HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So, Lou... still best buds?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2010, 11:50 AM
  #26
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
I think I see the reason why you dont get it. To me, I had a pretty good idea where about the line was.
That's the problem, Yemack:

THERE IS NO LINE.

None. Nada, nil, zip, zero. No line. At all.

Now, after the fact, Bettman is trying to create a line where none existed because of his poorly-constructed CBA.

So you, personally, can say that you 'had a pretty good idea where about the line was', but if you asked that same question of 100 different people you'd get 90 different answers .

Hence, obviously, the problem. What may appear to be unfair in your 'opinion' isn't the same thing as what would be considered unfair in someone else's 'opinion'.

That's why rules exist, that's why the CBA exists, and that's why Bettman didn't do his job, because he wrote a CBA that didn't have enough rules in it.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 12:53 PM
  #27
grimson
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19
vCash: 500
I think some of you guys have this all wrong...

The Devils could have walked completely away from any Kovalchuk deal; the result probably no penalty (or perhaps just the fine for legal costs). No doubt Lou was made aware of the consequences during the extended talks. He took the second deal anyway.

Lou still gets his man *and* shuts the door for any future similar deals.

grimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 05:20 PM
  #28
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post

Imagine a guy trying to blow up a building to smithereens with bombs and was prevented doing so. Should he get away free because no harm done? .
That depends.
If you just allowed 10 other guys to blow up buildings (with smaller explosives) and didn't prevent them from doing it (and even let one guy collect the insurance money -- the Stanley Cup), then yeah, I'd say it would be an uneven application of the law to penalize the guy who was simply planning it.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 06:44 PM
  #29
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
That's the problem, Yemack:

THERE IS NO LINE.

None. Nada, nil, zip, zero. No line. At all.

Now, after the fact, Bettman is trying to create a line where none existed because of his poorly-constructed CBA.

So you, personally, can say that you 'had a pretty good idea where about the line was', but if you asked that same question of 100 different people you'd get 90 different answers .

Hence, obviously, the problem. What may appear to be unfair in your 'opinion' isn't the same thing as what would be considered unfair in someone else's 'opinion'.

That's why rules exist, that's why the CBA exists, and that's why Bettman didn't do his job, because he wrote a CBA that didn't have enough rules in it.
no there was a line which kept Kenny Holland or any other GMs from signing a guy with 60 year deal. If there was no 'line', there would be no circumvention. I feel like Ive been typing these very same message over and over the summer but there was a clause about cap circumvention. Line was very poorly defined, but it was there. Your claim that it was never there is just flat out wrong.

yes people might have different opinions on where the line should be drawn. However, if you think about it, you will come to conclusion pretty much same as me and many others. (give or take few details) I'm sorry but I dont know what else for me to say but it is that pretty obvious. Anyway I'm glad you are not managing Red Wings because it would have been Wings who'd been hit with the penalty.

To CB: read my previous reply.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 09:44 PM
  #30
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
no there was a line which kept Kenny Holland or any other GMs from signing a guy with 60 year deal. If there was no 'line', there would be no circumvention.
Ah. Well, I will address the problem you are having with terminology...

Quote:
I feel like Ive been typing these very same message over and over the summer but there was a clause about cap circumvention.
... now.

Where you are in error is in your assumption regarding the meaning of 'circumvention'.

What you should probably do is to go download a copy of the CBA and actually read it, especially the parts which deal specifically with Circumvention, starting with Article 26.

What you will find there is, obviously, a whole bunch of legalese. But amidst that flotsam you will find this:

26.15 Examples of Circumvention.

And in that section you will find these:

