Ilya Kovalchuk, A Contract Rejection, A Filed Grievance, and Two Outcomes: A Poll
by John Fischer on Jul 26, 2010 8:06 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
Email
Print
Today, the National Hockey League Player's Association, the union, did file a grievance to the NHL's rejection of the $102 million/17 year contract between Ilya Kovalchuk and the New Jersey Devils.
I've written at length for the past few days explaining why I don't think the contract violated Article 50, which defines the Upper Limit (a.k.a. the salary cap ceiling) and the Maximum Player Salary. The two areas the NHL claims that was circumvented I've also explained that the events done so far - the rejection of the contract (per Article 11.6.(a)(i)), the wait for the NHLPA to file a grievance, and the NHLPA actually filing a grievance - all fits under the provisions of Article 11.6(a). There will be an arbitration hearing to determine whether the NHL's rejection was valid. Therefore, the provisions being followed are under Article 11.6(a) and will continue flowing down that path.
I've also written a second post later that day on why Article 26.13 does not apply to this situation at this juncture. Unless the NHL has conducted an investigation into whether the Kovalchuk contract was circumvention in some form (Article 26.10); the NHL met with all parties involved in a joint discussion for possible circumvention to reconcile the issue (Article 26.12); and attempts at reconciliation failed, the NHL (or the PA) filed for the Systems Arbitrator, and said arbitrator agrees with the NHL's claims within 7 days (Article 26.13(a)), then and only then do the penalties described in 26.13(c) apply. That's a lot to happen completely under the radar, so unless there's some news of some of this or all of this happening, there's no reason at all to worry about Article 26.13. On top of that, Article 26 isn't even called out in Article 11. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
You don't even need to believe me. Here is a PDF of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Read through Article 11 and 26, compare what has happened to what is described in each, and decide for yourself what provisions are being followed. I think you'll agree that it's Article 11.6 and not any part of Article 26.13.
To that end, let's have an entirely informal poll. At some point in the future, the NHLPA and the NHL will go in front of an arbitrator and argue whether the rejection is valid or not. How do you think they'll decide? I've cited the two possible scenarios under Article 11.6(a) after the jump in case you're interested in the actual text of the CBA. While I can't control how you vote, please vote on what you think will happen - not what you want to happen.
Please feel free to elaborate on what you will think will happen in the comments. If I am mistaken in my citation of the CBA, please point out where exactly I got it wrong and I'll correct this post accordingly. As far as what to do in the meantime, may I suggest relaxing while you wait? There's no need to get worked up over something that hasn't happened yet, in my opinion. All the same, thanks for reading.
Outcome #1: Article 11.6(a)(iii) - The Rejection is Sustained
The arbitrator can rule in favor of the NHL and uphold the rejection of the Kovalchuk contract. Here's what the CBA has on that:
(iii) If the Arbitrator sustains the League's rejection of any such SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (i) above, then the Arbitrator shall order that the rejected SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, will, immediately upon the League's receipt of the Arbitrator's decision, 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, other than the right to be paid such Paragraph 1 Salary and Bonuses (other than Signing, Roster or Reporting Bonuses, if any) earned during the period, if any, such Player played for the Club pursuant to such SPC.
In short: Kovalchuk goes back to being an unrestricted free agent, the contract with New Jersey is void, and the Devils can move on.
Outcome #2: Article 11.6(a)(v) - The Rejection is Overruled
The arbitrator can rule in favor of the NHLPA and find the rejection by the NHL to be invalid. Here's what the CBA has on that:
(v) If the Arbitrator rules that the League's rejection of an SPC or Offer Sheet, as the case may be, pursuant to either subsection (i) or (ii) above was not proper, then the sole remedy the Arbitrator shall be authorized to provide shall be to direct the League promptly to approve and register such SPC and to direct the Club to pay to the Player such Paragraph 1 NHL Salary or Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary, as the case may be, and Bonuses, including such Signing, Roster or Reporting Bonuses, if any, that the Player would have earned had the SPC been registered and approved as of the deadline set forth in Section 11.4(d) above through the date that such SPC is in fact registered and approved (i.e., the period of time missed solely as a result of the League's improper rejection). Further, if the Player missed a games-played bonus by one (1) game, then the Arbitrator shall have the discretion to award the Player such bonus. The Arbitrator shall not be authorized to award any other bonuses, payments, damages or other equitable or legal relief to the Player.
