HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Free Agent Frenzy Part II - Now with more Florida.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2011, 10:04 PM
  #751
JeffMangum
~anger~
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 57,977
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrodeursCups View Post
It wasn't you in that signing richards thread. Jonathon had to be dealt with. That ***** fest that erupted brought the lulz.
It's the main board. If Richards signed the same deal with LA, it would have been "ZOMG WHAT A CAP HIT LOMBARDI IS A GENIUS". You can't say no to that. Same with people ripping Devils fans. Why wouldn't you guys be angry? I mean, this is pretty clearly circumvention, lol.

It's why I don't post in "big" signing threads, for the most part. I sneak in when a counterpoint is brought up using proper facts and intelligence, though. I just ignore most of the other posts.

__________________
Soon.
JeffMangum is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:04 PM
  #752
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrodeursCups View Post
It wasn't you in that signing richards thread. Jonathon had to be dealt with. That ***** fest that erupted brought the lulz.
You should look at these gems.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...9&postcount=85

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=110

MJB Devils23* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:08 PM
  #753
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,295
vCash: 237
Quote:
Suppose the contract went until he was 40? Would it have been legal? What about 41? 42? 43? But 44 is definitely illegal? Before the Kovalchuk contract, where was the line drawn? At what age did it become illegal to do such a thing?
At 43 the Luongo contract was legal. At 44 we got fined a first, third and $3 million when there was no age law on the books at any point.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:10 PM
  #754
BrodeursCups
....
 
BrodeursCups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NoDak now NYC area
Country: United States
Posts: 29,915
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrodeursCups
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
It's the main board. If Richards signed the same deal with LA, it would have been "ZOMG WHAT A CAP HIT LOMBARDI IS A GENIUS". You can't say no to that. Same with people ripping Devils fans. Why wouldn't you guys be angry? I mean, this is pretty clearly circumvention, lol.

It's why I don't post in "big" signing threads, for the most part. I sneak in when a counterpoint is brought up using proper facts and intelligence, though. I just ignore most of the other posts.
Seriously. If you said anything negative it's instantly "zomfgrofl LOL u mad!" Johnathon started that whole goalie conversation by saying lundqvist is far and away better than bryz... I just dumped some gas on that ***** ass fire I'm not mad that the rangers got richards, good for you guys, you got your boy. We know the feeling around here after the kovy fiasco and then larsson.

I literally threw my hands up in the air when one rangers fan said we "had a dry prospect cupboard"
Wait for it, after I call him out he goes back and edits the post to say "ok, I looked and they do have decent prospects."

BrodeursCups is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:13 PM
  #755
battlingBard56
Registered User
 
battlingBard56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Union County, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,632
vCash: 500
What upsets me about it isn't as much as we were the only ones called out on it, but that most writers and media people who have twitters are refusing to acknowledge that these deals circumvent the "spirit" of the CBA like the Kovalchuk contract did. Kovy's and the most recent signings do the same exact thing; only thing different about them are the loopholes being exploited. Instead the blog and article writers and media people are saying "Oh its all legal" and not answering responses of "Umm, the Devils were penalized on the so called "spirit", not the lettering itself. These deals are legal yes, but they follow the same practice of circumventing the "spirit" of the cap."

I mean, really. When is the hypocrisy going to stop? I know Lou wouldn't risk giving Zach a deal like the most recent ones given to Ehrhoff and Richards, because he's not going to endanger the team and organization after what happened last season. But hypothetically I'd be interested to see what the hockey world's reaction would be if the Devils gave Zach the same exact contract as Richards got. See if people would be calling for the Devils to be burned at the stake again.

battlingBard56 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:16 PM
  #756
njdevilsownnhl*
 
njdevilsownnhl*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 822
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to njdevilsownnhl*
Can we stop complaining about losing a 1st and 3rd over the Kovalchuk contract? It was the only value we actually gave up for him since we lost nothing in the trade. Just look at it that way.

njdevilsownnhl* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:16 PM
  #757
EliasR8
Brendan Shanahan!
 
EliasR8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 12,435
vCash: 500
Obviously we will be mad at the cap circumvention. More than half of those people don't think in that thread. It's so obvious why we be mad at the circumvention oh well it's the trade board where Schneider+Hodgson is enough for Parise.

EliasR8 is online now  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:27 PM
  #758
BrodeursCups
....
 
BrodeursCups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NoDak now NYC area
Country: United States
Posts: 29,915
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrodeursCups
So what is this clarkson for Hodgson thing someone brought up? Whered that come from.

BrodeursCups is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:28 PM
  #759
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,295
vCash: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by battlingBard56 View Post
What upsets me about it isn't as much as we were the only ones called out on it, but that most writers and media people who have twitters are refusing to acknowledge that these deals circumvent the "spirit" of the CBA like the Kovalchuk contract did. Kovy's and the most recent signings do the same exact thing; only thing different about them are the loopholes being exploited. Instead the blog and article writers and media people are saying "Oh its all legal" and not answering responses of "Umm, the Devils were penalized on the so called "spirit", not the lettering itself. These deals are legal yes, but they follow the same practice of circumventing the "spirit" of the cap."
Actually I've seen several of them like Dreger and McKenzie support the fact that we have a right to be indignant after the contracts that have been handed out over the last week.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:28 PM
  #760
DatBoyJPP
Good Night
 
DatBoyJPP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blairstown
Country: United States
Posts: 18,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrodeursCups View Post
So what is this clarkson for Hodgson thing someone brought up? Whered that come from.
Some dude on twitter....