"(a) A Club has a Club Salary that would exceed the Upper Limit, other than
through the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception or the "Performance Bonus
Cushion," such as by virtue of an undisclosed agreement or undisclosed payment to
Players on its roster.
(b) A Club has an agreement to pay money or anything else of value to a
Player not expressly permitted by this Agreement, or makes such a payment to a Player.
(c) A Player enters into a sponsorship or endorsement arrangement with a
local sponsor or entity with which his Club does business, in which the Player receives
something of value that is disproportionate to (i.e., clearly in excess of) the fair market
value of the services rendered by the Player on behalf of the sponsor or endorser.
(d) A Club having access to the Averaged Amount Joint Exhibit and
Averaged Club Salary Joint Exhibit and charged with the knowledge that it does not have
sufficient Payroll Room to sign an SPC, as required by Article 50, proceeds to sign such
SPC. Although it shall not be a Circumvention attributable or imputed to a Player if such
Player signs an SPC that puts his Club out of compliance with the Payroll Range, the
Certified Agent representing the Player in such circumstance, having access to the
Averaged Amount Joint Exhibit and Averaged Club Salary Joint Exhibit, shall be
charged with possession of the knowledge that the signing of that SPC will put the Club
out of compliance with the Payroll Range.
(e) A Club and a Player, during the Player's active career, agree that upon the
Player's retirement, he will receive a sum of money for services to be provided to the
Club after retirement.
(f) A Club or Club Actor pays a Player or Player Actor for a "no-show" job,
or for a job in which the payment to the Player or Player Actor clearly exceeds the fair
market value of the services rendered.
(g) A Club fails to report sales from one of the ticket windows in its box
office.
(h) A Club has an undisclosed agreement to obtain payment for tickets
reported as complimentary tickets.
(i) A Club has an agreement below fair market value with a Club Affiliated
Entity to broadcast or otherwise present footage of the Club's NHL Games.
(j) A Club fails to disclose a barter arrangement that should have been
included in its HRR Reporting Package.
(k) A Club fails to report revenue generated from mascot appearances.

Now, while it says that the above list is not in any way exhaustive, I think pretty much anybody can grasp the nature of things described as 'Circumvention'. Paying a guy money that isn't included in the Contract, or hiding revenues.

And very, very, very clearly, having a guy sign a longer contract to lower the averaged cap hit is nowhere near any of those examples. Nowhere even remotely close.

The basic, central problem you have and will continue to have is that you are calling something Circumvention that isn't actually Circumvention. Again, the first Kovy deal 'circumvents' the cap in exactly the same way the Bertuzzi and Homer deals, and really any of perhaps 30 or 40 (or more, maybe 100s) other NHL SPCs do.

Which is to say, not at all. What the Kovy, Bertuzzi and Homer et al deals actually do is to 'mitigate' the impact of the respective players cap hits. And 'mitigation' is entirely legal.

It's not illegal to for a guy to sign a one year deal somewhere at x amount when he wants to win a Cup instead of signing a long-term deal somewhere else.

It's not illegal for a guy to sign with one team for less money because they also offered a NTC, as opposed to another team who offered more money but no similar clause.

It's not illegal for a guy to sign a 5 year 20 million dollar deal in one place rather than a 1 year 7 million dollar deal because they want the longer-termed security.

All of those cases involve Averaged Salary being traded away for other things of interest. Term, Clauses, Location, Competitive advantage, whatever.

None of it is 'Circumvention' as described by the CBA. None of it. Not even close.

Quote:
Line was very poorly defined, but it was there. Your claim that it was never there is just flat out wrong.
Not only was it never there, it's STILL not there. How do I know? Because we still don't know where between the Kovy deal that was rejected and the Kovy deal that was signed the cutoff point is.

Could a team sign a guy to a 12 year deal and tack on 3 years at a million per at the end? Two? Four? None? Could 70% of the total contract value accrue in the first half of the deal? 65% 74.3%? Can step-down years at the end of a contract decrease by 30% a year? 45%? 75%? Can you have more of them if they only fall to 2 million as opposed to 1 million?

I don't know. GMs don't know. I bet even Gary Bettman doesn't know. And I would bet the house that contrary to your claims of preternatural clarity you have absolutely no idea either.