In short: The contract at $102 million over 17 years with the original breakdown is accepted as-is by the NHL. Kovalchuk would officially be on the Devils payroll.
80 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Note
I did update this story just now to add an appropriate picture.
Why not answer the poll why you’re waiting?
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
John, really appreciate all the work you’ve done on this. If the NHLPA wants to present arguments to the arbiter, all they should do is print and present your articles. Keep up the good work, and yes, I voted. If this goes any way other than the way you’ve been indicating, it would be a travesty and I’d find it hard to believe the NHL wasn’t gunning for the Devils in general.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
If the rejection is upheld, it just means the arbiter believes more in the spirit of the CBA than the actual rules or the NHL had a fantastic case with evidence, and the PA didn’t.
Either way, Kovalchuk just goes back to being an UFA and the Devils can still re-sign him. No big deal, 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 26, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
There is no "evidence" that the NHL has.
The only “evidence” is PRECEDENCE which is in abundance with the type of contracts that were passed….
It seems like if the arbitrator is fair (and there’s no reason to think that he or she will not be fair) then it’s a pretty straight-forward ruling in favor of the NHLPA. Part of me thinks that the NHL knows that they’re going to lose, but they wanted to send a message that they’re going to fight against these kinds of deals during CBA negotiations.
Have you ever watched People’s Court? Judge Judy? Judge Joe Brown? Judge Pirro? All of those are arbitrators, not judges (Joe Brown never was a judge), and while it probably doesn’t translate very well, I imagine that there’d be at least some similarities between what happens on those shows and what happens once the NHLPA and the League settle on an arbitrator. “Fair” doesn’t necessarily enter into the final decision, as an arbitrator has wide latitude and can judge on things other than the letter of the contract. Going back to the shows I’ve listed above, oftentimes the “judge” basically tells one side that they’ve completely proven their case, and the law even backs them up, but “fairness” requires the verdict doesn’t necessarily follow the letter of the law…. the spirit, or sometimes even whatever the judge feels like doing on a particular day (“to teach a lesson” or other such garbage).
One hopes the NHLPA will pick an arbitrator (or a law school dean who then selects the arbitrator) very carefully as to minimize this risk.
As for the “NHL firing a warning shot”, that I can believe. It seems the sort of juvenile thing Gary Bettman would do…. not just as posturing for the next CBA, but because he thinks he can bully the PA given its current “headless” state. The NHLPA has been a mess since the last lockout, and this would be the time to capitalize before they figure out how to get their act together.
I wouldn’t call it juvenile. The NHL is actually taking a risk by rejecting it. Because this is going to officially make a precedent.
I agree along the lines of kellyn. The rejection is so the NHL can say…“At least we tried.” to anyone who might complain about the contract. From now to the next CBA negotiation.
I can’t help but wonder what the voting percentage would be here from fans of other teams.
Devils fan for 23 of the 29 years I've been alive. Devils fan until the day I die.
I couldn’t tell you. I thought about making separate choices to split alignment. Though, people could just make that up anyway, so I just went with the two.
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 26, 2010 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
As a fan of hockey and loyal to another team, I personally haven’t voted yet.
I honestly cant decide which way I think the result will end up.
It really feels like a 50/50 chance
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 26, 2010 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
TSN
Check out the TSN main page, they have a poll up for just such an occasion. I for one, am not surprised after reading so many of the comments on the 4 stories they have about Kovalchuk.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I voted that the contract will be rejected. Not to troll, but it seems that now the NHL has taken a firm stance on this, they are going to do everything they can in order to see it get blocked. I’m not sure whether I think that is right or wrong.
