The (Unintentional) Genius of Lou Lamoriello
by Kevin Sellathamby on Aug 12, 2010 6:31 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
Email
PrintIt's been nearly a month since Ilya Kovalchuk's 17 year, $102 Million contract with the Devils was rejected by the NHL. It's been about 3 days since Richard Bloch upheld the NHL's decision to reject said contract after the NHLPA had filed a grievance about it. A few days after the contract's rejection, the NHL re-opened investigations for the contracts of Marc Savard, Marian Hossa, Roberto Luongo and Chris Pronger, who all have heavily frontloaded deals, ones similar to Ilya Kovalchuk's deal. After giving myself a few days to calm down, vent my frustrations and think, I decided to look back on some of the quotes Lou Lamoriello made about the signing of the contract. One quote came to mind, and that was Lou's thoughts about the contract (Via Tom Gulitti)
"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."
When I first read that quote, I thought that Lamoriello was taking a jab at how the CBA has loopholes bigger than Vesa Toskala's five hole. My perception on the quote changed as the events unfolded. After Bettman rejected the contract, I began to think that Bettman was offended by Lou's comments. But after the NHL re-opened the contract investigations on Pronger and company, my view on that quote changed once again.
Thanks to this tweet by PPP of Pension Plan Puppets, it got me thinking about that quote again. What if Lou intentionally signed the deal knowing it would get rejected? Lou was against these deals, so what better way to get rid of them by pushing the envelope too far? There wasn't alot of risk involved with the deal; had Kovalchuk's contract been approved by the NHL, the Devils would've secured the services of one of the league's top goal scorers with a decent cap hit. If the deal was rejected, it will be one of the few, if not the only blemish on the Hall of Famer's record. However the deal was rejected as we all know, but the rejection of Kovalchuk's contract is leading to the NHL looking into other lifetime contracts, as well as other steps forward for the league in writing the next CBA, which will have less loopholes regarding contracts and term. That and the Devils can still sign Kovalchuk, although to a much less controversial contract. So Lou can still claim a victory in the sense that teams are going to be more cautious when signing players to long term contracts, especially with the unrestricted free agent crop of 2010-11, which includes names Zdeno Chara, Joe Thornton, Ilya Bryzgalov and Brad Richards.
Keep in mind, there were other factors which may have lead to the contract's rejection. One big factor was the NHLPA being a mess. Would it have been any different if former PA president Paul Kelly was still around? Maybe. Would the NHL have immediately rejected the contract if Lou never said anything about it? I'm not sure, but Tallon never talked about the legality of Marian Hossa's contract when he signed him. Hossa's contract went through despite the league investigating it. If Lou had planned it all out and judged all the variables, then i'm giving him credit for such a complex plan, and the fact that he was willing to use himself as a sacrificial lamb of sorts to try and get rid of the lifetime contracts in the NHL. If it was all just a coincidence and Lou had nothing planned, then it looks like Lou's error ended up helping out the NHL in dealing with these problem contracts. Either way, Bettman is the one who's benefiting from this mess, as the ball is in his court right now. None of us may like it, but Lou's got no problem with it if Bettman is serious about getting rid of long term contracts, considering Lou's stance on them.
81 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i’m sorry, but lou lamoriello looks like a giant fool, having had a press conference to introduce a player he hasn’t signed, and there’s absolutely zero reason for him to go after these contracts when he would like to give one in another year to zach parise. we’ll never really know what the process was on this kovalchuk deal – rumblings have been that this offer was on the table from july 1 forward – but if the devils do not have kovalchuk by the end of this process, they will be the laughingstock of the league, and rightly so. this isn’t an ‘evil genius’ move, this is a gamble that failed to pay off, and it’s unclear how much kovalchuk and grossman were in on this plan. i’d like to think they knew this might not work.
With statements like this, you sound like a Rags fan.
He did sign Kovy, and had a press-conference to announce the signing, but the contract was rejected by the NHL. That’s out of Lou’s hands. They played by the rules according to the CBA, but it was obvious to most that they were stretching them as thin as possible.
