
Might I suggest taking a deep breath?
Something I suggested in this very post multiple times?
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 23, 2010 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Lou did nothing wrong
Why change the deal?
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 23, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What about the Devils risk here
I have been reading these posts for the better of two days now(sorry have to do some work at my job too). I just see the levels of frustration toward the deal being based on the Devils being right or wrong. Have we considered that although chicago and philidelphia have proved these contracts can help, but what about the risk the Devils take with such a long contract. What if Kovy gets his millions and decides he wants to play like Yashin did (or didn’t)? What about all the other things that could go wrong and leave the Devils stuck with a bad contract decision. So even if this opens the flood gates for future contracts that doesn’t mean teams will jump on it. I can’t guarantee the islanders won’t try to spend mega bucks like they did on Dipietro, but are teams really that willing to take that big of a chance. Just saying we should also recognize the fact that this could burn the Devils even if they win this battle.
Next Step?
So are we all waiting on the NHLPA response? Is there a CBA mandated time frame for that?
Five business days from the time of the rejection, so they have until Monday to appeal it if they decide to.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
If they decide to appeal, they have to make it known by Monday. Then it goes to an arbiter who has 48 hours from the notification to make his/her decision.
The rub is that there appears to be no arbiter in place so there is some question about how they proceed should things go that way.
But, yes, the arbiter’s decision would be between those two results.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Timetable, and the loss of Quisp’s sanity
Interestingly, another loophole has shown up, thanks to Sydor25:
If you think about it, this is diabolical for the league. The NHLPA will let the league know that they are filing a grievance and the NHL will say that they need to notify the arbitrator within 24 hours. The NHLPA will ask the league who the arbitrator is and the NHL will say that they will tell them in 48 hours.
Of course, this will never happen because the NHLPA would file CBA circumvention charges against the league and then there’d be ANOTHER arbiter (who they haven’t decided on yet either) and then the universe would probably implode.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
The article i linked gives a timetable of the whole Kovalchuk process, so i suggest reading it (though maybe not the comments)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
Only part of it’s actually applicable unless he’s got some special information.
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 23, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I do believe arbitration is coming
None of the parties involved (NHL, NHLPA, Devils, Kovalchuk, Grossman) will speak about the situation beyond the initial statements they have released. I’d interpret that as a pretty strong signal that they know arbitration is coming, and they’re all avoiding making a comment that might hurt them in court, or give the other side an advantage.
Marc R.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Thursday’s Three Stars: Max Pac hat trick; Chris Phillips’ memorable 1,000th game
- It’s over: Montreal’s Scott Gomez finally ends goalless streak (Video)
- Scott Hartnell’s goal celebration now includes fighting Dion Phaneuf (Video)
- Puck Previews: Leafs meet Flyers; Steve Yzerman not playing in Winter Classic Alumni Game?
- Three theories on why Hurricanes might pull Tuomo Ruutu off trading block
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