Quote:
yes people might have different opinions on where the line should be drawn. However, if you think about it, you will come to conclusion pretty much same as me and many others. (give or take few details) I'm sorry but I dont know what else for me to say but it is that pretty obvious. Anyway I'm glad you are not managing Red Wings because it would have been Wings who'd been hit with the penalty.
And why shouldn't the Wings be hit with the penalty? The Franzen and Zetterberg contracts 'Circumvent' the cap in EXACTLY the same way the Kovy deal did, by tacking on pretty significant step down years that drag the Averaged Cap number down significantly.

The Kovy deal that got rejected had a yearly cap hit of 6 mil. The one that got approved had a cap hit of 6.66 mil.

Zetterberg's deal has a cap hit of 6.08 mil. Without the step downs in the final three years his cap hit would be 7.51 mil.

Franzen's deal has a cap hit of 3.95 mil. Without the step downs in the final three years the contracts yearly cap hit would be 4.94.

So the Kovy deal that got rejected because of step down years at the end of the deal would have saved the Devils around 600k a year. Both the Zetterberg and the Franzen deals save the Wings a million dollars a year because of the end of contract step downs.

Each.

It is absolutely impossible to present a cogent, consistent argument that the Kovy deal was 'Circumvention' (as inaccurately described by you) while the Z and Franzen deals weren't.

It cannot be done.

So, your fairly feeble attempt at insulting me aside, what you really ought to do is more fully educate yourself on what the CBA really says before pontificating about how you and 'many others' somehow know what it means.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 02:14 AM
  #31
Drunkspleen
Face of the company
 
Drunkspleen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bear Country
Country: Australia
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 500
This is all so ridiculous HIHD, the Bertuzzi and Homer deals will have a cap hit either equal to, or greater than, the salary that the player is paid over the course of the deal (greater than if the guys were to retire early since they are 35+ deals).

The Kovalchuk deal has the potential, and arguably demonstrates the intent, to have a player, play for a certain amount, while the total cap hit is significantly less than the amount paid to the player.

You can argue pedantics about how dissimilar that is to a non exhaustive list all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Kovalchuck deal was designed to avoid some cap hit from ever existing, unlike trading in a second year on a 35+ contract.

The same goes for your final point about the Zetterberg and Franzen contracts, sure they may do the same thing, but the likelyhood of them retiring early is entirely different to the likelyhood of Kovalchuck retiring early and the law isn't simply binary, that's why there is a difference between Manslaughter and Murder in the first degree, much like there is a difference between the Zetterberg deal and the Kovalchuk deal, the fact of the matter is, even the approved Kovalchuk deal is a more significant case of "cap circumvention" than anything Holland did with his 2 contracts.


Last edited by Drunkspleen: 09-15-2010 at 02:18 AM. Reason: clearing up direction
Drunkspleen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 04:09 AM
  #32
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This entire thing has been rather strange. I agree with that point, so it's not like the Devils were able to circumvent anything. The CBA does say that any attempt to do so, even if fails, is still punishable but this does seem very harsh since the Devils were unable to accomplish the feat.

Lou also made it so easy for this to be blocked. The NTC and NMC clauses were akin to waving the red flag in front of angry bull, after adding seven weasel years. (Although I have read that bulls are color blind....)

Why make an example of the Devils? The Hawks won a Cup after bringing in one of those contracts. Holland, in spite of everything we want to say here, massaged the cap so well, he got in two of these contract types... although he was much more clever about it than Lou, apparently.

Maybe Bettman was still angry at Lou for his first two acts of circumvention, back in the Malakov and Mogilny days right after the lockout. I have yet to figure out why Lou made those signings.
That is what I thought as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Then the Wings should be fined as well.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If it's a matter of degrees, then yes, Hawks and Vancouver should be hit with some sort of sanction too. The arbiter specifically cited those deals as worthy of consideration of circumvention. If we just stick to what the accepted mediator selected out, Boston and Philly get added to the list.

I still find it odd, personally speaking, the Wings' contracts weren't mentioned in Bloch's report, but if that is the law of the land, then NJD was severely screwed over. Their contract was rejected after all. These other teams will reap the rewards of these deals while facing nothing as sanctions.

