NHL vs NHLPA (Kovalchuk) - who wins

[puckhead]

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.

Do not underestimate Charles Wang.
Tavares is an RFA in 2 more years, and will only be 21.
add 30 to that and, well.... Howe played until 52, didn't he?

of course, with the Isles living under the cap floor,
they might back-end the large dollars to make the cap hit higher! :p

 

[ELYEAH82]

Well I think most would have said a 17 year deal is absurd a few weeks ago. But here we are.

 

[juliansteed]

I have always despised these contracts and felt they totally defeat the purpose of the salary cap. But the CBA seems pretty vague as it relates to these situations. If this was the first deal of its sort being disputed I might be inclined to side with the NHL, or at the very least be on the fence. But they've been allowing these types of contracts for 3-4 years now. Of course it was only a matter of time before they became extreme. Kovalchuk and the Devils didn't make these rules. They are simply following a precedent that has already been set. "Dont hate the player. Hate the game!"

I hope going forward they get rid of these one way or another. But for now, it is what it is and the NHL messed up first with the wording, and then again by not trying to resolve the situation right away. I like the intent of the cap but I think there are a few things about it that need to be tweaked to better serve the NHL, the NHLPA, and the fans.

 

[HonusWagner66]

I have always despised these contracts and felt they totally defeat the purpose of the salary cap. But the CBA seems pretty vague as it relates to these situations. If this was the first deal of its sort being disputed I might be inclined to side with the NHL, or at the very least be on the fence. But they've been allowing these types of contracts for 3-4 years now. Of course it was only a matter of time before they became extreme. Kovalchuk and the Devils didn't make these rules. They are simply following a precedent that has already been set. "Dont hate the player. Hate the game!"

I hope going forward they get rid of these one way or another. But for now, it is what it is and the NHL messed up first with the wording, and then again by not trying to resolve the situation right away. I like the intent of the cap but I think there are a few things about it that need to be tweaked to better serve the NHL, the NHLPA, and the fans.

Well said.

 

[ELYEAH82]

I have always despised these contracts and felt they totally defeat the purpose of the salary cap. But the CBA seems pretty vague as it relates to these situations. If this was the first deal of its sort being disputed I might be inclined to side with the NHL, or at the very least be on the fence. But they've been allowing these types of contracts for 3-4 years now. Of course it was only a matter of time before they became extreme. Kovalchuk and the Devils didn't make these rules. They are simply following a precedent that has already been set. "Dont hate the player. Hate the game!"

I hope going forward they get rid of these one way or another. But for now, it is what it is and the NHL messed up first with the wording, and then again by not trying to resolve the situation right away. I like the intent of the cap but I think there are a few things about it that need to be tweaked to better serve the NHL, the NHLPA, and the fans.

I dont disagree they should have done something earlier. But to stay with the status quo is not going to do anything but hurt the fans and the game.

 

[HonusWagner66]

The NHL and NHLPA have a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The league can't decide to change the CBA's rules without the NHLPA's consent. No matter what. That defeats the purpose of the CBA.

 

[puckhead]

The NHL and NHLPA have a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The league can't decide to change the CBA's rules without the NHLPA's consent. No matter what. That defeats the purpose of the CBA.

another issue keeping me on the fence is that the wording in that agreement in the sections pertaining to circumventions is so very vague, that it makes it hard to argue for/against such specifics as 'the letter of the law'. The letter of the law doesn't really provide us with a sufficient answer.

to be more precise, there is language that discusses not allowing contracts that have the intent to circumvent the cap, but it absolutely does not define what constitutes circumvention.

which is why this discussion is getting a bit circular.

 

[juliansteed]

I dont disagree they should have done something earlier. But to stay with the status quo is not going to do anything but hurt the fans and the game.

Nor do I disagree with you. I think we are just looking at the question from 2 different perspectives, neither one necessarily being right or wrong. I'm thinking about the legality of the situation, whereas you are thinking about what's best for the game.

I think there are other problems with the cap that should be addressed that could benefit everyone as well. In the interest of not straying too far off topic I'll just leave it at that.

 

[ELYEAH82]

The NHL and NHLPA have a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The league can't decide to change the CBA's rules without the NHLPA's consent. No matter what. That defeats the purpose of the CBA.

