HFBoards

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

Kovalchuk Deal Rejected

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 07:55 AM
  #126
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,726
vCash: 500
The Erat contract was only nixed because it violated the 50% rule at the tail end of the contract. It was easy to reject becuase it violated a clearly defined rule in the CBA. This one, not so much, since its all subjective.

To me it looks like Lou got pushed into this contract by Devils management, he doesn't seem like he likes the contract from his public words. Maybe he'll get the last laugh

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:41 AM
  #127
Ri hards
Registered User
 
Ri hards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.



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.
You're gonna lose your nail. It may not be today...it may not be tomorrow, but you're going to lose it. I took a slap shot off the toe back in April. I drained it com pletely hopping to save the nail. Looked like it worked but low and behold, the old nail was pushed off by a new nail growing under it...in July.


Oh...and yea...tears of Jersey fans are delicious

Ri hards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:58 AM
  #128
chimrichalds18
the key
 
chimrichalds18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.
Was this ice or roller hockey?

chimrichalds18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:13 AM
  #129
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.
The arbitrator's job is to determine whether the contract circumvents the cap. Whether the NHL thinks it does is irrelevant other than to put the issue in front of him and present their argument. Ultimately, if he thinks it circumvents the cap for whatever reason, he voids the contract.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:22 AM
  #130
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
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.
Well, those comparing it to Pronger's are idiots. Pronger's is a 35+ deal, and therefore exists in its own universe. Now he may very well retire before it's over, but the contract won't come off the books... so, yeah. Hossa's deal, is very similar, but less blatant.

The 2nd group is a reasonable position if the argument isn't about league minimum... I'm not sure how this has been handled poorly, however.

Devs were thinking about a good player at a reasonable cap hit, and that there is precedent for these types of deals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimrichalds18 View Post
Was this ice or roller hockey?
roller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
The arbitrator's job is to determine whether the contract circumvents the cap. Whether the NHL thinks it does is irrelevant other than to put the issue in front of him and present their argument. Ultimately, if he thinks it circumvents the cap for whatever reason, he voids the contract.
To an extent, but that belief is based on the NHLs argument as to why this deal circumvents the cap... and, for obvious reasons, the immediate question that an arbitrator should ask (and the Devs would raise) is why this deal circumvents the cap but those other deals do not. Arbitrator works off the merits of the arguments. If he's just operating by the rules, then outside the league minimum issue at the end the NHL won't win the ruling as they almost definitely do not have evidence that there is any fraudulent understanding regarding the end of the contract.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:23 AM
  #131
El Emperor
Registered User
 
El Emperor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Woodstown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,311
vCash: 500
Even if the NHL loses this one, they have basically brought the subject of massively frontloaded contracts to the front of the line for the next CBA negociations.

The NHL basically messed up when they wrote the rules in a way that teams would "in good faith" not sign players to contracts that were not likely to be played in its entirety. No idea why any organization would draft a consitution assuming everyone would play nice.

Two easy fixes:

1. Do not allow players under 35 to sign contracts taking them past age 38.
2. Make the team of a retired player use at least a fraction of their cap hit.

El Emperor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:30 AM
  #132
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, those comparing it to Pronger's are idiots. Pronger's is a 35+ deal, and therefore exists in its own universe. Now he may very well retire before it's over, but the contract won't come off the books... so, yeah. Hossa's deal, is very similar, but less blatant.

The 2nd group is a reasonable position if the argument isn't about league minimum... I'm not sure how this has been handled poorly, however.
a lot of the devils fans thought it was odd that the league didn't give any kinds of heads up that they wouldnt allow such a contract, and allowed the press conference to occur, and publicized the deal all over the website.

i think theyre being ridiculous. i mean, its not like bettman was sitting in the room with kovy's agent and lou...and the league needs time to review the contract after its been submitted. they arent going to just hack it down the moment it lands on their desk without thoroughly going over it.

and as for the whole, "why didnt the league warn them beforehand? theyre meanies" argument...come on. do they really need a warning for a contract like that?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:32 AM
  #133
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
In a certain sense, any deal that is structured to vary salary from year-to-year "circumvents" the salary cap somehow.

