HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Kovalchuk Deal Rejected

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-20-2010, 10:13 PM
  #76
mypunkrock
Registered User
 
mypunkrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
Agreed. There is no rule, no guideline, so Bettman & Co. are making **** up as they go along.

The contract is quite shocking, but how can anyone prove that Kovy won't play until he's 44 years of age? Especially when there is nothing preventing him from doing so, save for possible injury or desire.
The only thing I can think of is the part about creating a contract in good faith. How many forwards are playing today in their mid 40's? And how does the way the salary is spread out render the cap hit?

I'm not a law student, but the good faith part of the rules governing contracts is probably where the NHL derives this power.

mypunkrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:16 PM
  #77
FlyersCup08
Registered User
 
FlyersCup08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 943
vCash: 500
This brightened my day.

FlyersCup08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:18 PM
  #78
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
Agreed. There is no rule, no guideline, so Bettman & Co. are making **** up as they go along.

The contract is quite shocking, but how can anyone prove that Kovy won't play until he's 44 years of age? Especially when there is nothing preventing him from doing so, save for possible injury or desire.
It may have been said, but I'm pretty convinced the only issue the NHL can really complain about is the 550K being below league minimum by the time the contract would get there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:19 PM
  #79
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Hossa 12 years
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Kovalchuk
6.0
6.0
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.5
8.5
6.5
3.5
.750
.550
.550
.550
.550
.550

Its all about how far you take it

Devils final years + NMC he has that changes to a NTC once his $ drops are clear red flags and cap circumvention

Those final 5 years of his deal will be under whatever league minimum can be estimated for the years and Hossa has no NMC/NTC

Devils made it far too obvious what they were doing
I never said that the Kovalchuk deal was in any way similar to the Hossa deal. You can't deny that they were both cap circumvention though.

If you look through my post history I've been fighting with idiots to prove the point you just proved all night.

The point was that the closest deal to the Kovalchuk deal (Hossa's) is not similar to Kovalchuk's deal at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I don't disagree that Lou & Co. tried to pull a fast one. My issue is that there are no guidelines covering what is and is not acceptable.

My guess is that they'll lop off the last couple of years of the deal, bringing the cap hit to around $6.5 - still a good deal for Kovalchuk. The Devils aren't going to lose Kovy. It's just going to cost them a little more.
The NHL's argument isn't that they circumvented the cap, they're saying that he's unlikely to play out the contract. Either of which is perfectly legal, but the latter is easier to present a case for.

The NHL doesn't have to "physically prove" anything. The case is going to go to an arbitrator if the Devils so choose and established facts (such as the fact that players rarely play to the age of 44), common sense, and some quotes from Lou himself should be enough to rule in favor of the NHL.

Besides, it's kind of up to the NHL to decide what's cap circumvention and what's not. I'm not saying that they can just change the rules, but the CBA is vague enough to leave a lot of it up the league's discretion just so long as they're consistent.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:20 PM
  #80
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypunkrock View Post
The only thing I can think of is the part about creating a contract in good faith. How many forwards are playing today in their mid 40's? And how does the way the salary is spread out render the cap hit?

I'm not a law student, but the good faith part of the rules governing contracts is probably where the NHL derives this power.
I think it's the league minimum, as noted above. Mostly because it's pretty much impossible to prove "bad faith" without one of the principles talking publicly about some agreement being in place that he'll retire.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:23 PM
  #81
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Here's a couple of good explanations on what's going to happen if the Devils push this:

Quote:
An arbitrator is completely seperate from a "court of law". They work differently.

There are no criminal proceedings going on. There is no need for evidence, though it helps. An arbitrator is exactly what it sounds like. Someones sits up there, listens to the two sides and decides.

