: Salary Cap:
So, Lou... still best buds?
View Single Post
09-16-2010, 11:27 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
Firstly I'm just gonna ignore last half of your post because it seems to revolve around your logic in first half.
Always a good way to start.
well IMO, it doesnt friggin matter what kind of examples CBA stated in letters.
And this is a pretty good place to finish.
Rules are rules. The problem with the CBA is that it clearly and explicitly didn't have enough rules to prevent what has happened from happening.
You think that's okay because any Commissioner should apparently be able to just use 'common sense' after a CBA is drafted to clean up anything they may or may not like that they may or may not have anticipated.
For any number of reasons I think that position is pretty much unworkable in any real world situation.
So, there we are.
That's the reason why noone came up with 60 yr contract. Why do you think arbitrator ruled Kovy's contract a circumvention? Did arbitrator make a mistake? I'm curious to hear about your reasoning.
I know exactly why the Arbitrator ruled as he did, at least if one takes him at his word. Although I can't cut and paste from his actual report, his rationale there was essentially as follows:
-The contract goes too long.
-The end of contract salaries were too low.
-The existence of an NTC and NMC.
-Because of those things, even though the CBA itself doesn't prevent any of them, when you put them all together it looks like the Devils are trying to mitigate Kovy's cap hit.
Here's why I disagree with his ruling:
-First, Bettman could have at any previous time sat down with the NHLPA and collectively bargained this hole closed. After DiPietro signed his deal. After any of the next 12 guys to do so signed their deals. Instead of doing that he chose to go the route of an arbitrator. This implies a certain degree of inherent bias in that mechanic, since he obviously saw a better/easier opportunity to get his way there than through good-faith negotiation.
-Second, the mechanics themselves were not considered circumvention. It was the presence of all of them in the degree they were employed that was considered circumvention. The ruling, then, clears up nothing. How much is too much? No boundaries were set and no guidelines established.
-Third, if Kovy's deal is circumvention, so is Keith's, Luongo's, Hossa's, Franzen's, Zetterberg's, Lecavalier's, and all the rest of them who have step down years at the end to mitigate averaged yearly cap hit. By only going after the Devils and Kovalchuk Bettman is inconsistently applying whatever half-ass standard he thinks exists... which is incredibly shady.
Last edited by Fugu: 09-16-2010 at
. Reason: the rest is just baiting someone who doesn't want to exchange insults ;)
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HockeyinHD