lol - NHL rejects Kovalchuk contract

[Dupster]

I think the problem the NHL has is that after 12/17 years Ilya can either retire or bolt to Russia which means the Devils never came close to paying the correct cap hit in any of those 12 seasons.

 

[awaz]

I havent read the entire thread but who else has their tin foil hat on for this one?

Lou Lamoriello was integral in constructing the salary cap cba as we know it. And as puckdaddy says ... "And interestingly enough, Gulitti points out that that New Jersey's VP of Hockey Ops, Steve Pellegrini, worked for the NHL as their "cap regulator," meaning that he understands everything there is to know about the CBA"

Devils management knows the ins and outs of the cap so why would they draw up a deal that they knew wouldnt pass with the league office. Was it just because other teams have done similar contracts and they thought they could get away with it?

or

was new jersey management never in favour of signing Kovi for that kind of money and were pressured by owner Jeff Vanderbeek who desperately needs a marquis name to put people in seats and potentially draw the attention of a certain russian billionaire who owns another current New Jersey based sports franchise and who may want to pony up and come in as a co-owner now that the team has a star russian player

so did Lamoriello sabotage the deal ?

Lamoriello said he "absolutely" rolled his eyes when the Islanders signed Rick DiPietro(notes) to a 15-year contract in 2006 and when Washington signed Alex Ovechkin(notes) to a 13-year contract in 2008. He also said he "absolutely" rolled his eyes about the Kovalchuk's contract terms.

So why would he sign Kovalchuk to such a deal?

"You'd have to speak to ownership about that," Lamoriello said. "The commitment that ownership has made here, this is a commitment and a decision they wanted to make for this type of a player and all I can do is say whether the player is a player that will fit into the team, can help the team and is not a risk as a player. As far as what the financial commitment is and that aspect of it, that was out of my hands."

it kind of seems like he did.. ESPN is saying the devils knew the NHL would reject the contract.. so in my mind thats (^) the only reason they would've done this.. why else would they work up, and sign, a contract they knew would be voided? to get other 'dominoes' to fall? doesn't make much sense to me

 

[jstewismybastardson]

it kind of seems like he did.. ESPN is saying the devils knew the NHL would reject the contract.. so in my mind thats (^) the only reason they would've done this.. why else would they work up, and sign, a contract they knew would be voided? to get other 'dominoes' to fall? doesn't make much sense to me

Cinder block head Kypreos tweeted that the NHL told the devils to hold off on the press conference yesterday morning before it happened ... yet they still went ahead with it

btw ... since when does Lamoriello hold this type of flashy press conference

the more i think of it and the more my tin foil hat gets tighter, Lamoriello has always been a league guy. What better time than now (when the NHLPA has no leader) for the league using Lamoriello as its conduit to manufacture a dog and pony show and pretty much close this retirement style cba contract loophole

and now word that the devils arent going to appeal the NHL decision ... surprise!!! lol

 

[BOSSMANPC]

Kudos to the NHL. This was an obvious attempt to circumvent the salary cap process.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

There's a big difference between the Kovalchuk & Dipietro deals. Dipietro will get 4.5 million per year for the entire contract. The Kovalchuk contract was cheating the cap system. I'm glad the NHL made this decision. The only downside is the saga continues.

 

[scottflyers88]

for everybody saying this is legal needs to know that the nhl has the right to review every contract. a player is not entitled to any contract they want and sign.

 

[Destroydacre]

Good for the NHL. On one hand, I kind of wanted to see this play out because I think NJ would have been screwed later on. But I would rather them put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.

And those of you arguing that all cap circumvention is the same are insane. Obviously, there are degrees of it. Adding one year at a million at the end of a player's contract that your pretty sure he won't play is cap circumvention, but it's stupid to argue that that's the same as adding five years at league minimum. And there is a huge difference between the ages of 42 and 44. Enough players are still playing at 40-42 for those ages to be arguable. But 44?

If you sign a player to a long contract to get a lower cap hit, then your intent to circumvent the cap was there. It is the same, regardless of what the cap hits actually are.

 

[davnlaguna]

I think why this one is different is because it was so blatant.
Never has a 17 year deal been done.
Never has a player gone from making the max to making the minimum
And the amount of time at the max and the amount at/near the minimum is really fishy.

 

[TOX1]

I really like this hockey board.

There is no other board out there with this many knowledgeable and well versed posters. I learn something from someone almost everyday here.

Thank you.


< End of interruption -- please carry on >

 

[IPostedWhat]

I really like this hockey board.

There is no other board out there with this many knowledgeable and well versed posters. I learn something from someone almost everyday here.

Thank you.


< End of interruption -- please carry on >

 

[TOX1]

hahaha

I swear to god....you must be my younger brother!! His/yours humor is identical.

 

[IPostedWhat]

I swear to god....you must be my younger brother!! His/yours humor is identical.

Your younger brother is a Horse, that has a heroin addiction, and may or may not fight crime at night?

What are the odds?

 

[IPostedWhat]

^^^^^^Rhetorical question btw.

 

[pixburgher66]

I really like this hockey board.

There is no other board out there with this many knowledgeable and well versed posters. I learn something from someone almost everyday here.

Thank you.


< End of interruption -- please carry on >

*sniffle* i love this board so much. let us all take a moment to reminisce. okay....moment over and back to the promised land.

 

[TOX1]

Your younger brother is a Horse, that has a heroin addiction, and may or may not fight crime at night?

Well....he is an attention whore, so that's close enough.

 

[TOX1]

*sniffle* i love this board so much. let us all take a moment to reminisce. okay....moment over and back to the promised land.

Except for the sobing, that pretty much summed it up.

 

[IPostedWhat]

Well....he is an attention whore, so that's close enough.