Also, in that photo, does Elias look a bit like NPH to anyone else?
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
The thing is, technically, this contract does not void anything. The rejection is based on a “feeling” that Kovy will not play through the whole thing, and that the Devils and Kovy don’t expect him to. If it were a fair arbitrator, he/she would most likely see that you cannot rule against a contract based on “feeling” when nothing else violates the CBA.
And John, you missed the part that if the Arbitrator rules in favor of the NHL, Bettman can fine the Devils up to 5 Million, which would also count against their cap space (eg a 2 Million fine will cost the Devils 2 mill in cap space (lowering it to 57.8) ), or any combination of future picks at his discretion. IMO, if the NHL wins, he will most certainly fine the Devils something to discourage future contracts.
And John, you missed the part that if the Arbitrator rules in favor of the NHL, Bettman can fine the Devils up to 5 Million, which would also count against their cap space (eg a 2 Million fine will cost the Devils 2 mill in cap space (lowering it to 57.8) ), or any combination of future picks at his discretion. IMO, if the NHL wins, he will most certainly fine the Devils something to discourage future contracts.
No, no, a thousand times no. I didn’t miss the part because that part doesn’t apply here.
I’ve said it in this post on Friday, I’ve said it in this very post you’re commenting in, quoted here for your convenience here:
Unless the NHL has conducted an investigation into whether the Kovalchuk contract was circumvention in some form (Article 26.10); the NHL met with all parties involved in a joint discussion for possible circumvention to reconcile the issue (Article 26.12); and attempts at reconciliation failed, the NHL (or the PA) filed for the Systems Arbitrator, and said arbitrator agrees with the NHL’s claims within 7 days (Article 26.13(a)), then and only then do the penalties described in 26.13© apply. That’s a lot to happen completely under the radar, so unless there’s some news of some of this or all of this happening, there’s no reason at all to worry about Article 26.13. On top of that, Article 26 isn’t even called out in Article 11. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
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 26, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
TG seems to say otherwise.
According to the Article 26.13© of the CBA, if the system arbitrator finds that a circumvention has been committed by the club, the commissioner has the power to impose of fine of up to $5 million in cases of circumvention of the salary cap. The CBA also reads that "if such a fine is assessed against a club, that club’s payroll room shall also be reduced by such amount for the following league year."
What that says to me is, since the NHL has already gone on record saying that the contract “circumvents the salary cap” and the arbitrator agrees, Bettman can in fact impose fines.
This is just what TG says. If it’s wrong, my mistake; no need to light a fire because of it.
A fire does need to be lit because its precisely this kind of misinformation that only serves to obfuscate and frighten people unnecessarily.
The CBA is available for all to read online. Let’s use that instead of relying on someone else’s source.
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 27, 2010 7:52 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
TG, for all the great stuff he puts on his blog, really missed the mark there...BADLY!
We are under Article 11 right now. For there to be any fines levied, we would need to be under Article 26 FOLLOWING A 3-DAY SIT-DOWN for “Conciliation” or whatever that means. If no conciliatory solution is reached, then yet another arbitration hearing takes place and if the NHLPA loses THAT one, THEN Fines will be levied.
huh
ive been readind these topics that people have been posting and listening to other people from other sites
is this all about the “He might not play until 44” or the “hes not making enough money at the 40age mark”
PS3: J-CAMPS
wow
tsn poll stupid canadian trolls..
Who do you side with in the kovalchuk grievance?
The nhl – 48.1% !!
Nhlpa/ kovalchuk 21.4% wth?
Both sides are at fault 30.4 %… i
in general. trolls
First of all it is a strong chance most of them are Leafs fans or fans of another team rather than NJ. If I was another team I wouldn’t want this deal to go through (which I voted yes it will). We all know what type of player he is and that’s what makes this deal so complicated.