I suspect that tinkering with Hossa's situation would forever tarnish the Cup win, and thus the league let that go to avoid a pretty nasty PR situation. I'd like to think that if the Hawks had not won the Cup, this might have played out differently.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 06:52 AM
  #33
jacK
Registered User
 
jacK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 2,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
It is absolutely impossible to present a cogent, consistent argument that the Kovy deal was 'Circumvention' (as inaccurately described by you) while the Z and Franzen deals weren't.
the independent arbitrator that started this ****-storm says you're wrong, and his is the only opinion that matters on the subject.

the severity of the punishment is up for discussion, but the violation that resulted in the punishment is not. it is written in stone that the first contract NJD submitted was an act of circumvention, and both the NHL and NHLPA agree (or this would still be under appeal), whether it's explicitly defined in the CBA or not.

jacK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 07:17 AM
  #34
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkspleen View Post
This is all so ridiculous HIHD, the Bertuzzi and Homer deals will have a cap hit either equal to, or greater than, the salary that the player is paid over the course of the deal (greater than if the guys were to retire early since they are 35+ deals).
Again, it is a question of degree. The Bert and Homer deals lower cap hit by extending term. The Kovy deal lowers cap hit by extending term. The Z and Franzen deals lower cap hit by extending term. The Hossa deal lowers cap hit by extending term. The Keith deal lowers cap hit by extending term. The Lecavalier deal lowers cap hit by extending term.

They all employ exactly the same mechanic to bring down the cap value of a player.

Quote:
The Kovalchuk deal has the potential, and arguably demonstrates the intent, to have a player, play for a certain amount, while the total cap hit is significantly less than the amount paid to the player.
Which is legal in the current CBA if one follows what is written in the CBA. Now, a somewhat 'activist judge' arbitrator came down on Bettman's side in the matter, so a large part of this discussion is moot.

Still.

Quote:
You can argue pedantics about how dissimilar that is to a non exhaustive list all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Kovalchuck deal was designed to avoid some cap hit from ever existing, unlike trading in a second year on a 35+ contract.
And you think Tampa's going to have Lecavalier on their roster when he's 39 with a 1.5 million dollar salary and a 7.727 million dollar cap hit?

And you think Detroit is going to have Z or Franzen on their roster when they are 39 with a 1 mil salary and 6.08 mil cap hit and 3.954 mil cap hit, respectively?

And you think Hossa, Keith, et al will still be on their teams roster at advanced ages with big cap hits but small real-salary numbers?

Please. NJ is getting screwed here because they were just a tiny bit more blatant about it than the 6-10 other big time contracts were when they mitigated the Cap in the exact same manner.

Quote:
The same goes for your final point about the Zetterberg and Franzen contracts, sure they may do the same thing, but the likelyhood of them retiring early is entirely different to the likelyhood of Kovalchuck retiring early and the law isn't simply binary, that's why there is a difference between Manslaughter and Murder in the first degree, much like there is a difference between the Zetterberg deal and the Kovalchuk deal, the fact of the matter is, even the approved Kovalchuk deal is a more significant case of "cap circumvention" than anything Holland did with his 2 contracts.
That's factually untrue if one looks at the cap savings involved. Both the Z and Franzen deals shave a million dollars a year off the total cap hit of each contract by adding step down provisions. The yearly difference between the Kovy deal that was rejected and the one that was approved is 600k.

And I should note that the structural definitions of both Manslaughter and Murder are actually in place and have a pretty clear list of what qualifies for what.

That's the problem with this CBA. It doesn't have that. It doesn't have anything close to that.

A better analogy would be having a highway system with no speed limits, just cops that pulled you over and gave you a ticket if they thought you were going too fast.

How fast are you allowed to go? Nobody knows. The point of the ticket is to make sure that everybody slows down. The police will decide what is speeding and what isn't.

That's what the point of this punishment by Bettman is. He's trying to write a big enough ticket that everybody in the whole NHL will quit trying to drive through the huge exception he stupidly left in the CBA, even though he worked on something in the NBA's CBA precisely to deal with long contracts.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 07:37 AM
  #35
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
And by the way, if we want to talk about blatant acts of cap 'circumvention' not taken into account by a poorly-written CBA... hey how about what happened with Huet?