Well, then it's not me.

 

[loki604]

If you sign a player to a long contract to get a lower cap hit, then your intent to circumvent the cap was there. It is the same, regardless of what the cap hits actually are.

Okay then, why not lock Kovy up for 50 years? After all, if one contract is circumvention and is allowed then they are all the same. Lou should have given him a $2 million cap hit. Any line you draw is just as arbitrary as the one the NHL is drawing. Obviously, we all wish they would have done it sooner, but what are they supposed to do now? Let everything slide? Shero, extend Sid for 75 years at a $1.5 million cap hit. Hossa did it!

 

[CatScrap]

First off, I don't think that NJ was in bed with the NHL in trying to make this a big spectacle and draw attention to a loophole that we all know needs fixed. First, that is a waste of NJ time, resources, and money. Plus, NJ honestly wanted Kovy to sign.

Secondly, although I agree whole heartedly this contract was designed from top to bottom to circumnavigate the cap, the NHL has absolutely no ground to stand on to deny this. I agree that it is much much more extreme of a cap dodge than previous contracts that have been signed, but the pressidence, sorry about bad spelling, is there.

This isn't the correct way to fix the problem anyways. Giving the Commish the authority to decide whether a contract in void or good based on his own opinion leaves another problem open, POLITICS. If one man can have the power, based on his own judgement and no sound numbers or rules, to decide whether a contract is going to be accepted or denied, don't you think teams will begin catering to this man? This will create a whole other set of problems that would probably end up being worse than the loophole we have now.

The correct way to fix this would have been in the negotiations for the new CBA. Add a few clauses in there to fix this problem. As other posters have added perhaps you make it so that any player under the age of 35 cannot be signed to a contract that would have him signed past the age of 40.

I think the way to fix this problem isn't by some complex mathematics or new way to determine the cap hit per season, ie a rolling cap hit, but instead, as other posters have mentioned, put a limit on the age that a player can be at the end of a multi-year deal that he signs before a certain age.

Let's review a rule already in place. If you are a player and you sign a contract after you turn 35 every single year of your contract, whether you retire or not, will be counted against the team who signed you's cap. Ie: If Pronger retires this summer the Philly would be on the hook for the remainder of his contract and still have it count against the cap. For further discussion, we will call this the Veteran Clause.

One way to amend this rule, and still have a hope that the NHLPA would go along with it, would be to increase the age of the Veteran Clause to 40. In addition to doing this, create a new rule in the CBA which makes the max age a player under 40 can be at the end of a new multi-year contract be 40. By doing this, any multi-year deal a player signs will completely count against the salary cap. The only problems with this that you might come into are players retiring early.

I think this would be a proper way to accomplish closing the loophole in the CBA while at the same time keeping the NHLPA happy. You increase the Veteran Clause age, and in return, insure that whenever the offseason starts and a player is 40 he will be an UFA and be held under the new 40 year Veteran Clause. It's fair, and makes sense.

 

[loki604]

First off, I don't think that NJ was in bed with the NHL in trying to make this a big spectacle and draw attention to a loophole that we all know needs fixed. First, that is a waste of NJ time, resources, and money. Plus, NJ honestly wanted Kovy to sign.

Secondly, although I agree whole heartedly this contract was designed from top to bottom to circumnavigate the cap, the NHL has absolutely no ground to stand on to deny this. I agree that it is much much more extreme of a cap dodge than previous contracts that have been signed, but the pressidence, sorry about bad spelling, is there.

This isn't the correct way to fix the problem anyways. Giving the Commish the authority to decide whether a contract in void or good based on his own opinion leaves another problem open, POLITICS. If one man can have the power, based on his own judgement and no sound numbers or rules, to decide whether a contract is going to be accepted or denied, don't you think teams will begin catering to this man? This will create a whole other set of problems that would probably end up being worse than the loophole we have now.

The correct way to fix this would have been in the negotiations for the new CBA. Add a few clauses in there to fix this problem. As other posters have added perhaps you make it so that any player under the age of 35 cannot be signed to a contract that would have him signed past the age of 40.

I think the way to fix this problem isn't by some complex mathematics or new way to determine the cap hit per season, ie a rolling cap hit, but instead, as other posters have mentioned, put a limit on the age that a player can be at the end of a multi-year deal that he signs before a certain age.

Let's review a rule already in place. If you are a player and you sign a contract after you turn 35 every single year of your contract, whether you retire or not, will be counted against the team who signed you's cap. Ie: If Pronger retires this summer the Philly would be on the hook for the remainder of his contract and still have it count against the cap. For further discussion, we will call this the Veteran Clause.

One way to amend this rule, and still have a hope that the NHLPA would go along with it, would be to increase the age of the Veteran Clause to 40. In addition to doing this, create a new rule in the CBA which makes the max age a player under 40 can be at the end of a new multi-year contract be 40. By doing this, any multi-year deal a player signs will completely count against the salary cap. The only problems with this that you might come into are players retiring early.

I think this would be a proper way to accomplish closing the loophole in the CBA while at the same time keeping the NHLPA happy. You increase the Veteran Clause age, and in return, insure that whenever the offseason starts and a player is 40 he will be an UFA and be held under the new 40 year Veteran Clause. It's fair, and makes sense.

I don't get people that say the NHL should be fair to everyone. This obviously crossed a line. Most people admit that, but how could they do nothing now and just wait for the CBA? They have another FA period next year to get through. Obviously my example of 75 years was extreme, but if they don't stop at 44 years old, why not 48, 50? You HAVE to draw a line somewhere. Just because they made a mistake in not addressing this directly in the CBA doesn't mean they should turn the other way and let people fuck up what we all lost a season for.