If it went through, then everyone wins (Devils and Kovy). Since it failed, Lou now can say “Okay Kovy, we tried to get you as much bank as possible without killing our cap, so now you work with us to take less money in the next contract.”
If Kovy doesn’t like the next deal Lou sends his way, then so be it, let him walk. We’re not gonna go $10mil over the cap to sign the guy, just to cut all the role player necessary to win games. Otherwise, we’ll just turn into another Atlanta Thrashers with one superstar and a bunch of no-names, has-beens, and rookies.
As long as the Devils keep winning games (and hopefully some in the playoffs this season), who cares who’s laughing at us? We’re always picked to finish 4th or 5th in our division every year, then, at the end of the season, we’re in the top 4 to start the playoffs.
One final note: I don’t like being the Grammar Police, since this is just an internet message board, but posts are much easier to read when you use proper capitalization. Then again, maybe your shift key is broken or you were born without pinky fingers or something.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WWTTD?
I think you’ve hit the nail directly dead-center on the head.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I don’t know when I began to eschew proper capitalization, but I feel that it contributes to the impermanence and transitory nature of Internet posting. I’ll agree that in my previous post, it may have made things difficult to read, but it was a dense post regardless. Whatever the case, (over)flowery language is your reward for such castigation.
Regarding your first contention, viz. that the contract rejection is out of Lou’s hands, it has been claimed by TG that Lou et. al knew that the contract would be rejected before he even had the press conference. Hence why I cast the press conference as a gamble – Lou was gambling that said contract would be upheld; it was not.
As for contention the second, I’d feel far more comfortable had Kovalchuk re-upped on this deal on July 5. He did not. It took him until mid-July to agree finally to a deal that almost certainly dwarfed an offer from the LA Kings. I have no worries about Kovalchuk’s ability to play up to the potential of the contract or any such nonsense – athletes are itinerant folk, they play for many teams over the course of their lives, and pining for the road not traveled does not strike me as the way that athletes operate. However, Kovalchuk now has the opportunity to entertain those offers again.
As for your absurd strawman wrt to the Devils and ‘team’, yes, I am aware that the Devils will not go $10 million over the cap, thank you for your education. I am also aware that making a new Kovalchuk contract will be difficult; it’s my prediction that the new contract will cost Kovalchuk $10 million.
As for the contention that who cares who is laughing at us, yes, that’s all well and good that New Jersey continues to win games in the regular season. I do not care what other fans think of the team. However, it’s a true Kool-Aid addict who would contend that such a press conference is not laughable. It would be a gigantic disgrace were Kovalchuk to slip away.
I have faith that Kovalchuk will resign with New Jersey and this fiasco will recede into the background as a mere curiosity. I resent the suggestion that I am a Rangers fan – you will not find a bigger Lou supporter than I. I cast this move as a gamble, not a failure, but it’s a failed gamble so far. We shall see if Lou can rectify things in the coming weeks.
…and if they had won the arbitration hearing everyone would be calling it a genius move.
He isn’t a “giant fool”. Nor is he a genius for thinking of it. If anything he has guts for trying it. Do you really think he is the only GM in the league who thought of such a rule stretching deal?
He probably figured it would be challenged hard by the league. I have no doubt that Kovalchuk knew this could potentially happen when he signed the deal.
by NJDOhio on Aug 12, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I contend that the press conference was brilliance on Lou's part
If we take Kevin’s suggestion as truth that Lou did this because he really wanted to kill these kinds of contracts — maybe because he was sick of other teams doing it — then the press conference served three purposes a) bring all front-loaded contracts into the light, b) get Kovy to say how much he wants to be in NJ, and c) free press for the Devils! (Well, c is mentioned with a bit of sarcasm). If Kovy walks now, it’s him that looks like the giant fool. The Devils tried, but hey, the NHL said “no” and we have a cap limit, Ilya. Most people were in agreement that $102 million could be spent better, with Parise’s RFA coming up and plenty of players retiring in the next few years. Lou puts an end to these front-loaded contracts, possibly gets the most notable UFA in recent memory … or doesn’t. We’ll do fine either way.
