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.
If they make a league minimum argument concerning the final years, I think they have a very solid argument for rejecting this deal. If they are just saying, "we don't think he's going to play out the deal..." Then they're just expressing an opinion...
If they make a league minimum argument concerning the final years, I think they have a very solid argument for rejecting this deal. If they are just saying, "we don't think he's going to play out the deal..." Then they're just expressing an opinion...
An opinion that's backed up by common sense, precedence, and statistics. Which makes it a valid opinion.
As it is, they have many arguments they could make.
An opinion that's backed up by common sense, precedence, and statistics. Which makes it a valid opinion.
As it is, they have many arguments they could make.
Besides, look at the other side of it. What facts and proof do the Devils have to say that Kovalchuk will play out his contract? All they have really is an opinion.
When it comes down to it, the NHL has a lot to back up their statement that Kovalchuk won't play out his contract while all the Devils have is speculation that he will play it out really.
An opinion that's backed up by common sense, precedence, and statistics. Which makes it a valid opinion.
As it is, they have many arguments they could make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal
Besides, look at the other side of it. What facts and proof do the Devils have to say that Kovalchuk will play out his contract? All they have really is an opinion.
When it comes down to it, the NHL has a lot to back up their statement that Kovalchuk won't play out his contract while all the Devils have is speculation that he will play it out really.
...I don't disagree. However, the Devils immediate response will be that they didn't reject the previous deals. I think it would be a good thing if the league were to win here, I just don't see an independent arbitrator siding with them given their own precedent based on that argument. Just seems hypocritical.
...I don't disagree. However, the Devils immediate response will be that they didn't reject the previous deals. I think it would be a good thing if the league were to win here, I just don't see an independent arbitrator siding with them given their own precedent based on that argument. Just seems hypocritical.
I read a quote that Lou before the rejection in which he said these contracts shouldn't happen, but he doesn't think they did anything wrong within the rules.
I'm sure the NHLPA will have something to say, but in the end, they'll restructure the deal to make it palatable.
...I don't disagree. However, the Devils immediate response will be that they didn't reject the previous deals. I think it would be a good thing if the league were to win here, I just don't see an independent arbitrator siding with them given their own precedent based on that argument. Just seems hypocritical.
In that case, it seems like we agree for the most part.
I think it could be a crap-shoot, but I'm expecting the NHL to win this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44
I read a quote that Lou before the rejection in which he said these contracts shouldn't happen, but he doesn't think they did anything wrong within the rules.
I'm sure the NHLPA will have something to say, but in the end, they'll restructure the deal to make it palatable.
Yeah, that quote doesn't help either.
If this deal stay nixed then that opens the door for LA and Atlanta again.
...I don't disagree. However, the Devils immediate response will be that they didn't reject the previous deals. I think it would be a good thing if the league were to win here, I just don't see an independent arbitrator siding with them given their own precedent based on that argument. Just seems hypocritical.
Which is totally within an arbitrator's rights, given that they don't have any defined methods of making a decision. In any event, what's to stop the arbitrator from saying he wouldn't have nixed Hossa, Luongo, Franzen, and Zetterberg too? None of these cases have even been to the arbitrator before, so we have no idea what an independent decider thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44
I read a quote that Lou before the rejection in which he said these contracts shouldn't happen, but he doesn't think they did anything wrong within the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal
Apparently Lou was warned by Bettman before the contract was signed that it would probably get nixed. Huh.
These two facts have me wondering if Lou structured the deal in a way that he would be totally comfortable signing Kovy with these terms, but if it gets rejected he'll come out quite happy that he proved his point. Looks like a win-win given his apparent disdain for the practice.
Which is totally within an arbitrator's rights, given that they don't have any defined methods of making a decision. In any event, what's to stop the arbitrator from saying he wouldn't have nixed Hossa, Luongo, Franzen, and Zetterberg too? None of these cases have even been to the arbitrator before, so we have no idea what an independent decider thinks.
The NHL also investigated the Hossa and Pronger deals. Nothing came out of it, but this isn't the first time the NHL has made a fuss over a contract like this. It's just that this is the Hossa contract to an even farther extreme.
The NHL also investigated the Hossa and Pronger deals. Nothing came out of it, but this isn't the first time the NHL has made a fuss over a contract like this. It's just that this is the Hossa contract to an even farther extreme.
Right, but it never got to an arbitrator before, so there wouldn't really be any hypocrisy in nixing it considering an arbitrator hasn't gone the other way. Those guys are totally free to analyze things by whatever methods they want and don't have to look at things in the way the NHL does at all. Absent any kind of fraud or bias, an arbitrator can do whatever the hell he wants.
Right, but it never got to an arbitrator before, so there wouldn't really be any hypocrisy in nixing it considering an arbitrator hasn't gone the other way. Those guys are totally free to analyze things by whatever methods they want and don't have to look at things in the way the NHL does at all. Absent any kind of fraud or bias, an arbitrator can do whatever the hell he wants.
Yeah, I know, I agree with you. I've been saying that for this entire topic.
My point is that if the Devils say to the arbitrator "the NHL has never nixed a deal like this before so why start now" the NHL could simply point out that, although they haven't rejected a deal like this before, they have investigated contracts like this before. Then they could point out that the difference between the Hossa and Kovalchuk deals was large enough to draw the line and jump from a mere investigation to actually nixing the deal.
So, in shorter words, the Devils can't really make a case that this is the first time the NHL has gotten up-in-arms over a contract like this because it isn't.
Which is totally within an arbitrator's rights, given that they don't have any defined methods of making a decision. In any event, what's to stop the arbitrator from saying he wouldn't have nixed Hossa, Luongo, Franzen, and Zetterberg too? None of these cases have even been to the arbitrator before, so we have no idea what an independent decider thinks.