Example (Danny Briere):

2013-2014 $3,000,000
2014-2015 $2,000,000

Remove those two years, and Briere's cap hit goes from 6.5 to 7.833.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:35 AM
  #134
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
a lot of the devils fans thought it was odd that the league didn't give any kinds of heads up that they wouldnt allow such a contract, and allowed the press conference to occur, and publicized the deal all over the website.

i think theyre being ridiculous. i mean, its not like bettman was sitting in the room with kovy's agent and lou...and the league needs time to review the contract after its been submitted. they arent going to just hack it down the moment it lands on their desk without thoroughly going over it.

and as for the whole, "why didnt the league warn them beforehand? theyre meanies" argument...come on. do they really need a warning for a contract like that?
I believe Garbage Goal posted that they were warned in advance that the deal likely wouldn't pass muster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
In a certain sense, any deal that is structured to vary salary from year-to-year "circumvents" the salary cap somehow.

Example (Danny Briere):

2013-2014 $3,000,000
2014-2015 $2,000,000

Remove those two years, and Briere's cap hit goes from 6.5 to 7.833.
Well, right, but the system is set on AAV... so it's not really circumventing the cap. There is also a compelling argument as to why players would want a front-loaded deal as opposed to a back-loaded one independent of any issue with retirement.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:37 AM
  #135
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 48,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I believe Garbage Goal posted that they were warned in advance that the deal likely wouldn't pass muster.
oh, didn't see that. interesting.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:43 AM
  #136
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, right, but the system is set on AAV... so it's not really circumventing the cap. There is also a compelling argument as to why players would want a front-loaded deal as opposed to a back-loaded one independent of any issue with retirement.
Right, but as far as I'm aware, the only written rule in the CBA as it pertains to AAV is that salary from one year to the next cannot vary by more than 50% of the lesser of the first two years. The NHL has thrown out the term "artificially" without there being any definition of what "artificial" means. This is going to have serious ramifications.

If this goes to arbitration, I wouldn't be surprised if NJ and Kovalchuk win. I do see this as the NHL beating the drum for changes to appear in the next CBA.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:10 AM
  #137
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
#NoHonorForConnor
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 21,879
vCash: 500
I know this is a stupid comment probably but doesn't the commissioner work for the owners or at least is the voice for them? Wouldn't the owners want things like this to be allowed so that they can put better teams on the ice due to the lower cap hit? I mean clearly it shouldn't be allowed but with what I'm saying why would the owners complain?

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Hollywood Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:12 AM
  #138
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I know this is a stupid comment probably but doesn't the commissioner work for the owners or at least is the voice for them? Wouldn't the owners want things like this to be allowed so that they can put better teams on the ice due to the lower cap hit? I mean clearly it shouldn't be allowed but with what I'm saying why would the owners complain?
Well, if you're a small market team, these deals are just plain terrible for you to compete against.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:16 AM
  #139
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I know this is a stupid comment probably but doesn't the commissioner work for the owners or at least is the voice for them? Wouldn't the owners want things like this to be allowed so that they can put better teams on the ice due to the lower cap hit? I mean clearly it shouldn't be allowed but with what I'm saying why would the owners complain?
The owners probably hate having guys signed for these huge terms because of how much uncertainty there is. The point of the salary cap was so that players wouldn't be getting 11 million a year, and now they are but they just tack on a few extra years of low salary that the player likely doesn't intend to honor so that the cap hit is more manageable.

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:19 AM
  #140
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inebriator View Post
The Erat contract was only nixed because it violated the 50% rule at the tail end of the contract. It was easy to reject becuase it violated a clearly defined rule in the CBA. This one, not so much, since its all subjective.

To me it looks like Lou got pushed into this contract by Devils management, he doesn't seem like he likes the contract from his public words. Maybe he'll get the last laugh
Kovalchuks deal has the minimum salary at less then $600,000 in the year 2020.

It will no doubt be higher then, meaning his deal has to be renegotiated.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:24 AM
  #141
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87
Kovalchuks deal has the minimum salary at less then $600,000 in the year 2020.