As an aside, I read with amusement on a Flyers blog recently how the blogger thought that the contract should have been upheld — nothing wrong with it. Oh yeah, and keep your hands off Pronger’s contract while you’re at it.
it’s not brilliant. A is stupid. B is smart.
the $102 million could possibly be spent better, or it can be spent on a bevy of brian rolstons. lou’s not very good at free agency. few people are good at it, but lou basically has 0 successful free agent signings post-lockout.
lou doesn’t want to get rid of these front-loaded contracts when he has to sign zach parise next year. he’s just been put in a difficult spot if he can’t or won’t get rid of rolston and can’t even sign kovalchuk to a 13 year deal.
I agree with you on the poor history of free agency signings. But then, we’re more accustomed to losing good players to FA than gaining them. If Lou wanted to use front-loading to keep Parise next year, why would he cause such a splash signing Kovy with all of that self-generated and unusual fanfare? He had to know it was going to draw attention, at least. I can’t believe that he lost his mind to that degree that he wouldn’t.
Ha awesome!
I take back the Rags fan comment (although I didn’t say you were one, just that you sounded like one!).
This was a much more pleasurable post to read and I suggest you keep this style and format for your future posts!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WWTTD?
No, I completely disagree with you. I believe Lou knew exactly what was happening, and if you read Tom Gulitti’s blog, he states and confirms that Lou knew the deal would not be approved. It was exaggerated, and Lou knew that.
Lou Lamoriello is always thinking outside the box, and he stated in his press conference that he did not like long deals, and THAT is why he held the conference.
Yes, Lou was suggesting that the league look at current deals. Yes, he USED Ilya Kovalchuk and Jay Grossman.
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
by DownGoesAvery on Aug 13, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Ouch
I have to disagree. I understand the story, and seeing the implications now, it holds some water, but still is like a sink drain.
Lou would have to know how many things would turn out in order to pull off what you are suggesting. How would he know the League would actually reject the contract? An even bigger “if” would be how would Lamoriello know the League would not only win the arbitrator’s case, but also that the arbitrator would call out other contracts to the extent where the League felt it necessary to go back and announce that it would look into those other contracts again.
With or without the contract, Lou does not like ‘these type of deals.’ But why does that mean he would not do them knowing this was the best way to procure Kovalchuk?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
He didn’t know how the arbitration would turn out, but he did know this: he got the league angry and got people talking about the validity of long-term contracts.
Everything else is out of Lou’s hands.
Yankees in baseball, Giants in football and Devils in hockey. It's that simple. I have no off-season.
by DownGoesAvery on Aug 13, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Kovalchuk's comments
Perhaps Lou was being really smart. I think he knew that the contract was going to be rejected but made a show of signing IK, knowing that he would say that he always wanted to be in NJ as he was going through the negotiation process. Now that Kovy has rejected all of the other offers and stated that he wanted to be a Devil, how can he possibly sign elsewhere. He would look the fool. Now that Kovy’s statements are out there and the contract was voided, Lou has a better bargaining position. The cap hit may go up $500,000 and for a much shorter time frame when he finally signs, but he will sign at terms that LL and Buttman are happy with.
There was a rumor though
that Lou knew that the deal was going to be rejected, and he went ahead with the press confrence anyway.
The whole thing has been very surprising and kinda strange. None of this is very Lou Lamoriello like at all.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Aug 13, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Lou figured the NHL would allow the contract to stand.
He looked at the Pronger, Hossa, etc. deals and figured that the league would let it pass because they had already let similar contracts go through. Even if Lou figured the contract would be rejected by the league, there is a possibility that he figured that the arbitrator would overturn it. Like I said before, all is fair in love and war. The Devils saw a possibility and to a chance. They showed that they were competitive on and off the ice. What more can you ask from a team? Laughingstocks? They would have been such if they didn’t try.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Aug 12, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
That's an interesting way to look at it
I also remember hearing that Lou knew it’d be rejected.
Even so, why put yourself to the embarrassment of having a press conference?
I really hate the legal aspects of sports. The NFL’s probably going to be locked out, NHL…
I hate it.
