OFFICIAL: NHL Approved Ilya Kovalchuk Contract with New Jersey Devils
Finally, the NHL has approved the $100 million, 15 year contract between the New Jersey Devils and Ilya Kovalchuk. Dan Rosen of NHL.com put up the article at 2:53 AM last night saying the league gave their approval; it is now officially registered. The saga is finally over; there can be no doubt - Ilya Kovalchuk is a New Jersey Devil, and will be for quite a while.
Once again, something involving the Devils leads to a rule change. The NHL and NHLPA agreed to amend the Collective Bargaining Agreement from 2005 with new rules on "long-term" deals. From Rosen's article, there are two changes:
1. While players and clubs can continue to negotiate long-term contracts (five years or longer) that include contract years in a player's 40s, for purposes of salary-cap calculation the contract will effectively be cut off in the year of the contract in which the player turns 41.
...
2. In any long-term contract that averages more than $5.75 million for the three highest compensation seasons, the cap charge will be a minimum of $1 million for every season in which the player is 36-39 years of age. That $1 million value will then be used to determine the salary cap hit for the entire contract. If the contract takes the player into his 40s, the previous rule goes into effect.
Kovalchuk's contract (and Roberto Luongo's, Marian Hossa's, and Marc Savard's contract) are not subject to these rules. They are "grandfathered" - for lack of a better word - in under the prior rules. So Kovalchuk's cap hit will remain at approximately $6.67 million. No matter how you view the NHL after this whole saga, they wanted these rule changes and they got them. All they had to do was hold up the Devils and Kovalchuk, not clearly define their own rules, take advantage of a still-leaderless NHLPA, and set multiple (my count is 7) deadlines but not actually keep them.
While Lou Lamoriello got what he wanted, the next challenge is now. He's got about a month to clear off $2,698,333 from the salary cap. Mind you, he actually needs to clear up more than that so whoever departs can be replaced by another player - be it a prospect or a minimum-salary signing. If you must know who I think the Devils should try and trade, then please read this post. It may be from July, but the principles are still the same.
Thanks for reading. Please leave your thoughts on this signing and the new rules in the CBA in the comments. After jump is a timeline of this entire saga, just to hammer home the point of how long this actually took.
An Attempt At a Timeline of the Ilya Kovalchuk Free Agency Saga
July 1: Ilya Kovalchuk becomes an unrestricted free agent, available for any team in the league for a contract.
July 5: Everyone gets excited with this tweet by Jay Grossman, who is Ilya Kovalchuk's agent. That Kovalchuk was looking to decide where he will play. Unfortunately, as we know now, no decision was actually made.
July 10: Larry Brooks makes this prophetic tweet: that the Devils offered Kovalchuk a 17 year deal worth over $100 million. As we know now, Brooks didn't turn out to be wrong.
July 14: At this point, all news about Kovalchuk were seen as, if not were, rumors. By this point, the two teams reportedly to be in serious discussion were the Los Angeles Kings and the New Jersey Devils. There was a brief moment the Islanders showed interest, but that was just it. Interest.
July 19: It's done. Ilya Kovalchuk chose to sign with the New Jersey Devils. Here is Puck Agency's (Jay Grossman's firm) post announcing the deal; and here is Kevin's breaking-news post. It is revealed later in the day that the deal was for $102 million over 17 years (good call Brooksie), confirmed in this post by Tom Gulitti. The Devils announce a press conference for the signing, something they have not done in the past.
July 20: The Devils held their press conference, which was full of intriguing quotes from those involved. However, the good times came to an abrupt stop when reports came out that evening that the NHL had rejected the contract. Needless to say, Devils fans were confused and unhappy about all this. At least, I was.
July 21-July 26: In this time gap, I called for calm, Devils fans started getting (more) familiar with the CBA (I made my attempts here and here, of course, they mean nothing now), and the NHLPA had to decide whether to file a grievance against the NHL's rejection of the Kovalchuk contract. They had 5 days under Article 11 and on July 26, they did just that. An arbitration hearing would be held to determine whether the rejection would be upheld or not. Of course, the hearing would not be held immediately since there was no arbitrator in place.
August 2: The NHL and NHLPA agree to an arbitrator: Richard Bloch. The arbitration would begin on August 3.
August 5: The arbitration ended and Bloch would have up to 48 business hours, or until August 9, to make his ruling.
August 9: Richard Bloch sustained the NHL's rejection of the $102 million over 17 year contract between Ilya Kovalchuk and the New Jersey Devils. Bloch's rationale was that while there was nothing the length of the contract, the breakdown in salary, and the use of no movement and no trade clauses on their own; combined, it suggested that there was intent for Kovalchuk to not fulfill all 17 years of the deal. Therefore, Bloch ruled the contract was in violation of Article 26.3. The contract was voided, and Kovalchuk went back to being an unrestricted free agent. If you want to read Bloch's full decision, Eric Macramalla has a copy of the decision at his site, Offside.