The cap exemption that was created for players leaving to go play in other leagues was I would assume designed so that if the player decided to leave the team wasn't stuck with his cap number, a la Hudler.

That's not what happened. The Hawks shooed him out the door to clear his whole amount rather than sending him to the AHL, which would have made it impossible for them to sign the players they have and still be within 10% of the cap by the day prior to the first day of the year.

Totally legal under the CBA in my opinion, but probably a more blatant twisting of a rule to create cap space than any other single deal proposed or signed we've yet seen in the NHL.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 07:52 AM
  #36
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Ah. Well, I will address the problem you are having with terminology...

...

So, your fairly feeble attempt at insulting me aside, what you really ought to do is more fully educate yourself on what the CBA really says before pontificating about how you and 'many others' somehow know what it means.
wtf

well im sure you are right but i'll try to read it when i have time. right now i dont.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 08:40 AM
  #37
JRZ DVLS
Try Brubag*****
 
JRZ DVLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NC,ILL,NorNJ,Roch
Country: United States
Posts: 4,305
vCash: 500
Enjoyed reading outsiders points on this.

As many Devs fans will point out, Lou was not the one behind this...This was Ownership....Lou was doing what ownership wanted (for a first i'd Suppose) Purely Marketing for NJD. The money the Devs were fined this year will be supplemented easily by the Nets and NY Liberty playing in the Rock this season FWIW, so not many of us are upset about the monetary fine..

As a Devils fan, the thing that bothers me and many others is that the fine is placed on NJ only....As many of you are talking about, the punishments could easily go against Det/Chi/Van/Phi...But no, the NHL/NHLPA Collectively bargained not to further investigate......Seriously?? And i suppose they Collectively bargained to punish NJD as the others that did the same thing sit back and say better them than me.


Last edited by JRZ DVLS: 09-15-2010 at 08:51 AM.
JRZ DVLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 10:10 AM
  #38
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRZ DVLS View Post
Enjoyed reading outsiders points on this.

As many Devs fans will point out, Lou was not the one behind this...This was Ownership....Lou was doing what ownership wanted (for a first i'd Suppose) Purely Marketing for NJD. The money the Devs were fined this year will be supplemented easily by the Nets and NY Liberty playing in the Rock this season FWIW, so not many of us are upset about the monetary fine..
Lou is pretty influential guy, from my understanding, with the owner who seems to have let him make the big decisions without interference.

I accept that it was the ownership pushing this, but does that mean there's a new disconnect between them, or has it always been like that when push came to shove?



Quote:
As a Devils fan, the thing that bothers me and many others is that the fine is placed on NJ only....As many of you are talking about, the punishments could easily go against Det/Chi/Van/Phi...But no, the NHL/NHLPA Collectively bargained not to further investigate......Seriously?? And i suppose they Collectively bargained to punish NJD as the others that did the same thing sit back and say better them than me.
To nitpick, the agreement was that the NHLPA gave the NHL a window in which they could penalize NJD if they chose to do so knowing the NHLPA would not contest the decision.

Normally the NHL would have to provide the NHLPA with evidence/proof but the NHLPA waived that right in exchange for letting Kovy's latest contract go, not penalizing any of the players (and thus grandfathering the existing contracts), and accepting the amendment on how future SPC's would be governed [wrt to the addition of the weasel years].

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 02:41 PM
  #39
Dustin16182
Registered User
 
Dustin16182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 356
vCash: 500
IMO Jersey is getting screwed over yes, but I don't think anyone should have gotten punished for this BS.

Whenever problems like this occur, it happens due to poor leadership, specifically during CBA negotiations. They obviously knew the CBA left room for there to be cap circumvention with this new salary cap, they left it poorly defined IMO, and didn't make any specifications as to what type of punishment there should be for this.

You ever hear of those stories where a kid is playing with a gun that they know is dangerous and ends up shooting someone? Well I blame the idiot who left a loaded gun in an unsafe place without the proper locks for the gun.