Are you a broken record. We get it I agree, but in the end it will hurt fans. The fact that the league is attempting to stop it is a good thing. If they are using terms in the cba for circumventing the intent then I applaud them for getting rid of shit contracts and I hope it works. As should every other fan of hockey.

 

[HonusWagner66]

Are you a broken record. We get it I agree, but in the end it will hurt fans. The fact that the league is attempting to stop it is a good thing. If they are using terms in the cba for circumventing the intent then I applaud them for getting rid of shit contracts and I hope it works. As should every other fan of hockey.

Whether or not it hurts the fans is both debatable and not an issue. The CBA is between the NHL and the NHLPA. Fans don't have a say in it. It sounds harsh towards the people putting money in the pockets of the league and the players, but it's the truth. The NHLPA has to do what's best for them. Any hurting of the fans doesn't change the fact that the NHL doesn't have the right to change the CBA without the NHLPA's consent. Regardless of how many times you say it hurts the fans, it doesn't matter.

 

[juliansteed]

Whether or not it hurts the fans is both debatable and not an issue. The CBA is between the NHL and the NHLPA. Fans don't have a say in it. It sounds harsh towards the people putting money in the pockets of the league and the players, but it's the truth. The NHLPA has to do what's best for them. Any hurting of the fans doesn't change the fact that the NHL doesn't have the right to change the CBA without the NHLPA's consent. Regardless of how many times you say it hurts the fans, it doesn't matter.

Agreed. In theory, what's best for the fans should ultimately be best for both the NHL and the NHLPA but that is long-term. The problem is nobody ever wants to think about the whole picture over the long-run. They only care about their own immediate interests. If for no other reason than because that's what everyone else is doing.

 

[HonusWagner66]

And if you could elaborate on the "broken record" line, I'd appreciate it. No idea where that came from.

Edit: If you want I'll go through each of my posts in this thread and explain how each are different. Most people can probably pick up on the differences on their own, but hey... if it's needed...

 

[ELYEAH82]

And if you could elaborate on the "broken record" line, I'd appreciate it. No idea where that came from.

(Broken record comment) You keep saying things like they areed and they can't change it. If they are using a stipulation that is already in the CBA then they are not changing anything. And yes I am of the opinion (as are most) that this deal is not the same as previous deals and takes it to a whole new level.

 

[HonusWagner66]

(Broken record comment) You keep saying things like they areed and they can't change it. If they are using a stipulation that is already in the CBA then they are not changing anything. And yes I am of the opinion (as are most) that this deal is not the same as previous deals and takes it to a whole new level.

They would be changing the CBA by penalizing a team that hasn't broken any rules in the CBA. There are no restrictions on contract length or salary drop-off in the CBA. Thus penalizing a team because of that would be changing the CBA. It would be putting a restriction on contract length and salary drop-off. That's a change.

And as are most? Look at the poll results at the top of the page. Looks like more people are siding with the NHLPA on this one, to me...

 

[ELYEAH82]

They would be changing the CBA by penalizing a team that hasn't broken any rules in the CBA. There are no restrictions on contract length or salary drop-off in the CBA. Thus penalizing a team because of that would be changing the CBA. It would be putting a restriction on contract length and salary drop-off. That's a change.

And as are most? Look at the poll results at the top of the page. Looks like more people are siding with the NHLPA on this one, to me...

I see 18 either side with the NHL or want him to go to the KHL. What do you see on your screen?

 

[ELYEAH82]

I guess we will all see how it plays out sooner or later. I can assume the league has some ground to stand on or this would not have happened.

 

[ELYEAH82]

I'm an idiot and clicked the wrong button in the poll.

And one guy who clicked the wrong button...

 

[HonusWagner66]

I see 18 either side with the NHL or want him to go to the KHL. What do you see on your screen?

I see 13 for the NHLPA and 8 for the NHL. I don't think you can take votes from another category and chock it up for the NHL LOL.

 

[ELYEAH82]

I see 13 for the NHLPA and 8 for the NHL. I don't think you can take votes from another category and chock it up for the NHL LOL.

So wanting him out of the league over this is not the same as siding against the NHLPA? In any event I am done with this, next step is the beating a dead horse gif.

 

[HonusWagner66]

And everyone that voted KHL is siding against the NHL since they are the ones that are extending this process. This would be over if it were up to Kovy and the NHLPA...