HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Kovalchuk deal rejected by league!!!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2010, 12:49 PM
  #76
totalrecall
 
totalrecall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,498
vCash: 500
I don't get why so everybody are so upset about this. I find it actually quiet funny. If they have the money, if they calculated all the risk and cost, who are we to decide what's right or wrong.

totalrecall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 01:01 PM
  #77
AntonCH
Registered User
 
AntonCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalrecall View Post
I don't get why so everybody are so upset about this. I find it actually quiet funny. If they have the money, if they calculated all the risk and cost, who are we to decide what's right or wrong.
Precisely

Now, get Markov extended before they close the loophole

AntonCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 01:04 PM
  #78
24Cups
Registered User
 
24Cups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezia View Post
No, it is a perfect example of GMs thinking outside the box to do whatever possible to build a winning team.
Why not offer Kovalchuck a $1m a year deal over 6 years to play hockey. Because he is now a Hab Molson's Brewery may see the benefit of offering him $12m a year to be a spokesperson over the same time. $1m cap hit, rich and happy player.

Outside the box? Probably. Back to square one though in helping small market teams compete. The Lou plan will also put the league back to square one if this contract is approved. The Leafs and Rangers will go nuts with similar deals.

24Cups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 01:18 PM
  #79
Bieber fever
Registered User
 
Bieber fever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Westmount
Posts: 4,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
Why not offer Kovalchuck a $1m a year deal over 6 years to play hockey. Because he is now a Hab Molson's Brewery may see the benefit of offering him $12m a year to be a spokesperson over the same time. $1m cap hit, rich and happy player.

Outside the box? Probably. Back to square one though in helping small market teams compete. The Lou plan will also put the league back to square one if this contract is approved. The Leafs and Rangers will go nuts with similar deals.
NHL player are not allowed to make publicity for alcohol or tabacco.

Bieber fever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 02:50 PM
  #80
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
Why not offer Kovalchuck a $1m a year deal over 6 years to play hockey. Because he is now a Hab Molson's Brewery may see the benefit of offering him $12m a year to be a spokesperson over the same time. $1m cap hit, rich and happy player.

Outside the box? Probably. Back to square one though in helping small market teams compete. The Lou plan will also put the league back to square one if this contract is approved. The Leafs and Rangers will go nuts with similar deals.
Cuz you are not allowed to try and circumvent cap and if you are caught paying a guy under the table you are in deep ****.

These weasel year contracts are pretty much the only way, Lou is really trying to push the reasonable boundries of this by signing Kovalchuck to age 45, but he can argue that it is possible with Mark Recchi 42 and still playing forward. We'll see but I think NHL would accept 45, if he tried 46 or higher it might be rejected tho.

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 05:58 PM
  #81
All-Star
Registered User
 
All-Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snake Mountain
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,421
vCash: 500
Teams should be made to be responsible for the cap hit for the entire length of the contract regardless of when the player retires.

All-Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 06:02 PM
  #82
HabsHockey
Registered User
 
HabsHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Star View Post
Teams should be made to be responsible for the cap hit for the entire length of the contract regardless of when the player retires.
6 players decide to retire on your team, total cap hit of 30 mill. what to do now?

HabsHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 06:12 PM
  #83
All-Star
Registered User
 
All-Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snake Mountain
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsHockey View Post
6 players decide to retire on your team, total cap hit of 30 mill. what to do now?
You get fired as it's your fault your team was put in that position in the first place. The team then proceeds to be craptacular for a few seasons.

All-Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 06:16 PM
  #84
HabsHockey
Registered User
 
HabsHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Star View Post
You get fired as it's your fault your team was put in that position in the first place. The team then proceeds to be craptacular for a few seasons.
Bah, good answer.

CBA is in place because both parties agreed to it. Until then, these deals are 100% legit.

HabsHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 06:51 PM
  #85
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsHockey View Post
Bah, good answer.

CBA is in place because both parties agreed to it. Until then, these deals are 100% legit.
I think what angers some members here is that when you look at some of the more successful teams in recent memory. they've all taken advantage of this loophole where as Montreal has not.

JGRB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 07:09 PM
  #86
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-Star View Post
You get fired as it's your fault your team was put in that position in the first place. The team then proceeds to be craptacular for a few seasons.
Nobody wants this, especially players as it would be impossible for anyone over 31, 32, 33 or so to get multi year contracts. Wouldnt be great for fans and the competition either if a bunch of teams were hobbled by cap penalties cuz some guy retired..

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 08:12 PM
  #87
ILuvLucic*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Location Location
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
Why not offer Kovalchuck a $1m a year deal over 6 years to play hockey. Because he is now a Hab Molson's Brewery may see the benefit of offering him $12m a year to be a spokesperson over the same time. $1m cap hit, rich and happy player.
If I'm not mistaken that kind of behavior is not permitted in the CBA. No under the table money or "bonuses" to lower cap hits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
Back to square one though in helping small market teams compete.
That is not a very big concern. If they cannot afford their big players short term, they won't be able to afford them longterm. Moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
The Lou plan will also put the league back to square one if this contract is approved.
No it won't. It's not Bobby Holik-type players making ridiculous green, it's teams' most important pieces. As the Hawks have demonstrated, trying to stack a team with big contracts does more bad then good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
The Leafs and Rangers will go nuts with similar deals.
If they ever find a viable franchise forward, yes. In case you haven't noticed, they have already been throwing around ridiculous contracts long before this new fad. See: Chris Drury, Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Henrik Lundqvist (actually worth the money)

ILuvLucic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 09:42 PM
  #88
SoundsGood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 628
vCash: 500
Now you guys might understand why I was complaining about the Pleks deal.