DatBoyJPP is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:29 PM
  #761
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
I know people keep posting these goofy Parise contracts. They don't work. He's too young. He will not sign something like that.

And I still want that pick back. Bunch of liars. 250% years, 5% back 3rds of contracts. Uh huh.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:34 PM
  #762
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roomtemperature View Post
We all knew this was what was going to happen due to the little they could do to fix the CBA without it actually expiring. Yes the fines suck losing the draft picks suck but to keep harping on them like everyone is shocked that its happening again is just treading old territory. Again if this happened with Parise we'd all be all this outsider screw you old man we beat you with your own rules attitude and be beating our chests about it.
Way to generalize. I'm probably the most pissed person here. Why? Because I was grudgingly okay with what happened, only to be found out I was totally lied to.

I don't care if the Rangers put a penny in the last year of the contract. What I want is some ****ing equality in the situation. Now, because the CBA has a head, Bettman is a *****. That's cool.

Just give the draft pick back then, because obviously these whacky deals aren't *that* worth his time that he gives up enforcing on them after essentially a day or two.

guyincognito is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:41 PM
  #763
Classic Devil
Global Moderator
Spirit of 1988
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 33,764
vCash: 500
Awards:
A Transcript:

Quote:
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,
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Daly
Obviously, I couldn't disagree more.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:48 PM
  #764
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,968
vCash: 500
So because we're Devils fans we're unintelligent? **** you, Bill Daly.

CD you shouldn't have said that you were a Devils fan. He dismissed you at that point.

Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:48 PM
  #765
JeffMangum
~anger~
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 57,977
vCash: 50
TGfireandice Tom Gulitti
According to Capgeek, the Devils have re-signed F Matt Anderson, to 2-way, 2-year deal with NHL cap hit of $525,000.

JeffMangum is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:48 PM
  #766
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Wow that conversation was a little heated.

MJB Devils23* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:49 PM
  #767
Classic Devil
Global Moderator
Spirit of 1988
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 33,764
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfanatic View Post
So because we're Devils fans we're unintelligent? **** you, Bill Daly.

CD you shouldn't have said that you were a Devils fan. He dismissed you at that point.
Please, by that point in the conversation I gained nothing by withholding that information, it was obvious.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:50 PM
  #768
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,968
vCash: 500
Either way, he's a ****ing *******. I hope he dies in a fire.

Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:52 PM
  #769
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfanatic View Post
Either way, he's a ****ing *******. I hope he dies in a fire.


He is not impressed.

MJB Devils23* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:54 PM
  #770
Classic Devil
Global Moderator
Spirit of 1988
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 33,764
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfanatic View Post
Either way, he's a ****ing *******. I hope he dies in a fire.
His initial point - that their hands are tied by the agreement they made with the NHLPA - is true. Apparently, not only would they almost certainly lose any claim in arbitration, they can't make claims for this reason. NHL going and tying their own hands, as per the usual.

His second point - that NJ deserved the punishment because we didn't deserve Kovalchuk - annoys me. I still want to know which of my three points he specifically disagrees with.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:54 PM
  #771
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Thanks for sharing Daly's comments. I'm glad to see that my analysis was correct -- the Kovalchuk Amendment has essentially opened the door to retirement contracts, so long as they stay under the 40 year old breaking point. Also glad to be able to infer that he still thinks the Kovalchuk, Richards, etc. deals are bogus.

And to the poster that says Parise is too young to get a cap circumventing deal, he's only two years younger than Kovalchuk, so I'm going to have to disagree.

If you were Parise (or Weber, etc.) and wanted to stay in N.J. long term, why would you not want a cap circumvention deal? You're talking about earning tens of millions of dollars more before the age of 35 with the same cap hit. I'd be very interested to see the contracts Weber and Parise are looking for.

azrok22 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:56 PM
  #772
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,295
vCash: 237
lol well I hope he feels that the Rangers don't deserve to have Richards and the Sabres don't deserve to have Erhoff and those contracts do get challenged at the end of the CBA but I ain't holding my breath on that one

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:56 PM
  #773
Scottyk9
Connor McDevil
 
Scottyk9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: West of Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 25,650
vCash: 432
Send a message via AIM to Scottyk9
renhockey Renaud P Lavoie
by wyshynski
#oilers Ryan Nugent-Hopkins 3 years / 2.498 total + 277 500 SB (2 way)
3 minutes ago


Larsson may not be as expensive now

Scottyk9 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:56 PM
  #774
battlingBard56
Registered User
 
battlingBard56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Union County, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
Actually I've seen several of them like Dreger and McKenzie support the fact that we have a right to be indignant after the contracts that have been handed out over the last week.
I don't have them on my twitter account do I guess I didn't see them. Thanks for pointing that out.

Just a few I tried talking to who said "Oh but it's legal" and left it at that completely ignored my counterargument regarding the "spirit" aspect of the argument.

battlingBard56 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 10:57 PM
  #775
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
I'd also like to point out that while Bloch's ruling emphasized that he found no bad faith, that conclusion was largely irrelevant. Doling out punishment is exclusively within the Commissioner's discretion.

Bloch's ruling could've simply been a check box that said "check here if this is cap circumvention." Once that conclusion was reached, only Bettman's opinion mattered in doling out the punishment.

azrok22 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:48 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.