Against all odds, against all circumstance were you don't have a shot, you succeed
-Michael Strahan
All you hear about is the past, the past... the past is the !@#$ing past, this is the present.
THIS IS TEMPORARY! A CHAMPIONSHIP IS PERMANENT
-Same as above
I also remember hearing that Lou knew it’d be rejected.
Do you also remember where you heard it? Perhaps a link to where you heard this would be useful?
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 Aug 12, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well KNEW and INFORMED are different things . . .
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.
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.
by Cherno77 on Aug 12, 2010 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I certainly told me there.
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 Aug 12, 2010 8:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That will teach you to argue with yourself!
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
But when you argue with yourself....
…. you always win.
...Sorry
But yeah thanks Cherno
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
I don’t know how much “genius” was involved in all this.
But we do know that before the press conference Lou was told the NHL was gonna reject the deal.
Despite that knowledge Kovy was spurred to tell the assembled reporters that he’d been dreaming of playing with the Devils since he was pre-pubescent. That public statement sorta limits his options, doesn’t it?
Now the contract is voided. And Kovy must go back to New Jersey to devise a different SPC, most likely at smaller numbers.
Is that what Lou was scheming to do?
I doubt it.
To say that this was Lou’s plan kinds of indirectly says that Kovy is a dumb ass.
A game of Chess is like a sword fight....you must think first....before you move.
by LoNJDTechnology on Aug 12, 2010 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Being informed it would be rejected and still believing that the contract was valid and the rejection would be overturned doesn’t present the same roadblock to having the press conference. If Lou felt he/Kovy/NHLPA would lose the arbitration, he might have canceled it, but I’m pretty sure Lou felt all along the contract was valid and would stand up.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I totally just...
brought this convo up this morning on the fan blog…great minds think alike
"You're next." -Scott Stevens
by MikePelusoTears on Aug 12, 2010 8:22 PM EDT reply actions
I’m not so sure, this is a bad thing for those teams… Hawks can’t be that upset about shedding Hossa’s salary. Nucks should be happy to be out from under the Luongo contract, and honestly since it is a +35 contract I’m not sure the Pronger one falls in with the others… although I think the Flyers could re-sign him if they didn’t we have plenty of cap space if we waive Matt Walker and one of our goalies.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
Pick a goalie any goalie!
Duceshne? Backlund? Boucher? Pronger may already be out for the start of the season.
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 Aug 12, 2010 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d Keep Backlund and Leighton on our roster… I’d also like to see Homer stop being an idiot and carrying 8 D-men.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 13, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. But the fact that most of those teams are in cap trouble already, and those players were key parts to their teams (Pronger was a huge difference maker, Hossa may not have hit the score sheet but his defensive play was great). If they lose them to those contracts, they’re going to have to try and make them more compliant if they want to keep them, pushing them further into cap hell. Or losing them to another team as they’re unrestricted free agents if their contracts are voided.
In Lou We Trust: Continuing a saga no one really cares about
"Pfft, Wii’s where it’s at. *Swings toy plastic racquet, separates shoulder"- RudyKelly
by Kevin Sellathamby on Aug 12, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe to an outsider...
I don’t know, you really think that the fans of those teams and management are going to think, “Woo, cap space! Thanks, NHL!,” should those deals get voided? Given the reaction here about Kovalchuk, I’m going to think 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 Aug 13, 2010 7:31 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Does fan reaction necessarily mean that it is a good/bad thing? Luongo’s contract getting re-negotiated in this goalie market clearly would be a good thing for the Nucks. Shedding Hossa’s albatross of a contract would be a GREAT thing for Chicago. Savard would hurt Boston, that is really the only one I can see being a terrible thing.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 13, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
While fan reaction may not be the most important aspect, it certainly can affect the decision made in the first place. If Luongo’s deal were to be re-negotiated, how do you think it would go? Do you think Luongo would suddenly be ok with making less than half his current salary ($10M this year)? The Canucks would have to bank on Schneider being that good and being able to be that good all year if they allowed him to walk.
Yes, Hossa’s contract is long, but I do not see it as an albatross, and I cannot see it that way until his play dips below what he is being paid. As far as Im concerned, he is underpaid Cap-wise for what he brings to the table. Campbell’s contract as an albatross, for sure. He is not playing at a $7M+ level.