Team A Kovalchuk at 6ishM cap hit, Team B Hossa 6ishM cap hit, Team C Keith 6ish Cap hit, Team D Pleks 6ish cap hit.

Its like coming up at bat with two strikes.

I think Lou has done a good job. I think everyone needs to forget about the salaries and focus on cap hits.

SoundsGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2010, 09:53 PM
  #89
Turboflex*
 
Turboflex*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
yeah except for that little part where if in 8 years Ilya slows down and/or develops injury problems and is no longer such an effective player?

They are taking a risk too on these long contracts.

That said, I would be tempted big time to do one for Markov since he relies more on his cerebral game and even on D uses his stick pokecheck a lot more than most Dmen.

Turboflex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 06:12 AM
  #90
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,147
vCash: 500
The only way Im gonna like this deal is if Kovalchuk aged 44 keeps turning up at practice making his cap hit count. Not that his 5.4(?)M will make much of a difference in 17 year but still...

Deals like this just make NHL seem semi-bush league.

Why stop at 17 year, why not 50, 100, 200?

GoHomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 11:08 AM
  #91
Komarov47
Registered User
 
Komarov47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Helsinki
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomaridII View Post
17 years for more than $100million with Kovalchuk earning $100million in the first 10 years.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...DPV738R5bJ1RvK
NY Post is as much reliable as Eklund, seriously, worst media by far.

Komarov47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 11:15 AM
  #92
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
You understand the math correctly, but not the rule. If Kovy retires after 10 years, the 5.88M per year will NOT be on the cap at all because he was not over 35 when the contract began. Essentially, NJ could get hit with only $59M of cap for $100M of salary, which is why everyone is in agreement that this is an abuse of the intent of the cap rules.

Actually, there has to be a SMALL salary in the final 7 years, say 0.525M or so, but it doesn't change the essence here.
Thanks for clearing that up. But doesn't that suppose that Kovy WILL retire at 34? What if he decided he wants to continue playing past 35? Wouldn't that mean he'd be at that $5.89M cap hit for the remaining 7 years of the contract?

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 11:31 AM
  #93
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Ellerection View Post
I think what angers some members here is that when you look at some of the more successful teams in recent memory. they've all taken advantage of this loophole where as Montreal has not.
Well, it doesn't with me. I just find it ridiculous.

I doesn,t anger me, because the feeling I get, and this is based on the fact that the Habs are one of the teams with the most pull in the board of governors, is that the Habs brass know that the league (hence, themselves and the rest of the board) will impose penalties on the next CBA for such deals, and even for the deals that were already made.

I think the new rule will affect those long term contracts that go over age 35-40. There migh be a penalty added when it goes over 40. If you look at Detroit and Chicago (who both have more pull at the board of governors than the average team), both Hossa and Zetterberg don't go much above 40 years old. But a contract like Pronger's, this becomes problematic, because rare are players who play over their 40s.

It's been some time I,ve wondered why the Habs a select few other teams don't do that, and the conclusion I come to, is that the Habs know something that's gonna happen, and better wait for that before making very long-term contracts.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 01:52 PM
  #94
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsauce514 View Post
LOU

wtf 10M$/ year for kovalchuk ?Rolf this is just too retarded.Kovalchuk is not Ovechkin,Crosby or Malkin , he won't save a franchise. If Lou wants a franchise player , he should make a rebuild by trading most of the player execpt Parize and Zajac and draft Couturier/Larsson and sign one great UFA next year ( thorton ,richards,semin) with the 10M$
Or he could just sign Kovalchuk, who is better than Thornton, Richards, Semin and likely better than Couturier or Larsson will ever be. This, done without nuking their franchise.

So yeah, GJ Lou if you sign Kovy.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 02:10 PM
  #95
E = CH²
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post

It's been some time I,ve wondered why the Habs a select few other teams don't do that, and the conclusion I come to, is that the Habs know something that's gonna happen, and better wait for that before making very long-term contracts.
I'll bet you anything you want that any contract signed before a new CBA would be grandfathered in under the current rules, or at the very least, an out would be offered to the teams and players in those positions. I'd be shocked if they retroactively decided to screw those teams over after the fact.

Example: Jagr's contract was grandfathered in despite being 0.5M above the player cap at the time.

The habs management is not perfect, they do make mistakes sometimes. The explanation you just came up with just reeks of apologistic blind faith. You're like a mother whose child can do no wrong.

E = CH² is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 02:35 PM
  #96
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Cool lets offer every player in the league whose good 50 year deals, because you know, we're one of the only teams who has the money to pull this off wide scale.