They don't have to present concrete, "without a doubt" evidence. If something doesn't pass the smell test according to an arbitrator they can rule how they see fit. And this case... something sure indeed does smell fishy.
Quote:
Actually not so much... Civil legal proceedings in the USA are based on a preponderance of the evidence, whereas a criminal proceeding is based upon the colloquy "beyond a shadow of a doubt". To use a popular metaphor, in a civil case all a party has to do is get to the 50 yard line (or in our case the red line) + .00000001 inches over it. In a criminal case you have to cross the goal line (verified by instant replay that it was 100% across the line).

The NHL would submit evidence that its unlikely that Kovy would complete the contract, given the terms, and that the terms of the contract actually make him likely to retire. The Devils and Kovy would then retort that he has every intention to fulfill every game of the contract, injuries withstanding. The arbitrator would weigh the facts and determine which scenario would be more likely...its really a crapshoot based upon the evidence that is heard and the arbitrator chosen to hear the case. However the first step is rejecting the contract and then the ball is in the devils'/kovy's hands.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:25 PM
  #82
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
I never said that the Kovalchuk deal was in any way similar to the Hossa deal. You can't deny that they were both cap circumvention though.

If you look through my post history I've been fighting with idiots to prove the point you just proved all night.

The point was that the closest deal to the Kovalchuk deal (Hossa's) is not similar to Kovalchuk's deal at all.
Hossa's contract is similar (as are others), but not nearly as brash as this one is. Now, sure, that's just a matter of if they went too far... but they're definitely comparable deals.

Quote:
The NHL's argument isn't that they circumvented the cap, they're saying that he's unlikely to play out the contract. Either of which is perfectly legal, but the latter is easier to present a case for.

The NHL doesn't have to "physically prove" anything. The case is going to go to an arbitrator if the Devils so choose and established facts (such as the fact that players rarely play to the age of 44), common sense, and some quotes from Lou himself should be enough to rule in favor of the NHL.

Besides, it's kind of up to the NHL to decide what's cap circumvention and what's not. I'm not saying that they can just change the rules, but the CBA is vague enough to leave a lot of it up the league's discretion just so long as they're consistent.
Well, they specifically cited "cap circumvention" in the dismissal.

The NHL has rejected Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils on the grounds that it circumvents the NHL's salary cap.

Now, how they arrive at that argument is a good question. If they have some dirt on the deal that lets 'em prove that the Devs and Kovalchuk have any understanding that he won't be playing out the deal, then that's the ballgame. However, the other argument they can make is that 550K is below league minimum at that point, and therefore not a legitimate annual salary... We'll have to see how it plays out.

My guess is that they just tweak the contract and get it done.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:25 PM
  #83
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I don't disagree that Lou & Co. tried to pull a fast one. My issue is that there are no guidelines covering what is and is not acceptable.

My guess is that they'll lop off the last couple of years of the deal, bringing the cap hit to around $6.5 - still a good deal for Kovalchuk. The Devils aren't going to lose Kovy. It's just going to cost them a little more.
But then it won't be 17 years which is Kovy's xtra lucky number or over 100 million, which it seems like he wanted to sign for, in any way. I wonder if it's a deal breaker for him?? He seems like he's a little off, so he may just walk away if he's that superstitious.
(probably not but it would be hilarious)

healthyscratch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:27 PM
  #84
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Also, the Devils can't take this to court. Even if they decline arbitration. The CBA is specifically designed so that the only way that the Devils can refute this is to go to the arbitrator. Of course, that's the situation in it's simplest terms. There's more to it then all of that, but that's what you need to know.

The only way that the league would actually need physical evidence for the case to be like an episode of "CSI" would be if this were a criminal court case. Which it most definitely is not.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:31 PM
  #85
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Hossa's contract is similar (as are others), but not nearly as brash as this one is. Now, sure, that's just a matter of if they went too far... but they're definitely comparable deals.
They're comparably in that they all are designed to circumvent the cap and keep a star player for the rest of their careers, but they're definitely not similar in the sense that they're two completely different beasts. All of the similarities are pretty loose similarities that don't really matter in this instance.

Quote:
Well, they specifically cited "cap circumvention" in the dismissal.

