NHL vs NHLPA (Kovalchuk) - who wins

[ELYEAH82]

Ever get the feeling you are invisible in a thread?

 

[puckhead]

I wanted to vote on the fence but that is the pussy way out of not taking a stand.
Hey my first swear word (sort of) in a thread.

hey.... did you just call me a pussy

put 'em up, put 'em uupp

 

[HonusWagner66]

Have you ever negotiated a contract? I have from both sides, union and management. It's damn near impossible to cover all of the angles. There is a time where ethics come into play and this is an obvious "Ha I found a loop hole" is that the way we want major sports leagues run?

When you agree upon a contract, you accept the angles you had to compromise on. When the other side uses those angles, you can't go back and say "no you can't do that." If the NHL didn't want teams doing this, they should have put it in the CBA. They can't say it's fine by the CBA but then go punish teams for doing it later anyway. That more bullshit than the GMs actually making the outrageous contracts. And every major sports team has been looking for and finding loopholes to get an advantage since the beginning of competition. It's nothing new and it certainly isn't going to stop with a new CBA. With new rules teams will just fine new ways around the rules for an advantage.

 

[ELYEAH82]

If the CBA says a contract can be voided for intentionally circumventing the contract then they are within their rights to call bullshit on this one. It is not a NEW rule if that is in the CBA.

 

[HonusWagner66]

If the CBA says a contract can be voided for intentionally circumventing the contract then they are within their rights to call bullshit on this one. It is not a NEW rule if that is in the CBA.

The contract does not circumvent the CBA though. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the CBA that says teams can't give out lengthy, front-loaded contracts. That's black and white. The league didn't feel the need to put restrictions on the drop-off in salary over the years of a contract -- which they should have -- and now teams are taking advantage of that. The NHL can't penalize teams for not breaking any rules stated in the CBA.

 

[puckhead]

If the CBA says a contract can be voided for intentionally circumventing the contract then they are within their rights to call bullshit on this one. It is not a NEW rule if that is in the CBA.

The contract does not circumvent the CBA though. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the CBA that says teams can't give out lengthy, front-loaded contracts. That's black and white. The league didn't feel the need to put restrictions on the drop-off in salary over the years of a contract -- which they should have -- and now teams are taking advantage of that. The NHL can't penalize teams for not breaking any rules stated in the CBA.

and now you know why I'm smack dab on the fence.

 

[HonusWagner66]

And the NHL has no basis for rejecting Kovalchuk's deal after not rejecting Hossa's.

Hossa gets paid about 94% of his salary over the first 2/3 of his deal.

Kovalchuk gets about 96% or salary over the first 2/3 of his deal.

Not THAT much of a difference. It amounts to taking just $2 million off the first 11 years and spreading it over the remaining six.

 

[HonusWagner66]

and now you know why I'm smack dab on the fence.

I'm on the fence in that I think the deal should ideally be rejected. It's stupid. But I don't think the NHL has the right to do so in the real world. It's their fault they allowed this to happen, now the must suffer until the new CBA comes around and they can put in some type of salary drop-off restriction or something.

 

[ELYEAH82]

The contract does not circumvent the INTENT CBA though. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the CBA that says teams can't give out lengthy, front-loaded contracts. That's black and white. The league didn't feel the need to put restrictions on the drop-off in salary over the years of a contract -- which they should have -- and now teams are taking advantage of that. The NHL can't penalize teams for not breaking any rules stated in the CBA.

You left a word out of the NHL's argument.

 

[Destroydacre]

I'm on the fence in that I think the deal should ideally be rejected. It's stupid. But I don't think the NHL has the right to do so in the real world. It's their fault they allowed this to happen, now the must suffer until the new CBA comes around and they can put in some type of salary drop-off restriction or something.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

[ELYEAH82]

And the NHL has no basis for rejecting Kovalchuk's deal after not rejecting Hossa's.

Hossa gets paid about 94% of his salary over the first 2/3 of his deal.

Kovalchuk gets about 96% or salary over the first 2/3 of his deal.

Not THAT much of a difference. It amounts to taking just $2 million off the first 11 years and spreading it over the remaining six.

One is WAY longer than the other and almost TWICE as much money. These 2 are not even close to being equal deals. Please tell me you can atleast acknowledge that fact.

 

[HonusWagner66]

You left a word out of the NHL's argument.

National Hockey League Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly today issued the following statement regarding the free agent contract forward Ilya Kovalchuk signed with the New Jersey Devils: "The contract has been rejected by the League as a circumvention of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Under the CBA, the contract rejection triggers a number of possible next steps that may be elected by any or each of the NHLPA, the Player and/or the Club. In the interim, the player is not entitled to play under the contract, nor is he entitled to any of the rights and benefits that are provided for thereunder. The League will have no further comment on this matter pending further developments."

Don't see the word intent in there. Even so that's still a poor argument. You gotta go by what is specifically stated in a contract. Not what you think it's theoretical intent is. There are no restrictions in the CBA. The NHL can't just decide to enforce agreements that don't exist when they please, especially after allowing numerous other instances of the same nature to go through. Gary's just mad because Lou ignored his threat about front-loaded deals.

 

[ELYEAH82]

One is WAY longer than the other and almost TWICE as much money. These 2 are not even close to being equal deals. Please tell me you can atleast acknowledge that fact.

So you can't admit these deals are far from being the same?

 

[HonusWagner66]

One is WAY longer than the other and almost TWICE as much money. These 2 are not even close to being equal deals. Please tell me you can atleast acknowledge that fact.

Statistically they are. Can't argue with numbers. Hossa and Kovy's deal are broken down into basically the same payment plan. $95% of salary over the first 2/3 of the deal. How can you argue Kovalchuk's deal is too front loaded when it is the same breakdown as a contract that was approved by the league? You can't.

The fact Kovy's deal is longer isn't really an issue seeing as there is no term limit in the CBA. The fact he is younger is a good argument for the extra years as well. And his superior statistics can explain the slightly higher annual salary/cap hit.

 

[HonusWagner66]

I do agree that Kovalchuk's deal is a joke though.

 

[ELYEAH82]

So then you would be OK with 30 year deal as long as the %'s match up to these deals? Seriously???

 

[HonusWagner66]

So then you would be OK with 30 year deal as long as the %'s match up to these deals? Seriously???

And a 30 year deal takes a player well out of a reasonable playing age, unlike both Hossa and Kovalchuk's. So the NHL would have that to argue against it. The league has seen players play until their mid-40s, so the length is still plausible under both Hossa and Kovy's deals.

 

[Destroydacre]

And a 30 year deal takes a player well out of a reasonable playing age, unlike both Hossa and Kovalchuk's. So the NHL would have that to argue against it. The league has seen players play until their mid-40s, so the length is still plausible under both Hossa and Kovy's deals.

Not to mention no one is going to pay a player an average of $8M-$9M per for 20 years to begin with.

 

[HonusWagner66]

And I'm not okay with a 12 or 17 year deal with those percentages, so no I wouldn't be okay with a 30 year deal like that. But yeah, if a team wants to give out a 30 year deal, as long as it doesn't violate the CBA who says they can't? Luckily I really doubt that's gonna happen.

 

[HonusWagner66]

Not to mention no one is going to pay a player an average of $8M-$9M per for 20 years to begin with.

Yeah, I was more inclined to debating things that are actually happening/possibly could happen. No GM is going to give out a 30 year deal. Not unless someone hires Milbury.