[Classic Devil]

A Transcript:

Originally Posted by Classic Devil

Mr. Daly,

I've got a question with regards to the recent signing of Brad Richards, and how it compares to the previous signing of Ilya Kovalchuk.

Last summer, the Kovalchuk contract was rejected on the basis of its violation of Article 26 of the CBA. In particular, the contract was rejected because it was believed it was, as quoted by the CBA, "intended to or [have] the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement."

Now, the contract was envisioned as such because the league believed that the Devils and/or Kovalchuk did not intend to play all of the years of the contract when the contract was signed. This was because the contract extended well beyond the average retirement age of NHL players and because those extended years involved significantly lower salaries than the prior ones. Consequently, the league chose to reject the contract.

Now, the question I wish to ask is why the league believed that the Devils and/or Kovalchuk had no intent of playing out some of those seasons, and what about the league's classification of that intent does not also apply to the Richards and/or Rangers in this more recent case. In both cases, the letter of the CBA as it was written was not violated; consequently, the decision to reject the contract must have been based on the perceived intent of the player and the franchise. On what basis is this intent evaluated? Why did the league believe that the intent of New Jersey and Kovalchuk was malignant while the intent of the Rangers and Richards is not?

If there is a clear mechanism by which this intent can be measured, what is it? If there is not, then on what basis did the league decide to reject the Kovalchuk contract, while the league has refrained (thus far) from doing the same with the Richards contract?

I thank you in advance for answering my question,

Originally Posted by Bill Daly

Kyle - All good questions. The distinguishing factors of Kovalchuk's original contract were the "over 40 years" -- Kovalchuk had 3 and Richards has none -- and the end of contract years -- Kovalchuk had 5 (yes 5!!) at the League's minimum salary and Richards has 3 years at $1 million. So there are significant differences between the two contracts as an initial matter. More significantly, as part of allowing (and grandfathering) Kovalchuk's second contract, we entered into an agreement with the Union that added additional safeguards to the League against these "circumvention" contracts. Those rules are in place and apply to this contract. But the agreement also precludes us from challenging long-term contract structures as circumventions until the end of this CBA. So, while I have my own views regarding the legitimacy of the Richards contract, it is not a contract we have any basis to reject. Hope that helps. Bill

So, he think's it's crap, but he can't do anything about it because of the deal they cut with the NHLPA.

Originally Posted by Classic Devil

So, in other words, you were able to reject the Kovalchuk contract because you felt it "violated the spirit of the CBA," and despite your feeling that this contract also "violates the spirit of the CBA," you are unable to reject it, despite the continued existence of Article 26?

Then what was the purpose of docking New Jersey a first rounder, a 3rd rounder, and several million dollars? If the purpose was punitive, then it seems excessive, as in the arbitrator's ruling he noted that he felt that neither the Devils nor Kovalchuk had acted in bad faith; if the purpose was to prevent future contracts of that nature, it seems to have rather spectacularly failed.

Originally Posted by Bill Daly

Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.

Originally Posted by Classic Devil

What precisely is it that you disagree with? The arbitrator's assessment that the Devils and Kovalchuk had no intent to subvert the CBA? That the punishment was unduly punitive? Or that the punishment hasn't served as an effective deterrent?

Obviously, I'm a Devils fan, and thus am biased on this count. But I'm not sending these emails to be combative. I'm sending them because I'm having trouble understanding how the underlying logic of these decisions works. I'd gotten over it, and frankly I even support the actions in principle; I just don't understand what precisely about the actions of New Jersey warranted punishment that the actions of these other teams lack.

I have trouble accepting the pornography "I know it when I see it" style assessment when millions of dollars and valuable franchise assets are at stake.

Here's where it starts getting interesting.

Originally Posted by Bill Daly

Yes, and your lack of objectivity makes it difficult to carry on an intelligent exchange. Bottom line is Devils presented us with a contract that was so outrageous that bringing a circumvention case (and ultimately winning it) was a no brainer. Winning that grievance gave us an opportunity to make the situation much, much better than it had been, but not cure the situation entirely. We're still not happy with some of the contracts we are seeing, but they will have to wait for the next CBA. Meanwhile, as a Devils fan, you have the benefit of having a player the team had no business having -- either under the first contract or the second. From my perspective, you have absolutley zero basis to complain.

We have no business having Kovalchuk, apparently.

Originally Posted by Classic Devil

All of that is fair. The contract was outrageous, no doubt. But it was legal under the CBA, as was the Luongo contract before it, and the Richards contract after it. You brought up the grievance, won it, and leveraged that into a slight improvement on the situation. On all of that, we agree. I wish you'd been able to leverage it into an even more substantive restriction on these contracts - frankly, I wish you'd have been able to either force all contracts into being level from year to year, or (ideally) extend the 35+ clause to include all contracts, both of which would have killed these - but I understand that neither of these were in the cards, given the CBA status at the time.

What confuses me, still, is the decision the league made to impose the penalty it did. Was the penalty intended to be punitive? If it was punitive, it seems there are several teams who had contracts that also would deserve punishment, even if that punishment were not as severe as New Jersey's. Or did the negotiations with the NHLPA during writing of the Kovalchuk contract include clauses protecting those teams who have contracts that violate the Kovalchuk Amendment from punitive action?

Regardless, I do appreciate you taking the time to converse with me. My bias may be clouding my judgment here - it's hard for me to judge my own preconceptions.

Conversation may be done, but I bet he gets back to me in the morning.