League may reject latest Kovy deal

[davnlaguna]

rumor is there is a no movement clause throughout this entire deal. meaning the only way he comes off the books is if he retires. and there are several contracts under investigation that the players in question are under contract til 42.
i'm not saying this deal should be accepted. but you reject it and you have to back up your reasoning on those other deals.

He can waive his no movement clause and then he would come off the books. It gives Kovy the choice of being bought out (I don't know how that affects the cap and I am too lazy to look it up now) or going to a place of his choosing.

There are several players' contract under investigation. None of the deals are for as many years. Hossa's is the worst of them in my mind. Pronger's would be pretty bad if it had worked. I think that the NHL just wants this to go away. If they have to fine the Devils then they may be forced to fine everybody. The problem is they have already won in arbitration once against the Devils, so they can fine them any time now. They would have to take the other deals to arbitration or have the NHLPA say they won't fight a fine.

Like I said; age, length of contract and structure of the deal are all taken into account. It it not just that he will be 42 or that the deal is 15 years or even the dollar amounts (however I think that is the biggest reason in this contract) , it is all of these combined. we will find soon if this gets rejected, and if the NHLPA will fight it soon after that.

 

[devs30rko]

i'm not disputing that at all. but the CBA even mentions the word precedent. as far as age is concerned, while those contracts such as hossa lou and pronger, may be under investigation, precedent says that 42 is the cutoff on age. i'm not saying its right or wrong. but even with the investigation, until they do something about those contracts (which i highly doubt they are going to) at least til the cba or they win another case in arbitration thats younger, you can make a good case that 42 is the precedent for age 'limit'

and don't kid yourself the structure is dramatically different compared to the first deal

i know i'm beign a big homer here but i also know i'm making a strong case for it...

i don't doubt for a second however that part of the reason the nhl is using its full 5 days is deciding 'if we reject this and it goes to arbitration again, do we win?'

cause remember, if they go to arbitration again and happen to lose, they lose all that power they just gained.

 

[davnlaguna]

The contract is different but not by much

There is a strong argument this contract is made to be broken at year 11.
The no movement/ no trade clause may be different, but that is not the contracts most glaring weakness. It was a toss in on the last case.

I think instead of that bump at the end the Devils could have hidden the breaking point better by tapering the tail more slowly by putting the 7 mil closer to year 11-12

I think the Devils were forced to try something because they have invested so much into the Kovy angle that they needed to him signed. I think Kovy was unwilling to budge on his demands of 90 mil in 10 years and this was an attempt to hide that.

5 pm today I new chapter will begin. Will it have Kovy as a Devil with a registered contract (under review) or will the contract be rejected and new twists and turns await?

I agree that part of the delay is can the NHL win again? I also think/hope that the NHL is trying to work with the Devils to tweek this contract so that they don't have to reject it.
If they don't go to arbitration again they have already lost.

 

[puckhead]

I would be OK with this being accepted, though largely just to have the freakin' saga over with.

the biggest complaint most of us had was the miniscule tail at the end. I think my first reaction was "well, if you are going to play the last years of the deal prove it by moving money to the back years". he's done that to the tune of $6m (difference). Is that enough of a gesture? at this point I don't care.

if NHL doesn't have to close the 'investigation' of these contracts, then maybe they can penalize the devils with cap space / picks if and when Kovalchuk (inevitably) retires at year 11.

I did think there was a rule that the salary couldn't drop by 50% in any year, but there may be other details to that rule that I am not aware of, and it's a minor point anyways.

 

[devs30rko]

no the rule is over the contracts first two years, whatever the salary is for those years, 50% of that is the max drop off, so in this case it would be 3 mil a year, which both contracts comply with.
i don't believe the dropp off is that much of a problem it hasn't been with many other contracts before this, while i acknowledge that none of those paid close to 12 mil either. however, it follows the cba's rules and they wanted to get rid of the obviously bogus years at the end. well now you have 7 mil in the last 2 years and 10 in the last five, 10 mil is hard to claim its FLAT OUT bogus, esp when you have contracts to span to that age, there is a NMC and he never makes less than 1 mil, which in all the other contracts 'under investigation' that happens.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

That would be a cap hit of around 6.6 million. These contracts need to end. I hope the league rejects it. Come the next CBA the league should demand that every contract is dollar for dollar against the cap.

 

[davnlaguna]

I don't think the deal that has been leaked is the deal the league will accepted. I am holding the belief that the league and the Devils will work out something.

While there are some changes, I don't think they are enough to let the league accept them. At least one owner has already said that this is a bogus contract. (off the record, I am guessing it was Burke). Going from 12 mil to 1 mil is a big sticking point. I think the league will see this as a 10 year deal and reject it. But I would not be surprised if they just did nothing and let it get registered by default. Then put it under investigation and give the Devils some other fine.

 

[dash]

Larry Brooks (yeah I know) is reporting the following:

A well placed source reports that the league has informed the Players' Assn. that the league will grandfather the recently submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100M contract, Luongo's 12-year, $64M deal that is entering its second season and Hossa's 12-year, $63.3M deal that also is entering its second season into the CBA under the following conditions:
1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.
2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary.