Joshd12
Brock University
BA. Sports Management, 2014
BA. Recreation and Leisure Studies, 2011
by joshd12 on Jul 27, 2010 9:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What? They aren’t trolling. They are responding to their own poll in their own way. It’s not much different from how this one is going.
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 27, 2010 10:55 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If Kovalchuk was canadien....
And he played for the Habs who do you think they would side with? You should read the comments on Kovalchuk. You think they would know something about hockey. But I don’t pay attention to it.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 27, 2010 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
If Kovalchuk was Canadian it would have never been rejected period. You can take that to the bank.
This is all about avoiding bad press.
I wouldn’t say that. If he was playing on a major market team in Canada or say the Pens or Caps it would have been approved.
Mathew Barnaby to Lyle Odelein: "Cornelius, as we like to call him, gets under your skin. Planet of the Apes. Look at him. Seriously. He looks like Cornelious."
Odelein to Barnaby: "He should take a look at his wife. She's God-awful to look at."
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 27, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Really?
Look at Vincent Lecavalier’s contract. It’s the same style, still approved, and he’s on Tampa Bay. Hardly a major market.
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 27, 2010 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Im not saying it illegal, but I am calling shenanigans if you going to try and sell it as a similar contract
Lets look at pay day for the last 6 years in each contract.
Licavalier will get 10M, 10M, 8.5M 4.0M, 1.5M, and 1.0M
Kovy will get 0.75M, 0.55M, 0.55M 0.55M 0.55M
And you say the contract is in the same style?
Well they are contracts for hockey player……
and they are both set up for players to play in the NHL ….so yeah you do have a point there.
One tapers off, the other is more barren than the sahara desert
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 28, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Both contracts have precipitous drops in salary in the final years, tails if you will. That’s the style and you can quibble about the details, but both have them.
Plus, there are no rules in the CBA that explicitly says either is prohibited to do 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 28, 2010 7:27 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
There is also a compelling argument to be made that a player’s salary should decline as he moves past his prime years.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 28, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
35 million vs 2.9 Million
That is what you call a detail someone might quibble about?
The difference is so great if you sell the notion that Vincent Lecavalier’s and Kovy’s contracts are the same, I will call out Shenanigans.
Kurt Cobain, Chris Benoit, and Adolf Hitler all died in the same style. However f I tried to pass them off in a statement as living the same life, you would call me on it too.
Its not the fact that they do have some similarities in their contracts, its that the fact that they have some differences that are greater which separates the two.
No need to add your Plus,
I already mentioned in the top of my header that Kovys contract is technically legal in the current CBA system
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 28, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Using your logic of cap circumvention, Lecavalier’s contract is an 8-year/$78.5 million contract ($9.81m cap hit) passed off as an 11-year/$85 million contract ($7.73m cap hit). Kovalchuk’s 17-year/$102 million contract ($6m cap hit) is either a 11-year/$98.5 million contract ($8.95m cap hit) or a 10-year/$95 million cap hit ($9.5m cap hit), depending on how many years on the back end you wish to slice off.
Note that I am not slicing off a particular number of years, but merely the “low tail” of each deal. In Vinny’s case, I chopped between ‘16-’17 ($8.5m) and ‘17-’18 ($4m), while the latter Kovalchuk chop is between ‘19-’20 ($6.5m) and ‘20-’21 ($3.5m)
The Kovalchuk contract certainly takes the idea to a greater extreme…. but when you combine the precedent of past contracts (Vinny and all the others that were approved) and the lack of language in the CBA forbidding doing so…. I don’t see a violation for the NHL to win their case on. It is a case of degree, which I think would gain more validity if it were a crime according to the CBA. The arbitrator introduces a considerable factor of uncertainty into the process, and that worries me…. but I don’t know that this makes sufficient grounds to throw out Kovalchuk’s contract.
I agree with you.
There is president from past contracts, and the lack of language in the CBA forbidding the creation of these kinds of contracts.
It is only because Kovalchuk contract certainly takes the idea to a greater extreme which makes it unique and stand out on its own.