Of course once a team does abuse this frontloading **** too much it'll be banned.

It's funny how they put a salary cap in, but allow teams to completely circumvent it and the reasons it was put in place.

Yeah they still have to pay they player the money, but they circumvent the cap hit entirely so what's the point.


Habs should've signed Gionta and Cammelleri to 30 year deals ffs.
Don't forget, the owners wanted a salary cap, the owners locked out the players for a full season, the owners wanted cost certainty. Remember the doomsday talk around the lock-out? So we lost a year of hockey for ... nothing. God, these people are stupid and/or megalomaniacal.

Gros Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 02:44 PM
  #97
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Kovalchuk is way overrated. He is still young, but judging from his flaws, he'd be hardpressed to overcome them and become a playoff performer. There are no Mark Messiers out there to set him straight like Messier did with Kovalev in 1994 and Mario Lemieux at the Canada Cup (along with Gretz). Certainly not in Jersey or LA.

Just sifted through all the Jersey-Philly games. He went through the entire team on one rush and missed the net, but he didn't want anything to do with any board battles, will not hustle after a loose puck, turns the puck over almost every time he touches it and is very lax in the neutral zone. He also tries to do too much on his own and doesn't use his linemates at times. And he can be goaded into stupid penalties. That's not a $10 million dollar player imo and not a guy who will pay the price for a Cup. And even if he did man up for one Cup run, he's not a perennial playoff guy. If you sign him longterm, you are dooming your franchise.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 02:58 PM
  #98
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyzombies View Post
Kovalchuk is way overrated. He is still young, but judging from his flaws, he'd be hardpressed to overcome them and become a playoff performer. There are no Mark Messiers out there to set him straight like Messier did with Kovalev in 1994 and Mario Lemieux at the Canada Cup (along with Gretz). Certainly not in Jersey or LA.

Just sifted through all the Jersey-Philly games. He went through the entire team on one rush and missed the net, but he didn't want anything to do with any board battles, will not hustle after a loose puck, turns the puck over almost every time he touches it and is very lax in the neutral zone. He also tries to do too much on his own and doesn't use his linemates at times. And he can be goaded into stupid penalties. That's not a $10 million dollar player imo and not a guy who will pay the price for a Cup. And even if he did man up for one Cup run, he's not a perennial playoff guy. If you sign him longterm, you are dooming your franchise.
He's a guy that will sell tickets and jerseys during the regular season, but I don't see him being the top guy on a cup contender, agree with what you are saying.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 03:06 PM
  #99
All-Star
Registered User
 
All-Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snake Mountain
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyzombies View Post
Kovalchuk is way overrated. He is still young, but judging from his flaws, he'd be hardpressed to overcome them and become a playoff performer. There are no Mark Messiers out there to set him straight like Messier did with Kovalev in 1994 and Mario Lemieux at the Canada Cup (along with Gretz). Certainly not in Jersey or LA.

Just sifted through all the Jersey-Philly games. He went through the entire team on one rush and missed the net, but he didn't want anything to do with any board battles, will not hustle after a loose puck, turns the puck over almost every time he touches it and is very lax in the neutral zone. He also tries to do too much on his own and doesn't use his linemates at times. And he can be goaded into stupid penalties. That's not a $10 million dollar player imo and not a guy who will pay the price for a Cup. And even if he did man up for one Cup run, he's not a perennial playoff guy. If you sign him longterm, you are dooming your franchise.
To be fair, Kovalchuk has had very little playoff experience in his career...

All-Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2010, 03:14 PM
  #100
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
the feeling I get, and this is based on the fact that the Habs are one of the teams with the most pull in the board of governors, is that the Habs brass know that the league (hence, themselves and the rest of the board) will impose penalties on the next CBA for such deals, and even for the deals that were already made.
That's not what traditionally happens. The league usually tries to accommodate teams with various arrangements on existing contracts. See previous CBAs with carefully computed salary rollbacks and week long period to buyout some players without penalty before new rulings are applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
There migh be a penalty added when it goes over 40. If you look at Detroit and Chicago (who both have more pull at the board of governors than the average team), both Hossa and Zetterberg don't go much above 40 years old. But a contract like Pronger's, this becomes problematic, because rare are players who play over their 40s.
Here's the thing, there are other teams that have even more pull. Gary Bettman asks Lou Lam permission before he even takes a leak and traditionally, the Flyers with Snyder are also at the very top of the power structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
It's been some time I,ve wondered why the Habs a select few other teams don't do that, and the conclusion I come to, is that the Habs know something that's gonna happen, and better wait for that before making very long-term contracts.
That's your usual wishful thinking at work.

The Habs don't know anything that the other teams don't have access to. The meticulous plan of world domination by the Habs is just a fantasy in your head, much like your take on Guy Boucher was. They don't know anything that the New Jersey Devils or Flyers do not already know.

Much more likely, nobody knows exactly what is gonna happen and the NHL is making it up as they go, as usual.

With that being said, it doesn't make a 17 year contract any less ridiculous or retarded. And so, I believe the Habs are doing the right thing by not extending terms. Especially since they have the nasty habit of ****ing up even most short term contracts.

Vlad The Impaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.