The NHL has rejected Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils on the grounds that it circumvents the NHL's salary cap.

Now, how they arrive at that argument is a good question. If they have some dirt on the deal that lets 'em prove that the Devs and Kovalchuk have any understanding that he won't be playing out the deal, then that's the ballgame. However, the other argument they can make is that 550K is below league minimum at that point, and therefore not a legitimate annual salary... We'll have to see how it plays out.

My guess is that they just tweak the contract and get it done.
They can cite whatever they want I think, but I don't think that's what they have to present to an arbitrator. Even if its, then they still have very stable legs to stand on. Just by looking at the contract it's clear the Kovalchuk won't fulfill it and it's designed to circumvent the cap. The contract itself does half of the work.

It's not like the league would reject a contract and then not be prepared to make an argument about it either. They know what they're doing.

Whether they're arguing that it's cap circumvention or that Kovalchuk won't play out the contract or both of those things, I just don't see the NHL losing an arbitration case.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:34 PM
  #86
dbr2
Lockout Beard
 
dbr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,340
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dbr2
I'm sorry but, LOL!!!

dbr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:42 PM
  #87
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,044
vCash: 500
It's a warning shot from the league that crazy ass length contracts are going to be scrutinized and rejected. What's to stop Lou from signing Parise to a 22 year contract next summer? This will. That's all they're trying to control until they can get this settled in the next CBA.

healthyscratch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:44 PM
  #88
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
They're comparably in that they all are designed to circumvent the cap and keep a star player for the rest of their careers, but they're definitely not similar in the sense that they're two completely different beasts. All of the similarities are pretty loose similarities that don't really matter in this instance.
I mean, it's not that loose.

Kovalchuk earns like 95% of the contract prior to the 12th year (so, just shy of 2/3rd of the contract).

Hossa earns 93.6% of his 12 year contract after the 8th season.

That's VERY comparable if you ask me.

Quote:
They can cite whatever they want I think, but I don't think that's what they have to present to an arbitrator. Even if its, then they still have very stable legs to stand on. Just by looking at the contract it's clear the Kovalchuk won't fulfill it and it's designed to circumvent the cap. The contract itself does half of the work.

It's not like the league would reject a contract and then not be prepared to make an argument about it either. They know what they're doing.

Whether they're arguing that it's cap circumvention or that Kovalchuk won't play out the contract or both of those things, I just don't see the NHL losing an arbitration case.
Eyeball test won't pass muster here before an arbitrator. The Devils have a very clear argument about precedent for these contracts. The NHL isn't going to be able to stand there and say "well, we just don't like these types of deals." Why, because then that makes this decision arbitrary after the previous ones they made. What they can argue is that specific aspects of this deal are problematic, the 550K v. league minimum is the most glaring problem, IMO.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:46 PM
  #89
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
It's a warning shot from the league that crazy ass length contracts are going to be scrutinized and rejected. What's to stop Lou from signing Parise to a 22 year contract next summer? This will. That's all they're trying to control until they can get this settled in the next CBA.
...then that's arbitrary after they allowed similar deals last summer, and it won't hold up before an arbitrator. They're going to have to come with a very specific argument... and it has to have more substance than "these contracts are a problem, and we need to change the rules to stop 'em..."

Well, if you're the arbitrator, you're response to the league is "change the rules then."

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:47 PM
  #90
clodejirew
Registered User
 
clodejirew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
is it possible for kovy to now sign with a different team?

clodejirew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:52 PM
  #91
dingbathero
No Jam? How about PB
 
dingbathero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,675
vCash: 500
Ok, add Kovi here, drop dead weight - Shelley, Cote, Boucher, Walker - who else....

Can Homer make this work...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH - cough - I wish.

dingbathero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:54 PM
  #92
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...then that's arbitrary after they allowed similar deals last summer, and it won't hold up before an arbitrator. They're going to have to come with a very specific argument... and it has to have more substance than "these contracts are a problem, and we need to change the rules to stop 'em..."