I do think Kovy's first deal should have been rejected, but I definitely don't like the muscle flexing thats been going on by certain members of the NHL through this.

(this includes Samuelson's famous giant calf muscles)

Dustin16182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 03:00 PM
  #40
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRZ DVLS View Post
As a Devils fan, the thing that bothers me and many others is that the fine is placed on NJ only....As many of you are talking about, the punishments could easily go against Det/Chi/Van/Phi...But no, the NHL/NHLPA Collectively bargained not to further investigate......Seriously?? And i suppose they Collectively bargained to punish NJD as the others that did the same thing sit back and say better them than me.
Yeah, you guys got absolutely screwified by Bettman.

There are some Tin Foil-y explanations for how all of this was really an elaborate put-up by Lamoriello to give Bettman an opportunity to close the CBA loophole the dummy left, but while I tend to get into that kind of thing... even I can't buy that Lou would let the Devils get this pummeled just to do Bettman a solid.

The thing that's going to really, really hurt is if that #1 pick you lose ends up being a good player.

IMO Bettman's gone after the next CBA negotiations. I don't think he burns Lou this badly if he thought he was going to need him two or three years down the road.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 03:05 PM
  #41
Heaton
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 17,039
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Yeah, you guys got absolutely screwified by Bettman.

There are some Tin Foil-y explanations for how all of this was really an elaborate put-up by Lamoriello to give Bettman an opportunity to close the CBA loophole the dummy left, but while I tend to get into that kind of thing... even I can't buy that Lou would let the Devils get this pummeled just to do Bettman a solid.

The thing that's going to really, really hurt is if that #1 pick you lose ends up being a good player.
I didn't even skim the thread so I'll just ask the question. What about the fine that Bettman laid on Burke a few years ago that caused him to lose a pick when a contract was rejected? Wasn't the precedent sort've made there? (I'm not defending Bettman, I just don't really give a **** about any of this).

Quote:
IMO Bettman's gone after the next CBA negotiations. I don't think he burns Lou this badly if he thought he was going to need him two or three years down the road.
I'd be absolutely shocked if that happened since the owners still love the guy.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 03:46 PM
  #42
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,988
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
I didn't even skim the thread so I'll just ask the question. What about the fine that Bettman laid on Burke a few years ago that caused him to lose a pick when a contract was rejected? Wasn't the precedent sort've made there? (I'm not defending Bettman, I just don't really give a **** about any of this).



I'd be absolutely shocked if that happened since the owners still love the guy.
I thought that was over Neidermeyer's "sorta but not really retiring but here's some cap space for ya" stunt.

__________________
blah, blah, blah
Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 03:55 PM
  #43
Heaton
#disapointment
 
Heaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 17,039
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Heaton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
I thought that was over Neidermeyer's "sorta but not really retiring but here's some cap space for ya" stunt.
Nope. in April 2009, the Toronto Maple Leafs were fined $500,000 and surrendered a fourth-round pick after helping defenceman Jonas Frogren buy his way out of a contract in Sweden.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...on-of-CBA.html

Burke tried to sign Frogren, but the contract was rejected. Granted it's different circumstances but we've all heard of lawyers twisting one situation to look like another.

Heaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 05:29 PM
  #44
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heaton View Post
I didn't even skim the thread so I'll just ask the question. What about the fine that Bettman laid on Burke a few years ago that caused him to lose a pick when a contract was rejected? Wasn't the precedent sort've made there? (I'm not defending Bettman, I just don't really give a **** about any of this).
I don't remember the context of that, actually. What happened?

Quote:
I'd be absolutely shocked if that happened since the owners still love the guy.
Well, Illitch doesn't. The NJ owner won't after this.

Look, don't jump all over my dream. I will start seven Hudler threads in retaliation.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2010, 06:27 PM
  #45
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
wtf

well im sure you are right but i'll try to read it when i have time. right now i dont.
alright i just skimmed through your post. (You should understand the last thing you want to do after couple hrs listening and thinking about molecular biology + theoretical math you dont even want to know about is to go line by line of your post.)