If Chicago was ‘free’ of Hossa and his contract, who do they replace him with? He is a 30+ goal-scorer who may play the best all-around game on his team (maybe Toews, although Hossa is better offensively). You cannot ‘plug’ in another player to do that,.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Except Boston has been reportedly trying to move Savard. Of the four supposedly at risk, I figured that one would be the most desired by the team holding the contract to be nixed.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Would it mean Boston gets nothing in return for Savard’s services if the contract was rejected? Would he be a UFA, RFA?
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
My point is that the initial response from both fan and management will not give one care about cap space.
Also, Chicago would be doubly unhappy since they traded assets in attempts to manage their cap. They won’t get them back if Hossa’s deal is voided.
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 Aug 13, 2010 12:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, but they are still 3 million dollars over the cap. And I believe next year they have a couple FA’s as well. I think they are a still a forward short as well.
I agree fans will flip out, I just think that in the long run they will be happy they got out from under the contracts.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 13, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
no, they won’t. hossa is one of chicago’s top players. without him they have kane, toews, and sharp up front and that is about it. having him on a 5.2 million dollar cap hit is a large boon to the team. sure, in 5 years it won’t be so great, but that’s in 5 years.
And somehow, Marian Hossa is still an underrated player. He carries the game when he is on the ice. I suppose being on 3 (I guess 4 actually) teams in 3 years taints how people feel about him. But he was also on 3 Finals teams and has done nothing to make management think he isn’t worth what he is paid.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
I agree that Hossa is a heck of a player, and for any team that is a good deal…. except Chicago. They are stuck in cap purgatory and have had to dump salary like crazy. It isn’t over yet. Maybe they should have done this with the Brian Campbell contract lol.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 13, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
The Flyers goalie situation is akin to the Devils coaching situation in that they both resemble a revolving door. Who was the last steady goaltender the Flyers had? Ron Hextall?
We actually had a Vezina winner in Cechmanek, but he wasn’t really a steady goalie his time here was tumultuous. Hexy was the last steady one, and that was 20 years ago. He really wasn’t that good his 2nd time around.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 13, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Cechmanek won a Vezina? Really? When did that happen, because I don’t see it listed here.
Now, given Cechmanek’s career, I could believe he was nominated at least once, because his numbers in 2000-2001 and again in 2002-2003 were very good. That being said, the Vezina was still the “Dominik Hasek” award for the former season, and Marty finally won his first Vezina in the latter.
Cechmanek had some seriously great regular seasons followed by disappointing playoffs. Management lost patience fast and got rid of him. As it happened, that was effectively the end of his NHL career.
Briere, Betts and Pronger; Briere, Betts and Pronger; Briere, Betts and Pronger;
Our team is so much stronger
We've got Briere, Betts and Pronger...
by PursuitOfLappyness on Aug 14, 2010 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re right, for some reason I thought he won it. He actually finished 2nd in 2000-2001. 2.01 GAA ,10 SO and a .921 SV %. He was good, but a freakin nutjob and a terrible goalie in the playoffs.
He is still our career leader in sv % and GAA I believe, although that had more to do with the era than the player.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Aug 15, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
GIVE ME A BREAK
Any notion Lou did this to prove a point or push the issue is LUDICROUS.
He did what he thought was necessary to sign a star player based upon the parameters of other registered contracts. I don’t think for a second he liked doing it, but for a star player sometimes you haved to make exceptions.
This storey/post is embarrassing to have as a front page post.
Then why would he blatantly say that those kinds of contracts are wrong after signing a player to said contract? He was trying to prove a point. None of those GMs go and say “oh, it’s not right but it’s all legal under the CBA” to the media after a press conference. Lou’s willing to put the screws to other teams, why not put the screws to the entire league and somewhat even out the playing field?
In Lou We Trust: Continuing a saga no one really cares about
"Pfft, Wii’s where it’s at. *Swings toy plastic racquet, separates shoulder"- RudyKelly
by Kevin Sellathamby on Aug 12, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The reason that Lou would never do something like what you describe is because he has class, something your article does not.