August 13: After hearing about the NHL telling the Tampa Bay Lightning that Vincent Lecavalier's contract extension was acceptable; I decided to go ask someone who would know something about this whole mess. So I asked Bill Daly about what the new "line in the sand" is in the NHL. He gave me this now-prescient quote:
John Fischer: Excellent, thank you. Before I put anything up; I just want to make sure I have this right: There won't be any public statement of what the limits are; but all the clubs know what they are. Moreover, they consult the league if there is a concern in advance of offering or registering a SPC. Is this correct, or is there something wrong or missing?
Bill Daly: Yes, with one caveat. At this point I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we may further discuss with the Union to see if "bright lines" can be established. Absent those "bright lines," it will be on a case-by-case, with existing guideposts established, the GMs understanding our concerns and sensitivities, and always with the ability of the Clubs to reach out to us to dicuss [sic].
August 23: After further negotiation, as reported by Tom Gulitti, the Devils and Jay Grossman went to the NHL offices to discuss a potential framework for a new deal. While no deal was actually submitted or proposed.
August 25: It was revealed that whatever framework was proposed by the Devils and Grossman was rejected. Gulitti has that short report here.
August 26: I didn't include the multiple rumors of Kovalchuk going to play in the KHL because the only one that had any merit was this one. Dmitry Chesnokov wrote at Puck Daddy that Kovalchuk set a "deadline" of his own - that if there was no deal made by Friday, he'd go play in Russia for the season.
August 27: The New Jersey Devils submitted a second contract to the NHL. At the time, details were short, but Darren Dreger tweeted that the deal was for $100 million over 15 years. The NHL would have up to 5 days to approve the deal. Not 5 business days, 5 calender days.
August 30: Tom Gulitti, among others, reports from sources that the NHL would make a decision on the contract on Tuesday, August 31.
August 31: Nothing happens.
September 1: The 5 day deadline comes and at 5 PM, it is announced that the NHL and NHLPA have agreed to extend the deadline. Seriously. I called this "garbage," while Larry Brooks dropped this bombshell at the NY Post. In retrospect, Brooks turned out to be right that this was more than just approving Kovalchuk's contract.
September 2: Brooks takes the NHL/NHLPA angle by the horns, notes that Chris Pronger's deal was found to be OK by the league. Again, in retrospect, Brooks turned out to be right. Meanwhile, all involved wait.
September 3: The reports came out in the afternoon that the NHL will accept the Kovalchuk deal, while the NHL and NHLPA will agree to amend the CBA. I kept on this yesterday in this post, and Jay Grossman did tell the AP that it was a done deal. Even Ilya Kovalchuk said so, per Pavel Lysenko. Of course, nothing in this whole saga went smoothly; there had to be more delays. First from 5 PM to 7 PM; then, per Dan Rosen's twitter from here on out: 7 to 8 PM; 8 to 9 PM; 9 to 10 PM, 10 PM to 1 AM (??), and then to 3 AM. At 2:53 AM, it was all finalized and approved.
And here we are. The one loose end that has yet to be tied up is whether the NHL will penalize the Devils after the rejection of the first contract. As silly and petulant as this may sound, we are dealing with a league that has shown in recent days to not being above being silly and petulant. Since Larry "The Not-Everson" Brooks has been right so far, I'll defer to his recent tweets that the NHL has until 5 PM on September 17 to decide on a penalty; and the penalty can only be on the Devils and only for a fine and/or loss of draft picks. That's pretty mild, if true. I'd still be unhappy about it since Bloch ruled that there was no bad faith involved; and the NHL would have taken a month and a half to do what they could have done on August 10. That said, I don't think the Devils would mind paying just a fine at this juncture - they did just commit $100 million to Ilya Kovalchuk.
The next step: Clearing cap space for the Devils. I'll give an updated overview on this later this weekend.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It’s finally over. John maybe you should add February 4rth the day Kovy was traded to the devils to the time line?
No
The saga concerns his free agency.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 4, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Which is why I updated the heading to clarify that.
Thanks for the heads up.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 4, 2010 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
John, I edited the other story and unchecked the front page option.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Sep 4, 2010 10:51 AM EDT reply actions
Thanks.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 4, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
YAYYYYY
Nice work with the timeline. That’s all you need to know how messed up this was
Against all odds, against all circumstance were you don't have a shot, you succeed
All you hear about is the past, the past... the past is the !@#$ing past, this is the present.