Well, if you're the arbitrator, you're response to the league is "change the rules then."
I hear ya, but the last 5 years of his contract are a joke. There's nothing similar to this deal. The 10-12 year contracts of Hossa and Zetterberg are similar but this one crosses the line by a far margin. If the league doesn't do something now then Carter is getting a 30 year contract next summer.

healthyscratch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:55 PM
  #93
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Apparently Lou was warned by Bettman before the contract was signed that it would probably get nixed. Huh.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:56 PM
  #94
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthyscratch View Post
I hear ya, but the last 5 years of his contract are a joke. There's nothing similar to this deal. The 10-12 year contracts of Hossa and Zetterberg are similar but this one crosses the line by a far margin. If the league doesn't do something now then Carter is getting a 30 year contract next summer.
That's only if the league will argue that it circumvents the cap too. I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that they can just argue that they don't believe Kovalchuk will play out the contract if they want.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 10:58 PM
  #95
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
That's only if the league will argue that it circumvents the cap too. I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that they can just argue that they don't believe Kovalchuk will play out the contract if they want.
They can -- and I think most would agree with 'em -- but they have no proof to justify that argument other than conjecture (reasonable though it may be).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 11:02 PM
  #96
RoDu
Shagga likes axes
 
RoDu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500

RoDu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 11:02 PM
  #97
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
They can -- and I think most would agree with 'em -- but they have no proof to justify that argument other than conjecture (reasonable though it may be).
From what I understand, and this makes perfect sense to me, they don't need "proof". Not in the traditional sense.

This isn't a court hearing or like an episode of CSI. They don't need physical proof (this is all impossible to "prove" anyway). They don't need to make the arbitrator believe that Kovalchuk wouldn't play out the contract without a shadow of the doubt.

The NHL just needs to make a smart argument that's more appealing then the Devils'. It's an arbitrator.

Here's an interesting fact and it's pretty damning for Kovalchuk:

Since 1917 Doug Harvey and Howe are the only players to retire after 44 years of age.

That's a quote from the main board, so I believe Chelios should also be on that list. So two or three players in the history of the NHL.


Last edited by Garbage Goal: 07-20-2010 at 11:12 PM.
Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 11:06 PM
  #98
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
It's also not like this is the first time the NHL has raised a fuss over contracts like this. They investigated both Hossa (the most comparably contract to Kovalchuk's) and Pronger's last year. Granted, nothing came out of it.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 11:06 PM
  #99
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
From what I understand, and this makes perfect sense to me, they don't need "proof". Not in the traditional sense.

This isn't a court hearing or like an episode of CSI. They don't need physical proof (this is all impossible to "prove" anyway). They don't need to make the arbitrator believe that Kovalchuk wouldn't play out the contract without a shadow of the doubt.

The NHL just needs to make a smart argument that's more appealing then the Devils. It's an arbitrator.

Here's an interesting fact and it's pretty damning for Kovalchuk:

Since 1917 Doug Harvey and Howe are the only players to retire after 44 years of age.

That's a quote from the main board, so I believe Chelios should also be on that list. So two or three players in the history of the NHL.
No doubt, but that isn't proof of "circumventing the salary cap" per se. We all know that it's very unlikely Kovy will play those years of the contract... but if I'm an arbitrator that's not going to convince me that I should throw out a deal. Since the rebuttal is that modern athletes are better trained, and take better care of themselves and this will translate into greater longevity.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2010, 11:11 PM
  #100
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No doubt, but that isn't proof of "circumventing the salary cap" per se. We all know that it's very unlikely Kovy will play those years of the contract... but if I'm an arbitrator that's not going to convince me that I should throw out a deal. Since the rebuttal is that modern athletes are better trained, and take better care of themselves and this will translate into greater longevity.
Arbitration is a crap-shoot to begin with. To be honest, I can see this going either way because both sides could have some solid arguments, but I believe the league has much firmer ground to stand on so if I was a betting man I would lean towards them.

Garbage Goal 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 02:01 AM.

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.