It will no doubt be higher then, meaning his deal has to be renegotiated.
They will no doubt use that argument, and it makes sense, but it is not clearly spelled out in the CBA as a violation of contract policy so it's not quite the same as the Erat contract I referred to

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:27 AM
  #142
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inebriator View Post
They will no doubt use that argument, and it makes sense, but it is not clearly spelled out in the CBA as a violation of contract policy so it's not quite the same as the Erat contract I referred to
The problem is that league minimum is a projection and nothing more that far out. However, it is clearly spelled out that contracts can't be given out below league minimum per year.

Interestingly, and this is the only spot where Pronger's contract is comparable, Pronger's deal tapers down to like 550K or whatever... which might be an issue at that point if it jumps up.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:28 AM
  #143
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Cannon View Post
I know this is a stupid comment probably but doesn't the commissioner work for the owners or at least is the voice for them? Wouldn't the owners want things like this to be allowed so that they can put better teams on the ice due to the lower cap hit? I mean clearly it shouldn't be allowed but with what I'm saying why would the owners complain?
If I were an owner I would be scared to death of deals like this. Now every third-tier star is going to be asking for some wild arrangement like this. Annual salaries and cap hits concern fans, total dollars concern owners and players. The NHL has done a *fair* job relative to other sports in policing itself in terms of salary, this would make it extremely difficult because the cap/competitiveness argument goes out the window, weakening bargaining position, and in doing so it requires a longer, more intense, more complicated commitment. I would think every owner would be a little leery of this practice and certainly mid to small market teams would be pissed because they can't dish out deals like this and survive.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:36 AM
  #144
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
If this isn't a joke, and it did get rejected (which I doubt) those wouldn't be the reasons why. This has to be a joke, right? I mean, the trade is kinda lopsided, but the reasons for it are kind of obvious, so I would think they would send it through.
Really?

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:37 AM
  #145
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
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.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:41 AM
  #146
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Duberstein View Post
If I were an owner I would be scared to death of deals like this. Now every third-tier star is going to be asking for some wild arrangement like this. Annual salaries and cap hits concern fans, total dollars concern owners and players. The NHL has done a *fair* job relative to other sports in policing itself in terms of salary, this would make it extremely difficult because the cap/competitiveness argument goes out the window, weakening bargaining position, and in doing so it requires a longer, more intense, more complicated commitment. I would think every owner would be a little leery of this practice and certainly mid to small market teams would be pissed because they can't dish out deals like this and survive.
That's all true but big market teams probably love these kinds of deals because it gives them a HUGE advantage.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:51 AM
  #147
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
I think I'd actually prefer that to a finger injury...

1) More badass.

2) Less irritating while doing ****.

It hurt when it happened, but I was mostly just irritated with when it happened in the game and the score at the time. Fell into the "completely unnecessary" category. Boring a hole through my nail was a fun an interesting experience (note: I will not be saying this when it becomes infected or something).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:57 AM
  #148
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
The problem is that league minimum is a projection and nothing more that far out. However, it is clearly spelled out that contracts can't be given out below league minimum per year.

Interestingly, and this is the only spot where Pronger's contract is comparable, Pronger's deal tapers down to like 550K or whatever... which might be an issue at that point if it jumps up.
That's more what I was getting at. In all practicallity the minimum will be above that figure, but it cannot be stated as fact.

As for Pronger's deal, I don't think it can cause any issues if the min. goes up in the future, once the contract is approved and registered as his is.

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:23 PM
  #149
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think I'd actually prefer that to a finger injury...

1) More badass.

2) Less irritating while doing ****.

It hurt when it happened, but I was mostly just irritated with when it happened in the game and the score at the time. Fell into the "completely unnecessary" category. Boring a hole through my nail was a fun an interesting experience (note: I will not be saying this when it becomes infected or something).
There is youtube video of your "slash"


Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:26 PM
  #150
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
There is youtube video of your "slash"
Easily the best of the Crosby dives. I mean, that's some drama school level **** going on.

Unlike Crosby, I turned around and took a penalty for a light spear.

Jester 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 01:44 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.