THIS IS TEMPORARY! A CHAMPIONSHIP IS PERMANENT
-Michael Strahan
i don’t know how you can declare larry brooks right. the NHLPA got a win here with the new stipulations, which are totally reasonable and moreover really don’t limit front-loaded contracts in a significant way. it’s hard to believe, given what the NHLPA came out of this with, that such an ultimatum was ever issued.
He called out the first contract proposal, he called out what the NHL wanted to implement, and he called out that such CBA amendments led to Kovalchuk deal being approved. I don’t know about you, but to most people, this is called “being right.”
Plus, I don’t see how your dissent makes sense. How does a union benefit by the league strong-arming them? How do the players aged, say, 37 or more who want multi-year deals think this is reasonable? Because you think the terms are reasonable?
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 Sep 4, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
what 37 year old player has received a 5 year deal since this CBA was implemented? i’ll give you a hint. hell, i doubt a 37 year old player has received a 5 year contract in NHL history. these stipulations only apply to contracts of 5 years or more.
in brooks’s reported ultimatum was that cap hits for the highest 5 years of a contract would be the cap hit of the contract; this would change the free agent landscape. what the NHL ended up with was nothing. deals like lecavalier, zetterberg, and franzen are still totally legal. if a team can frontload the first two years enough, it can really do whatever it likes in a player’s 39 and 40 seasons to reduce the cap hit.
brooks was right about the 17 year deal. he was right about the CBA negotiations. he has still been incorrect about a lot of stuff this summer as well.
I'm still questioning the first amendment to the CBA.
Now, I know the Kovy deal isn’t under the new rules. I’m using this as an example to compare what the cap hit would be under the new rules to the old system.
Here’s Kovy’s salary breakdown: 6, 6, 11, 11.3, 11.3, 11.6, 11.8, 10, 7, 4, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4
Old System: AAV of $6,666,667 for 15 years.
New System: For first 13 years, AAV of $7,153,846; Year 14: $3m; Year 15: $4m.
That’s an increase of $487,179 for 13 seasons, then a savings of $3,666,667 and $2,666,667 in seasons 14 and 15 respectively. I think this system is better for teams, and almost encourages teams to make long-term deals.
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 Sep 4, 2010 11:10 AM EDT reply actions
I was worried that the penalty would deal with cap space, which would be a big problem. I still don’t think there should be a penalty (does any Devils fan?) but I’d rather see a fine than a reduction in cap space.
there has been no mention of penalties by the leugue or the devils and the arbitor said it was not intentional on the devs side plus what john stated repeatedly on how there was no investigation so there cant be penalties.
so i doubt there will be any penaties
by devsfan9 on Sep 4, 2010 12:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Just trades...
I have a funny feeling that we’ll be seeing Salvador on October 8 in a different uniform playing against us.
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 Sep 4, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Would that really be that big of a loss, though? Salvador is a solid defensive defenseman, which makes him one of the prime objects of a potential trade, but the Devils have plenty of good defenseman in the system that could step up and take his place if necessary. When I told my one friend of the likelihood of Salvador being traded to make cap space, she was devastated because he’s been her favourite defenseman ever since Johnny Oduya was traded to Atlanta with Bergfors and Corrente in return for Ilya Kovalchuk.
the arbitor said it was not intentional on the devs side plus what john stated repeatedly on how there was no investigation so there cant be penalties.
I’m actually wrong about that because of what Gulitti just posted:
As part of the NHL and NHLPA’s agreement, the league has until 5 p.m. on Sept. 17 to decide if it will discipline the Devils in the form of a fine or loss of draft pick(s) for Kovalchuk’s rejected contract. A source confirmed that the agreement stipulates that the maximum fine is $3 million and that the Devils cannot be docked salary cap space. Kovalchuk also will no be punished.
Also part of the agreement is that the NHL has exclusive authority to determine and assess any discipline unilaterally, without any application to the system arbitrator and the NHLPA has waived any rights to object or otherwise oppose the imposition of any discipline.
So, essentially, the Devils are at the mercy of NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and if he wants to make an example of them and make it clear that the league does not want teams messing around with the CBA and searching for loopholes. That Bloch ruled that there was no "bad faith" by the Devils in this case, should help the Devils’ case, but there is also pressure on the league from other teams for the Devils to be punished in some form.
In other words, Gulitti confirmed what Brooks said earlier and added to it that other teams want the Devils to be punished for breaking rules that didn’t exist.
OK, that last part there is mine. Still, the Devils may be thrown onto the Punishment Boat powered by NHL Bitterness. Ahoy.