I don’t think having or not having class has anything to do with it.
Lou publicly announced his negative views about these contracts.
Signs a player to one…and at the same press conference that Kovy says “Devil for life” more or less locking him up as a Devil no matter what happens to the contract (at the expense of Kovy being embarrassed, not the Devils)
Lou also AGAIN announces how he doesn’t like these contracts.
Why? Why would he do that?
This is business guys. Lou is a business, man. A hall of fame business man. Not saying this is DEF his reasoning. Just toying with an idea that isn’t completely out there.
"You're next." -Scott Stevens
by MikePelusoTears on Aug 13, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I dont see the issue of class being involved on either side of this debate.
"Don't worry about my Cap." - Lou Lamoriello
Maybe Integrity is a better word. There is just NO WAY Lou Lamoriello would do this to prove a point.
Does Lou like these deals- NO
Is there precedence for this type contract- YES
Would he do it to sign a STAR player- YES
There is just NO WAY Lou LAmoriello would USE a player or the NHLPA!
Prove it, and using capital letters does not constitute proof.
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 don’t think he did it to prove a point. But you don’t think that all parties involved knew what could potentially happen? or already know that this could make or break the long unbalanced contract problem? At least until the next CBA negotiation.
He had it in the back of his head for sure and so did Kovalchuk and his agent.
I also believe they were pretty confident they could win any dispute.
I also believe they were pretty confident they could win any dispute.
I have to agree. If anything, he thought the NHL was bluffing, called them out, figured he’d win on the same basis most of us thought, and this happened. So it’s onto Plan B.
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 Aug 13, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not so sure I’d call it a genius move, even if it were calculated from the very start. Lou got caught cheating, plain and simple. He’s left many fans who once considered him one of the best GMs in the game wondering if he’s simply one of the best GMs in the league when it comes to manipulating things behind the scenes. I know guys who’ve started to wonder if the Devil’s Dynasty was maybe not quite 100% legitimate. They bring up that old cliche, once a cheater, always a cheater.
Is that worth a righteous crusade to save the NHL from lifetime contracts?
by Hatt the Moople on Aug 13, 2010 8:46 AM EDT reply actions
I’d almost call ‘troll’ on this one, but if you genuinely feel that way, you have been waaayyyyy misinformed or ignorant on what Lou has done, or will continue to do. The guy is simply shrewd, tactically astute and in my eyes, touching on genius. He does the right things for his club, not always popular decisions, but always the right thing in his eyes.
If that’s cheating well…I think you should go back to Pittsburg or wherever youre from.
Ireland? An Ice Hockey Team?
You'd better believe it...
Cheating? How so?
Please elaborate. I’m genuinely interested to know how this deal was cheating, and also how it pertains to past team success.
If you don’t come back or don’t elaborate, I’m prone to agree with JuniorIRL about your intent in posting such a statement.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I wouldn’t call using a loophole cheating, and Lou is renowned for his use of loopholes. Cheating goes against the rules, so I’d like you to point out which rules were exactly broken for those “guys” to question the legitimacy of the “Dynasty.” Or are they still whining about the neutral zone trap and Scott Stevens’ hits?
The salary cap is in place to provide an even playing field for every franchise in the league. Lou tried to get around that salary cap. It’s circumvention of the rules to give the team an unfair advantage over other teams—cheating. A lot of Devils fans argue the interpretation of “circumvention,” and claim that this isn’t it, and that Lou wasn’t cheating, but it was so bad that not only the NHL, but an independent arbitrator agreed upon by the NHLPA refused the deal because it was circumvention.
I always liked Lou, really I did. I thought he was one of the smartest GMs in the league, one who could squeeze water from a stone, if it would benefit him. It’s unfortunate he had to Bill Belichick himself before he retired.
by Hatt the Moople on Aug 14, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
The salary cap is in place to provide an even playing field for every franchise in the league.
Nope!