The issue won't be whether the arbitrator would reject the contract or not... that's not his job; it's the NHL's job. When they've had that option previously, they haven't done it.
I agree completely with the decision to toss these deals, as they're utter crap. However, the league hasn't done that and THAT is what the arbitrator should be thinking about... not whether he thinks the deal is legit or not.
In other news, I got slashed playing hockey and I'm pretty convinced I'm going to lose the fingernail on my pinky. Not pleased.
The issue won't be whether the arbitrator would reject the contract or not... that's not his job; it's the NHL's job. When they've had that option previously, they haven't done it.
I agree completely with the decision to toss these deals, as they're utter crap. However, the league hasn't done that and THAT is what the arbitrator should be thinking about... not whether he thinks the deal is legit or not.
In other news, I got slashed playing hockey and I'm pretty convinced I'm going to lose the fingernail on my pinky. Not pleased.
I think he should be and probably will be thinking about both, but for argument's sake I'll just assume he only thinks about the fact that no other deal like this has been nixed before.
The NHL is just going to come up with two counter-points to that (since we're ignoring the legitimacy of the deal itself).
1) What I said in my last post.
2) That there was no precedence for a deal of Kovalchuk's magnitude before it came along so therefore there was no need to nix any deals. There's a first time for everything anyways, right?
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.
I know it doesn't actually matter for the sake of the argument since it is still a small number but, apparently 8 players have played up to or beyond age 44.
Chelios, Howe, Harvey, Moe Roberts, Gump Worsley, Johnny Bower, Tim Horton, and Jacques Plante.
I think he should be and probably will be thinking about both, but for argument's sake I'll just assume he only thinks about the fact that no other deal like this has been nixed before.
The NHL is just going to come up with two counter-points to that (since we're ignoring the legitimacy of the deal itself).
1) What I said in my last post.
2) That there was no precedence for a deal of Kovalchuk's magnitude before it came along so therefore there was no need to nix any deals. There's a first time for everything anyways, right?
The NHL has nixed deals in the past.
In 2008, the NHL nixed Nashville's extension of winger Martin Erat. It was re-negotiated.
I think he should be and probably will be thinking about both, but for argument's sake I'll just assume he only thinks about the fact that no other deal like this has been nixed before.
The NHL is just going to come up with two counter-points to that (since we're ignoring the legitimacy of the deal itself).
1) What I said in my last post.
2) That there was no precedence for a deal of Kovalchuk's magnitude before it came along so therefore there was no need to nix any deals. There's a first time for everything anyways, right?
Yeah, but who cares if they huffed and they puffed... the NHL (and Bettman proudly presented the CBA to the world as a great good) agreed to a set of rules governing how the league operated. The deal conforms to those rules (outside of possibly the league minimum issue at the end). To go before someone and say that the rules that you yourself wrote up are being followed and you don't like it... ah, OK.
The size of the deal... whatever. That's a matter of scale, and while I agree with it in spirit I think the actual rules are more important, and if teams are following those rules then that is fair (unless Bettman has "best interest of hockey" ability similar to Selig).
As said, I'll be happy if they toss it... but the Devs can legitimately cry foul and arbitrariness on the part of the NHL if they don't let 'em sign Kovy to this deal purely because they don't like it.
Holy $### what kind of bizarro world did I wake up into. Flyers fans applauding Bettman and jeering Flyers management. Let me guess, the next thread is something crazy like the Flyers traded Simon Gagne for a 1984 Chevy Astro van with three tires.
Jester, cut the nail down to a comfortable, even point and go to a nail place and apply an acrylic nail. I've lost a couple nails, one on my thumb and one on my small toe, not a big deal. I just let the toe one grow back, thumb hurt, got a little Asian nail spot to cover it until it started growing back firmly.
As for the Kovie deal, pretty flagrant cap circumvention. You can say it's a legal deal by the letter of the law but from what I gather the league has some latitude. They wanted to nix the Hossa deal, if the Flyers were not retarded in the Pronger deal that might have been axed, Erat deal was rejected and re-worked, etc.
I hope he goes to Russia. Devils lose. Kovalchuk loses. Bettman loses. Awesome, F all those guys, F Russia, too, but they are the least of many evils for the first time since World War II.
It's mostly the fact that there was like a minute left in the game and we were losing badly... last thing I needed was to get slashed when the game was already out of hand. I'm actually mildly convinced that the tip is fractured, but at the same time it doesn't really hurt all that much, just swollen.
Plus I'd already been drilled in the wrist with a slap shot earlier (same hand) that had made my arm go numb for a bit. Rough night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Duberstein
Jester, cut the nail down to a comfortable, even point and go to a nail place and apply an acrylic nail. I've lost a couple nails, one on my thumb and one on my small toe, not a big deal. I just let the toe one grow back, thumb hurt, got a little Asian nail spot to cover it until it started growing back firmly.
I actually just burned a hole through the nail and got a lot of the blood out... hopefully the nail doesn't fall off. I'm not optimistic, however. Needless to say it's been mildly eventful around here. The g/f is asleep upstairs and likely wondering what the **** is going on with me wandering around rummaging for bandaids and neosporin.
ive always wondered how one burns a hole in their nail to drain it. how do you keep from going too far?
you guys should stop by the devils board. there are three groups:
1) people who think there is zero difference between kovy's contract, hossa's, or pronger's
2) people who think the contract is blatant circumvention, but still think the league is stupid for having the audacity to challege Lou the Great
3) people who think it's deserved, though handled poorly. this is the smallest group.
i personally don't know what the devils were thinking. the league has allowed some leeway in the past with contracts walking the line, but this deal really doesnt leave them any choice. there's no subtlety about it. im not an expert with the CBA or contracts or anything, but even i can see what they're doing here.