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
Even though the contract issue was settled, the whole affair STILL makes the League look like it is in the hands of fools! Because some teams want the Devils punished, then that threat should also apply to the other teams that created mega contracts. After all, their contracts, as well as NJ’s, were approved…..weren’t they breaking “non-existant” rules?
I think your assessment is completely accurate.
Brian Burke and his cohorts are out for blood right now and they don’t care about the rules.
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
This is where the NHL needs a true “voice of reason” to come forward and shut the mouths of the Burkes of the league!
Good luck getting that from Bettman.
A commissioner is supposed to be a neutral party that keeps both the owners and the players in line, but Bettman is so deep in the pockets of the owners its not even funny.
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
Well, I’m not so sure about that. The commissioner of any league is the employee of the league, which is usually run by the owners anyway.
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
Personally, I never had to think about who ran the league. I guess because it was affecting my chosen team, I couldn’t avoid their presence. I do love hockey, and I want to see it grow and succeed. But with this embarassing show of ineptitude by the league powers, you have to question the future of the leaugue. I said it before…..the way they handled this whole affair made the league look like a luaghing stock.
Commissioners are not technically looking out for “the best interests of the league”. If that were the case, they wouldn’t be hired and paid by the owners. Rather, the commissioner is the head honcho for the owners, the same way you have Donald Fehr or someone as head of the union.
A true “commissioner” in the sense that you’re looking for it would have to be hired by some neutral party and paid by them. Considering how little luck most sports leagues have in getting peace between the union and ownership, good luck in getting them to agree on a third party and accepting that verdict.
In the old, old, old days, the commissioner of baseball was named by the President of the United States.
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
In the old, old, old days, politics weren’t as nasty as they are now. In the old, old, old days, the major sports leagues (outside the NHL) were confined solely to the United States. In the old, old, old days, your entire player base was American (North American, in hockey’s case) — now baseball has a lot of players from Latin America, while hockey and basketball have imported a slew of Europeans.
Not only would you have a political hand grenade trying to appoint a “baseball czar” (or hockey, or basketball, or football), but I think the Canadians might have something to say about it as well. I don’t think they’d take too kindly to an American political appointee when they have teams and an interest in said sports.
Fair enough
But let’s end this digression here. The points are made.
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 Sep 4, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Punishment Boat powered by NHL Bitterness
That would be the U.S.S. Petulance, correct?
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Can someone clarify amendment 2?
If the salary in year 36-39 drops below $1 million, is the cap hit is $1 million regardless? If the salary is above $1 million does it revert to the AAV or is it the actual value that year? And how does that $1 million affect the rest of the contract?
I’m confused.
Sorry let me clarify
In 36-39 a contract below $1 million is $1 million for the purpose of calculating the cap hit? But if it’s over $1 million is it $1 million or the actual value?
From the NHL article. Here's their example:
For example, Savard’s contract reportedly calls for him to make $525,000 per season in the final two years of his seven-year, $28 million deal. He will be 38 and 39 in those seasons. If his contract was subject to these new regulations, for purposes of calculating the salary cap the final two years on his deal will reflect as if he was making $1 million. That would make his reported $4 million cap hit go up to $4.14 million.
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 Sep 4, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
The club and player still can agree to a contract that pays a player less than $1 million when he is at those ages, but for salary-cap purposes the number applied to the team’s annual average salary will be $1 million.
So it only implies to contracts that only have salaries of less than $1 millions (i.e. Kovy’s first contract) when the player is 36-39 years old. It also needs to be 5 or more year contract where the 3 highest salary years average over $5.75m.
Few things to add:
- In Marc Savard’s new contract , his salary drops from $5 million in 2013-2014 to $1.5m in 2014-2015. Isn’t this not allowed?
- The first amendment is for players who turn 41 during the season and on. The second concerns players turning 36 to 39 during the season. What about at age 40? If Savard had an extra year on his contract at $525k, it wouldn’t be under either rule. It would drop his cap hit per season from $4.14m to $3.691m, if it was under the new system of course.
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 Sep 4, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
In Marc Savard’s new contract , his salary drops from $5 million in 2013-2014 to $1.5m in 2014-2015. Isn’t this not allowed?
It would be allowed, the first 2 seasons of the new contract average $7M, 50% of that is $3.5M, so that’s the maximum decrease allowable.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
E.J. Hradek tweets that there’s still no-trade and no-movement clauses in the revised Kovy deal. Just none of that one-year-window garbage that the arbitrator picked on in his rejection.
kovahchuk saga
Anyone who thinks Captain Lou, or "Slick Louie " as I now like to call him, didn"t ochestrate this whole thing , probably still believes in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.

by 