The league has given the PA, which is being directed by Donald Fehr, until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses, or if negotiations fail to yield a common ground, the league has informed the PA that:
1. It will reject the Kovalchuk contract.
2. It will move to immediately devoid the Luongo contract.
3. It will move to immediately open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract.

NHL gives Players Assn. ultimatum on Kovalchuk, Luongo, Hossa - NYPOST.com

 

[dash]

If the above report is true, Bettman is certainly playing hardball...

 

[elocomotive]

Let me field this one...

2010-11: $6 million <<< 10-12 We're taking our last gasp at the Cup
in the Brodeur era
2011-12: $6 million

2012-13: $11 million <<< Rebuilding time, probably gone suck a little

2013-14: $11.3 million

2014-15: $11.3 million <<< Hope Kovy's scoring like 50 goals/season
to get some butts in the seats
2015-16: $11.6 million

2016-17: $11.8 million

2017-18: $10 million

2018-19: $7 million <<< And now we can trade him mid-season

2020-21: $4 million <<<< Or get great value

2021-22: $1 million <<<< Nice role player vet (probably below
league minimum at this point)
2022-23: $1 million

2023-24: $1 million

2024-25: $3 million <<<<< And he somehow improves in his early 40s

2025-26: $4 million <<<< There, can you pass this now, NHL? PLEASE!!!

 

[elocomotive]

You know a great addendum to the rule that would solve all this...

The salary for a player in a multi-year deal longer than 3 years can never be less than 1/2 of the average of the 3 highest paid years in the contract.

 

[davnlaguna]

Larry Brooks (yeah I know) is reporting the following:

A well placed source reports that the league has informed the Players' Assn. that the league will grandfather the recently submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100M contract, Luongo's 12-year, $64M deal that is entering its second season and Hossa's 12-year, $63.3M deal that also is entering its second season into the CBA under the following conditions:
1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.
2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary.


The league has given the PA, which is being directed by Donald Fehr, until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses, or if negotiations fail to yield a common ground, the league has informed the PA that:
1. It will reject the Kovalchuk contract.
2. It will move to immediately devoid the Luongo contract.
3. It will move to immediately open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract.

NHL gives Players Assn. ultimatum on Kovalchuk, Luongo, Hossa - NYPOST.com

Can the NHLPA agree to this without a vote? Thsi weekend (in the US) is a holiday so getting players in the summer is hard, on a three day weekend on short notice, impossible.

And they should void the Pronger contract as well. I know that is really a mistake because the cap hit doesn't go away when he retires, but anything to piss off Pronger is ok by me.

For two months now my work has been getting less than my best because I am checking google news every hour. This has to come to an end soon.

On the other hand I kind of hope they void them all. This off season has many a hockey fan and part time lawyer involved on a daily basis.

 

[mattola]

Luongos contract is only in its first season. it hasnt paid a penny yet. local news in Vancouver thinks he may be voided tomorrow.

 

[mattola]

if luongo, hossa and savard get voided after they were "approved" I dont care they have been investigating them for a year they were approved and the teams allowed to make other plans around those contracts. then I would actually support a player walkout (not saying it would happen but I would be all over that)

 

[dash]

Luongos contract is only in its first season. it hasnt paid a penny yet. local news in Vancouver thinks he may be voided tomorrow.

The funny thing is that if Luongo's contract was voided, it well could be a blessing in disguise for the Canucks.

 

[mattola]

The funny thing is that if Luongo's contract was voided, it well could be a blessing in disguise for the Canucks.

for the long term maybe. but that would leave us with

1 - dumping 2 or 3 players to sign him to a higher deal which effectively loses all our depth we signed this summer
2 - dumping lou outright and going with Corey "Untested" Schneider
3 - picking up a junk goalie on the market with Corey splitting duties

I would rather go with status quo

 

[dash]

Can the NHLPA agree to this without a vote? Thsi weekend (in the US) is a holiday so getting players in the summer is hard, on a three day weekend on short notice, impossible.

They could probably get the 30 team reps via conference call hookup to give a yay/nay. If this Brooks report is true, we're talking fundamental changes to the CBA, this is something usually reserved for the CFL.

 

[dash]

Now TSN is reporting that no ultimatum has been issued...As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Source: No ultimatum issued by NHL in Kovalchuk contract saga

 

[puckhead]

They could probably get the 30 team reps via conference call hookup to give a yay/nay. If this Brooks report is true, we're talking fundamental changes to the CBA, this is something usually reserved for the CFL.

that's a pretty big assumption
considering he got the 'fact' that Luongo's deal is i its second year wrong from the outset (it hasn't started yet)

edit... your link beat me to the punch

 

[Slimpikins]

for the long term maybe. but that would leave us with

1 - dumping 2 or 3 players to sign him to a higher deal which effectively loses all our depth we signed this summer
2 - dumping lou outright and going with Corey "Untested" Schneider
3 - picking up a junk goalie on the market with Corey splitting duties

I would rather go with status quo

Griess + spare parts for Elder, problem solved plus we'd be even for the Ehrhoff debacle.