It was built upon a pre existing idea and took it to another stratosphere.
I dont know and do not tent to imply if that makes sufficient grounds to throw out Kovalchuk’ contract out either.
Im simply saying that, as for now no one has a deal like this one. Quite possibly we might se other contracts similar to it, but right now, it has created a new standard and thus all the attention.
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 28, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
WHAT THE HECK???
Kurt Cobain, Chris Benoit, and Adolf Hitler all died in the same style. However f I tried to pass them off in a statement as living the same life, you would call me on it too.
What does this have to do with this discussion?
Similar endings have absolutely nothing to do with the body of work.
Both contracts have precipitous drops in salary in the final years, tails if you will. That’s the style and you can quibble about the details, but both have them.
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 31, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand how both sides can be at fault
"Don't worry about my cap" -Lou Lamoriello
by C.J. Richey on Jul 27, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Let’s see…. The NHL for allowing this to happen, and then possibly overstepping it’s bounds on a contract that may or may not be legal. Lou for exploiting this rule to a ridiculous measure that does circumvent the cap because we all know Kovy ain’t playin’ for peanuts. It is possible and obviously “Come on we all know” is not a legal argument, but this contract is designed for him to retire like the other ridiculous ones. This one just goes farther, Lou even basically said he didn’t like these contracts.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 29, 2010 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Let me adjust that :
Who do you side with in the kovalchuk grievance?
[b]Anyone EXCEPT the F’n Devils ’cause they suck suck suck suck!!! We Rule!!![/b] – 48.1% !!
Nhlpa/ kovalchuk 21.4%
Both sides are at fault 30.4 %…
in general. trolls
I mean…That’s pretty much the general feeling of Leafs fans who will never see the 1st round of the playoffs for a long time…
Bias is everywhere
The TSN poll is heavily biased AGAINST NJ and this deal, and this site’s poll is heavily biased FOR NJ and this deal. The only thing we can hope for is an even-keeled arbitrator that will look at this logically, taking all other recent, similar deals into consideration, and find that this is no different and rule in favor of Kovalchuk and the NHLPA.
But if you go to other SBN blogs you'll see they are in the Devils favor
I even checked out BSB and they said the Devils did nothing wrong. It seems to be coming out of the west and canadian teams. I’d love to see a Canadian team sign a guy for 14 years and then say they will side with their team.
" I don't go to work.... I go to a game" - Bob Sheppard RIP
by RolliePollieKovy on Jul 27, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
The Canadian teams are the ones who started this type of signing with Miikka Kiprusoff. And I think the ones in Edmonton are still angry about the contract they gave Horcoff.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
TSN commentors have been, historically, very biased towards matters of hockey. Read any of the stories and then check out the comments. So many of the comments just sling mud back and forth for and against other teams, often times not relating to the actual post. Unbiased or fact-laden comments are hard to find, and that’s why ILWT is the place to go/be.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
TSN commentors have been, historically, very biased towards matters of hockey.
They’re not so much biased as they are idiots.
by RudyKelly on Jul 27, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
This is a very important distinction. Incompetency tends to be more common than malfeasance.
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 27, 2010 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s why I go to ILWT and pretty much stay away from any other comment threads, especially TSN and ESPN comment threads…they are the worst, unless you want to hear about Crosby being a crybaby.
Devils fan for 23 of the 29 years I've been alive. Devils fan until the day I die.
by Marty 4 Prez on Jul 27, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The CBA
Forget polls, they take a pulse but why not just look at it fairly. I am a Devils fan but I don’t think I am at all bias. I see nothing wrong after reading the CBA and reading things here and other places.
I laughed at some of the long deals in the past i.e. Islanders, but they were legal. If this were the Rangers, I would say if it is legal, what it wrong? No body seems to talk about the major risk a deal like this is for the Devils outside this site, they just don’t want us getting him. Fans should leave bias behind, read the CBA, but I think that is impossible, fans should not just look at numbers in a contract and decide.