Firstly I'm just gonna ignore last half of your post because it seems to revolve around your logic in first half.

well IMO, it doesnt friggin matter what kind of examples CBA stated in letters. Sometimes common sense prevails and if you do exploit loophole in a biblical proportion, big brother will come down on you. I don't care if you agree or not, it is true and you soon or later will learn it if you havent already.

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. Anyway whatever you me or whoever think about the exact boundary of 'circumvention', in the end, arbitrator ruled it invalid and that's the end of that.

Also I've never claimed I've known exactly where the line was within millimeters of range. I'm not that versed in rules nor care about that much. I just know when something smells like fish to me, it probably is one. In Kovy's case, not only it smelled like one, but had a huge sign attached to it.

oh btw I wasn't trying to ... what was the word you used? insult? insult you? roflmao. Look, why would I want to insult you? If I wanted to, let me assure you you would know immediately about it. Maybe I misunderstood and you are just that thin skinned. I'll make a mental note of that and will try to baby you next time.

and please, keep it short if you can for me please. I've read that CBA (d) twice and still dont have clue what the heck is it talking about.

ps. on a side note, I would have to concede that thare wasn't a specific clause of kovy's situation. Also you really should believe me when I say I didnt want to insult you. I know how excited you can get when people publicly disagree with you and I just dont have capability right now to handle such rage posts.


Last edited by Yemack: 09-15-2010 at 06:39 PM.
Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 08:36 AM
  #46
JRZ DVLS
Try Brubag*****
 
JRZ DVLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NC,ILL,NorNJ,Roch
Country: United States
Posts: 4,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Lou is pretty influential guy, from my understanding, with the owner who seems to have let him make the big decisions without interference.

I accept that it was the ownership pushing this, but does that mean there's a new disconnect between them, or has it always been like that when push came to shove?
Not sure, I cant think of a time where Lou may have been forced into anything by ownership....McMullen let him handle everything and was behind the scenes. JVBK was a fan first, and has been more in the spotlight guy with a pretty good knowledge of finances. There have been a lot of changes especially in marketing...Something a lotof us are happy about considering they rarely ever marketed the Devs before. And The Kovy thing is a Huge marketing (don't want to say Ploy, but..) for the team...

Quote:
To nitpick, the agreement was that the NHLPA gave the NHL a window in which they could penalize NJD if they chose to do so knowing the NHLPA would not contest the decision.

Normally the NHL would have to provide the NHLPA with evidence/proof but the NHLPA waived that right in exchange for letting Kovy's latest contract go, not penalizing any of the players (and thus grandfathering the existing contracts), and accepting the amendment on how future SPC's would be governed [wrt to the addition of the weasel years].
exactly, and either way, does it sound right to you? I suppose the NHLPA is mainly to blame for this, and they probably don't care as long as Ilya was not fined anyway.....They knew they'd get off with what they wanted, and one owner/team (not players) would be punished.


Last edited by JRZ DVLS: 09-16-2010 at 08:44 AM.
JRZ DVLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 10:27 AM
  #47
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Mod: deleted.


Last edited by Fugu: 09-16-2010 at 10:55 AM. Reason: the rest is just baiting someone who doesn't want to exchange insults ;)
HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2010, 04:05 PM
  #48
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post

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.
I never said Bettemen can apply 'common sense' in anyway...did you even read what I wrote? It was pretty apparent there was a hole and people were taking advantage of it. When someone took it too far, he came down with the arbitrator on his side.

IMO, it's not always ok to take advantage of loopholes. Timte to time, I think it's ok to do that as we can see that NHL hasn't done anything with any other clubs...yet. I think that's a creative thinking and should be applauded. However, if you do something you aren't supposed to do, you better make sure you know what you are doing. If acting like a moron and take it too far, IMO, you may end up eating it.