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 Aug 14, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
As John has said so many times, what rule did he break to be caught “cheating”? What he did was within the rules laid out in the CBA. Just because he went right up to the edge of what was legal doesn’t make him a cheater. The league didn’t like the combination of places where he touched the walls, the arbitrator agreed with the league. He did 55 in a 55, 65 in a 65, and 45 in a 45, but because he was so colse everywhere, he did wrong. Yeah, right.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
It’s circumvention of the rules to give the team an unfair advantage over other teams
All the teams play by the same rules. Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, Tampa Bay, Vancouver, et al, all have contracts that follow the same pattern. One doesn’t gain any advantage when everyone else can do the same thing.
cheating
Actually, the arbitrator ruled that neither the Devils nor Ilya and his agent were trying to cheat. Else there would have been penalties assessed.
A lot of Devils fans argue the interpretation of "circumvention," and claim that this isn’t it, and that Lou wasn’t cheating, but it was so bad that not only the NHL, but an independent arbitrator agreed upon by the NHLPA refused the deal because it was circumvention.
This is the crux of your problem: you’re confusing the two terms. The arbitrator ruled that the deal, in its individual parts are all perfectly compliant and that there was no wrongdoing in building a contract in such a manner… but that the overall effect was to circumvent the spirit of rules.
It is, believe it or not, possible to be one without being the other.
I always liked Lou, really I did. I thought he was one of the smartest GMs in the league
His intelligence is somehow reduced now?
one who could squeeze water from a stone, if it would benefit him
Like, oh, say building a long-term contract within the rules that would reduce the overall cap hit the team had to bear?
It’s unfortunate he had to Bill Belichick himself before he retired.
I fail to see how this in any way compares to taping another team’s practices to game plan around what they’re trying to do.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Yeah, The Devils have a problem with legitimacy, I guess its because they didn’t tank 4 or 5 seasons in a row to secure top draft picks.
Devil for Life
by st.pattysdaymassacre26 on Aug 13, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
p.s. take all the time in the world to look at my SB nation pic.
Devil for Life
by st.pattysdaymassacre26 on Aug 13, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
This contract was laughably extreme, even compared to the other front-loaded contracts. It seems incredibly unlikely that $550k would be the league minimum in 2022 – 2027. Lou is shrewd and great at manipulating the system, so I’m siding with Kevin. Lou saw the outcome as a plus no matter what happened. If the contract goes through, we have Kovy for as long as we want at a reasonable hit. If the contract gets rejected, it draws (some type of) line in the sand against contracts that Lou doesn’t like. I’m just curious how much Kovy knew going in.
By the way, Lou has made a few moves that have been laughed at before, especially post lock out; I’m guessing that’s not a big issue for him. His legacy is secure.
I can’t really imagine a conspiracy, but if Lou, when making the contract, though “Well, either it’ll get accepted and i get Kovalchuk for half-off or it’ll be rejected and i get kovalchuk for more cap but stop these stupid contracts.” (because he sure as heck isn’t signing somewhere else other than the KHL after that press conference) No conspiracy necessary.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
Lamoriello’s laughing because no one seems aware of his plot to ruin lifetime contracts.
That’s a fantastic photo caption and an overall great article, Kev.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 13, 2010 2:52 PM EDT reply actions
Thanks DBB.
In Lou We Trust: Continuing a saga no one really cares about
"Pfft, Wii’s where it’s at. *Swings toy plastic racquet, separates shoulder"- RudyKelly
by Kevin Sellathamby on Aug 13, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Headlines: Heritage Classic in Winnipeg?; Prospal re-signs; hockey stick DVD rack
- Booze and bucks: How NHL, Michigan secured The Big House for 2013 Winter Classic
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Staged fights, Winter Classic and Dave Lozo from NHL.com
- Lindy Ruff’s broken ribs turn James Patrick into head coach vs. Bruins
- 2013 Winter Classic plan revealed; college, OHL games included
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Matt Frattin scores winner as Marlies defeat Rochester 4-3
- Flames D Smith signs 2-year deal for $1.55 million
- Michigan board gives AD go-ahead on Winter Classic
- Flames defenceman Derek Smith signs two-year deal worth US$1.55 million
- Injured Sabres coach Lindy Ruff won't be behind bench against Boston Bruins
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.