They need an arbiter who is indifferent to hockey
It seems clear to me that these types of deals SHOULDN’T be allowed under the CBA. It also seems clear to me that inspite of that, they ARE allowed under the CBA.
The whole point of a legal system, and contracts for that matter, is they remove objectivity. Its a flaw in the CBA, and anyone is within there rights to exploit it.
Also, on a gut level. I think its an over reaction. There is something pretty cool about franchise players being committed to the franchise for the remainder of their career. It’s a throw back to the early days of professional sports before they became more mercenary.
by David Cicirelli on Jul 27, 2010 11:46 AM EDT reply actions
Also, on a gut level. I think its an over reaction. There is something pretty cool about franchise players being committed to the franchise for the remainder of their career. It’s a throw back to the early days of professional sports before they became more mercenary.
The league doesn’t like this, they want parity and a rotating carousel of players going from team to team so they can have headlines and competition.
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 27, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well they can take their headlines and competition....
and stick it where Bettman’s receding hairline don’t shine.
Kovy’s Contract is LEGIT……just like Hossa’s was….like Luongo’s was.
ENOUGH OF THIS.
Calm down buddy, there is some time before
ENOUGH OF THIShappens. We are far from a resolution.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I'm just so aggravated by this whole situation, Skuba.
I mean doesn’t it seem like Bettman CHOSE to go after the Devils after letting contracts like Hossa’s pass? Is that Fair?
None of us are happy about the situation, but it is what it is.
We have been trying to use that logic to define where the Devils are in all of this and why the NHL chose this contract to go after. There are several good posts about it on this very site.
But, the best thing to do is educate yourself on the issue, and the pertaining CBA issues, as to be able to pitch great arguments to people who believe the NHL is right.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Devils fans will vote the latter choice...
Regardless, I don’t see how this deal doesn’t go through. As i’ve stated in previous posts, I think this is just an attempt by Bettman to save some face because the CBA is flawed and it looks bad for him when teams are clever enough to lower the annual cap hit for an all-star player by increasing the years. As you (John) has stated in previous posts (including this one), this contract doesn’t break any rules. This all seems to me to be a call to attention so that the next CBA will have the proper provisions. In the end, Kovy will be a Devil for life.
"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
Agreed, its political at this point, posturing to deter other teams from attempting similar contracts and setting a platform for the impending CBA.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I for one, however, would hate to see the league’s posturing impact the Devils ability to ice the team they want to at the start of the season.
As would I. But I think the only thing this will cost the Devils is time as Kovy hangs longer in limbo.
By the beginning of October, Kovy will be on the ice as a Devil.
"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
This whole ordeal reminds me of when I watch a debate on the congress floor. Both sides trying to look good all the while missing the point why they are there. My reasons for objecting the league rejecting this contact supersedes my loyalty as a Devils fan. It all comes down to the fact if the contract is rejected and rejection is upheld the league retroactively can then review other contracts seeings they set a precedent to do so by winning this one if that does in fact happen.
by KingHellfire on Jul 31, 2010 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Lou Lam and Kovy could potentially moot the entire issue by reworking the contract, but why would they? They might get the result they want, in which the arbiter upholds the original contract, and it’s all good. If the arbiter gives them the thumbs-down, they just lop off a couple of the back end years, make it a 15-year contract or a 13-year contract, and the cap hit goes up a bit ($6.8M or $7.8M if they do nothing else), but not catastrophically.
Good point about the governing Article being 11 vice 26, and the implications that flow from it.