You said it's unworkable in real world, which basically is the premises of your whole argument. Yes, sometimes people do get away with stuffs. Actually if it's a pretty crime (like tax evasion, battery etc) and they happen to get a good lawyer/judge combo, they are usually protected by law from incrimination. However, if it is a big enough issue... like a huge corporal deal, a national security, that's not always the case. Elected arbitrator can close the loophole if he/she deems it is a loophole. I maybe wrong but that's what my understanding is having read international news for few years. (again Im in no way an expert)

If you believe otherwise, which you apparently do, I'll let you live with your opinion.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2010, 11:49 PM
  #49
pavel13
Registered User
 
pavel13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to pavel13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
The Kovy deal that got rejected had a yearly cap hit of 6 mil. The one that got approved had a cap hit of 6.66 mil.

Zetterberg's deal has a cap hit of 6.08 mil. Without the step downs in the final three years his cap hit would be 7.51 mil.

Franzen's deal has a cap hit of 3.95 mil. Without the step downs in the final three years the contracts yearly cap hit would be 4.94.

So the Kovy deal that got rejected because of step down years at the end of the deal would have saved the Devils around 600k a year. Both the Zetterberg and the Franzen deals save the Wings aM dollars a year because of the end of contract step downs.

Each.

It is absolutely impossible to present a cogent, consistent argument that the Kovy deal was 'Circumvention' (as inaccurately described by you) while the Z and Franzen deals weren't.

It cannot be done.

So, your fairly feeble attempt at insulting me aside, what you really ought to do is more fully educate yourself on what the CBA really says before pontificating about how you and 'many others' somehow know what it means.
You calculated those numbers differently. You compared Kovalchuk's initial, rejected deal with the second deal. You compared Zetterberg and Franzen's contracts to the same contracts without the extra years.

According to this Kovalchuk's cap hit without the stepdown years would be $8.95M. That's counting 20-21 at $3.5M as a stepdown year.

2010-11: $6M
2011-12: $6M
2012-13: $11.5M
2013-14: $11.5M
2014-15: $11.5M
2015-16: $11.5M
2016-17: $11.5M
2017-18: $10.5M
2018-19: $8.5M
2019-20: $6.5M
2020-21: $3.5M
2021-22: $750k
2022-23: $550k
2023-24: $550k
2024-25: $550k
2025-26: $550k
2026-27: $550k

So we're not talking about a $666k cap savings. We're talking about $2.29M a year in cap savings. It's a significant difference, even if the difference is arbitrary.

In this CBA a player's cap hit is determined by the average salary that player gets per year of the duration of the contract. This was done to prevent teams from circumventing or mitigating (whatever you want to call it) the salary cap. It's definitely not a stretch to say that these contracts violate the spirit of the CBA. You're right that the CBA doesn't specifically prohibit these types of contracts. It definitely should have.

I think the easiest thing might be to prohibit contracts that put a player past age 40 (or 38, whatever) if the contract is longer than 5 years. Or maybe 8. Something like that.

pavel13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2010, 04:38 AM
  #50
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavel13 View Post
You calculated those numbers differently. You compared Kovalchuk's initial, rejected deal with the second deal. You compared Zetterberg and Franzen's contracts to the same contracts without the extra years.
Because we don't know where the line is. Was the Kovy deal that was finally approved on the absolute bleeding edge of what the NHL would allow? Well within what they would allow? Less than what they would allow, but since they got some NHLPA concessions they'd let it slide?

Quote:
In this CBA a player's cap hit is determined by the average salary that player gets per year of the duration of the contract. This was done to prevent teams from circumventing or mitigating (whatever you want to call it) the salary cap. It's definitely not a stretch to say that these contracts violate the spirit of the CBA.
What's this 'spirit of the CBA' everyone keeps talking about? Can someone define it for me? It seems like people are assuming the 'spirit of the CBA' is that teams can't do anything but take the greatest possible cap hit for a player.

Quote:
You're right that the CBA doesn't specifically prohibit these types of contracts. It definitely should have.

I think the easiest thing might be to prohibit contracts that put a player past age 40 (or 38, whatever) if the contract is longer than 5 years. Or maybe 8. Something like that.
The simplest and most obvious thing to do was to do what Bettman did while he was in the NBA: just set a max length on deals. In the NBA it's 6 years.

HockeyinHD 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 02:09 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.