Bottom line: Kovy will be a Devil next year, this is all about determining what the cap hit will be.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
I will be shocked if the ruling goes in favour of the nhl. The fact that the nhl would reject the contract is not right. I think the nhl did this because they didnt want anymore contracts like Kovi’s, Loungo, and Hossa’s. The nhl is trying to establish that they will not have any more front loaded contracts. After the ruling is over with I think the nhl will add to new rules to the CBA
1- how long a contract is aloud to be
2- teams cant try and get around the cap by using front loaded contracts
GO DEVILS
by Roberto Galizia on Jul 27, 2010 4:28 PM EDT reply actions
I would not be so shocked if an arbitrator ruled for the League. Adding an arbitrator to the process always creates an element of randomness in the issue, because an arbitrator is not necessarily required to rule based on the letter of the law. This isn’t criminal or civil court, where rules are reasonably clearly defined and have to be followed, this is more like family court where various prejudices and issues like “the smell test” can come into play.
The consensus here is that the letter of the law favors the Devils. In that, I have confidence, but this is not an open-and-shut case just because of that. The best solution for all sides is to negotiate a compromise, establish some ground rules all parties can live with, and tweak the contract enough so the League can claim a victory without changing the deal so much the Devils and the NHLPA would rather take their chances in arbitration.
As for post-ruling, the NHL cannot unilaterally add clauses to the CBA — the point of “collective” bargaining is that both sides agree on the rules, and both sides must consent before they are modified. If the League wins, however, they will use that as precedent and tell teams what they believe is and is not permissible…. all depending on how the arbitrator words a ruling. If the arbitrator says “such-and-such” violated the rules, that will give the League a leg to stand on.
The other wrinkle, is that unlike salary arbitration where the rules regarding what can be considered and what cannot are clear-ish, the system arbitration criteria aren’t well defined. That could throw a wrench in the gears for either party to the arbitration.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 28, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
For those that think 26 applies here....
Then explain to me why they wouldn’t just rework the contract. There would be NO reasoning (even if you had a great case) to risk the fines/penalties if they could result out of an NHLPA initiated greivance. There would be huge downside to initiating a greivance and minimal upside.
It would be like having a 3 game suspension for an illegal check, contesting the ruling and leaving a commish’s office with a 10 game suspension.
That said, if the arbitrator rules in the league’s favor then Article 26 and the process it entails would come into play.
Since the NHLPA initiated this, there is no question that Article 11 governs this situation.
That said, if the arbitrator rules in the league’s favor then Article 26 and the process it entails would come into play.
How? If the arbitrator rules int he league’s favor, the contract’s voided. How can the process of investigation, joint discussion, etc. go forth if the contract is void?
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 27, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Switch would with could in my statement. Wrote it too hastily.
If the arbitrator rules in the NHL’s favor it will based upon the idea that there was circumvention, the NHL’s stance on denying the deal. At that point the league Could take action via article 26, provided it went through the proper process (investigate, meeting).
by Tom Stivali on Jul 28, 2010 1:48 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Maybe a stupid question
They will announce when they have selected an arbitrator right or will they just go into the hearing?
And does anyone have a prediction to how long it will take. I think in three weeks. Deal is done on August 17.
Joshd12
Brock University
BA. Sports Management, 2014
BA. Recreation and Leisure Studies, 2011
Its not a stupid question at all
A hearing has been scheduled, but the source would not reveal the identity of the arbitrator or the date, time and site of the hearing. It’s possible it will be in a city other than New York or Toronto.
The sides had to agree upon the site and date/time of the hearing as well and appear intent on keeping it low profile.
The source did say that the objective is for the matter to be settled by the end of next week, though. So, you can probably guess that the hearing will take place early next week—possibly Monday or Tuesday.
The hearing is expected to take two days and a ruling would be due within 48 hours of its conclusion.
-Tom Gulitti
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jul 30, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I'M glad we got John as our site manager or whatever his position is called
Cause unlike Quisp from JFTC who picks and chooses what parts of the CBA he wants to be used. John actually research’s it instead of simply speculating what he wants it to say and what parts he wants to be used. Thats why i don’t speak about the CBA much cause I know little about it. Though i could be like Quisp pick a part of the CBA I agree with and run with it all the while forgetting to understand what parts actually apply.
Thanks for all your hard work at keeping this site above board John!
by KingHellfire on Jul 31, 2010 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions
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.
