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

The Drums of War - NHL Nixes Kovalchuk Deal (Part 2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 07:48 AM
  #51
VaxjoDevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Princeton, NJ
Country: Sweden
Posts: 8,177
vCash: 500
Shoot me but...I think the rejection is fair. Not "legal" but fair. Shave it to 15 years, until he is 42 (same as Hossa contract). This contract IS extreme.

The Avery thing is completely irrelevant. Also, did he get two minutes? No, they let him do it THEN changed the rules. The comparison here would be if NHL let this contract be, then made changes which rules it out to happen again.

VaxjoDevil is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:49 AM
  #52
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankthefrowner View Post
Lol come on dude, you honestly think Kovalchuk is going to play here in the united states till hes 44 making 550k???? Honestly? Not only that but if i recall corrects Ovie's contract isnt front loaded its spread out evenly so at 35 he isnt making 550k. Hes not gonna say "hey im retired at 38 thanks guys" But we all know he is.
Mere Speculation. MAY Happen....May NOT Happen.


We don't know and we won't know so How can the NHL KNOW?

You follow?

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:49 AM
  #53
Kessley Snipes*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfanatic View Post
I know the age of the player at the time. It was still 13 years, it's a ridiculously long term. No one here is saying that the Devils didn't abuse the system, but they're not the first and won't be the last.


Yeah but like someone just said above me; the difference is that it is more reasonable to believe Ovechkin will still be playing at the end of his contract and less reasonable to believe Kovalchuck will. That is the NHL's argument which they really have no proof for. It is one of those things that you can assume but never prove.

13 years is a long deal, no question about it. I just dont think the Capitals abused the system in the Ovechkin example.

Kessley Snipes* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:50 AM
  #54
fortheloveof666
Resident soothsayer
 
fortheloveof666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dirty Jerz
Country: Angola
Posts: 14,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
2 questions I'd like to ask of devils fans, and let me add that I don't think kovalchuks contract should be voided, but i'm talking about the league moving forward from here.

Question 1) Where was all this outrage toward Bettman when he intervened midway througha playoff series and adjusted the rulebook mid series to prevent Sean Avery from acting like a jackass and waving his hand in Broduers face and completely embarressing the game? (Just so your aware, Lou is waving his hand in Bettmans face with this deal and embaressing the league, is it legal, looks like it to me, but lets not pretend this should be allowed in the future)

Question 2) Will Devils fans still be ok with this when the league loses and every GM now sees he can get away with this and does the same thing with UFA's and now even worse, but something noone considers, offer sheets to RFA's like this? (let me remind everyone that when there were no rules to keep GMs from being jerks the devils struggled to sign top ufa talent while teams like the Rangers, Wings, Stars etc gobbled them all up. What are you gonna say when the new CBA comes up and Bettman looks at the owners of the smaller markets and says, hey, we tried to help you but you guys just abused it so were going back to no salary cap, hope you can spend like NY, Detriot and the big boys.)


Again let me reiterate, Kovys contract should be accepted cus there is no rule against it right now, but to prevent more of this something needs to change and we all need to stop pretending this is ok
You're absolutely right, it does bring back the same thick fog that sort of became the reason for the cap and certain facets of the CBA with regard to contracts. I think we can all remember clearly how much the league tossed around the term 'parity' throughout the entire year-long ordeal.

This does blur the lines of parity a bit and could put franchises without the means in a bad position once again.

However, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense for teams to consistently make these big, long-term investments into players. These aren't going to be candy contracts because they're still binding. How many teams are really going to be willing to lose millions if **** falls apart? (Need I cite Bobby Holik? even pre-cap era)

But at the same time, why shouldn't a team be allowed to invest in star power over a long period of time? Didn't the league sort of stuff that exact thing down our throats with their constant marketing of Criesby and Ovenchicken? Look at how those franchises turned around because of those guys, both teams sell out consistently. So why wouldn't every team want to have their own superstar to ***** out to the public?

With the cap uncertainty and the cost these contracts would be, they're still high-risk investments with short-term benefits for both parties. You also have to consider that even in 2060 () when this contract expires, the cap hit is still going to be 6 million dollars. So if he sucks, what we're paying him doesn't mean **** when he's still consuming 6 million dollars of space.

I don't see why that risk isn't penalty enough for this type of contract.

fortheloveof666 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
  #55
Richer 44
Registered User
 
Richer 44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Whitehouse, NJ
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 500
Isn't Savard making only 550k in his last two seasons? how is this different other then the 44 vs 42 years old part

Richer 44 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
  #56
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blader258 View Post
Yeah but like someone just said above me; the difference is that it is more reasonable to believe Ovechkin will still be playing at the end of his contract and less reasonable to believe Kovalchuck will. That is the NHL's argument which they really have no proof for. It is one of those things that you can assume but never prove.

13 years is a long deal, no question about it. I just dont think the Capitals abused the system in the Ovechkin example.
No, they definitely didn't abuse the system. They're paying him 124M for 13 years. It's crazy.

This is just a hiccup more than anything.

Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
  #57
IrishPaulie
Sooshii is AWESOME!!
 
IrishPaulie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Woostah
Country: Ireland
Posts: 5,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blader258 View Post
The NHL really has no right to nix this deal when there has been precedent set with the contracts of Dipietro and Pronger. I hope you guys win this in the end and get your player.
The two examples you gave where horrible and have no precedence. Dipietro gets paid the same amount over the course of his entire contract and Pronger is a 35+ deal so it goes under different rulings.

The Savard and Hossa contracts are much more viable examples of where the CBA has been abused before. The difference is the Devils just did it to the "N'th" degree.

That said, I don't agree with the league stepping in here. You can't punish a team for using a loophole after you blatantly watched numerous other teams use it too. If anything they should let the Kovalchuk deal go through and put their foot down from here on out. The CBA still kills the loophole but it doesn't make an example out of anybody. The league again is just plain wrong!

I truly hope this is just a minor set back for the Devils and that it all works out. Good luck this year guys.

(PS the CBA would be better off implementing a maximum contract length to get rid of this loophole. The deals being handed out now to players are ridiculous. I want to see people play for different teams.)

IrishPaulie is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
  #58
Devils731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenwo2 View Post
42

44 (what's two more years in comparison to a "certain" contract we all know?)


please....The Age is more but the CONCEPT is the same.
2 years is a lot when it comes to the end of professional sports players careers.

.19% of forwards play until they're 42. Only .03% play until they're 44.

So we can see there is a definitive difference between 42 and 44.

Devils731 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:51 AM
  #59
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blader258 View Post
Yeah but like someone just said above me; the difference is that it is more reasonable to believe Ovechkin will still be playing at the end of his contract and less reasonable to believe Kovalchuck will. That is the NHL's argument which they really have no proof for. It is one of those things that you can assume but never prove.

13 years is a long deal, no question about it. I just dont think the Capitals abused the system in the Ovechkin example.
See my above reply to frankthefrowner. Just like you stated, sort of.

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:52 AM
  #60
DevilzFan
PS3 GM Conn. Oilers
 
DevilzFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1,285
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DevilzFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post

Question 2) Will Devils fans still be ok with this when the league loses and every GM now sees he can get away with this and does the same thing with UFA's and now even worse, but something noone considers, offer sheets to RFA's like this? (let me remind everyone that when there were no rules to keep GMs from being jerks the devils struggled to sign top ufa talent while teams like the Rangers, Wings, Stars etc gobbled them all up. What are you gonna say when the new CBA comes up and Bettman looks at the owners of the smaller markets and says, hey, we tried to help you but you guys just abused it so were going back to no salary cap, hope you can spend like NY, Detriot and the big boys.)
My issue is that the NHL should have come out and said beforehand that they don't want contracts like this. The simple solution would have been, after the Hossa contract, the NHL should have stated right then and there that they would not allow another contract like that.

They didn't.

DevilzFan is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:52 AM
  #61
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Caller View Post
Answer to question 1- Other teams have done the same thing as Lou just did. You didn't see players around the NHL standing there with their hands in goalie's faces, and then all of a sudden the league singled out Avery. Avery was the first to do it and the league stopped it there, which is the right thing to do. Anyway, it's a completely different situation. This is a downfall of the CBA which was overlooked. Avery's play was just pure idiocy. It's like going out on the ice with a laser pointer on your stick to distract the goalie and saying "the rule book doesn't specifically say you can't attach a laser pointer to your stick". Apples and Oranges.
Your right, other teams have done what Lou did, but Lou's is the grossest example (the longest contract, with the least money left on the table for the player if he doesn't honor the whole contract), i wasn't trying to defend Avery here, the Apples to Apples comparison I was trying to make was this-
Were Avery actions good for the league - NO
Was Lou's contract offer good for the league - NO

Again, Kovys contract should be left alone, but this has to stop going forward or the league becomes a bigger joke.

I know theres something wrong with the League when Devils fans sound like Rangers fans from the 90's defending every move there GM makes

DubiDubiDoo is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:52 AM
  #62
Jersey Man
Mad Dog
 
Jersey Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,528
vCash: 500
This.Is.Unbelievable.

Jersey Man is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:53 AM
  #63
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPaulie View Post
The two examples you gave where horrible and have no precedence. Dipietro gets paid the same amount over the course of his entire contract and Pronger is a 35+ deal so it goes under different rulings.

The Savard and Hossa contracts are much more viable examples of where the CBA has been abused before. The difference is the Devils just did it to the "N'th" degree.

That said, I don't agree with the league stepping in here. You can't punish a team for using a loophole after you blatantly watched numerous other teams use it too. If anything they should let the Kovalchuk deal go through and put their foot down from here on out. The CBA still kills the loophole but it doesn't make an example out of anybody. The league again is just plain wrong!

I truly hope this is just a minor set back for the Devils and that all works out. Good luck this year guys.
See, I don't get how people are saying Pronger's contract can't be used. Just because the Flyers are idiots and got caught doesn't mean they didn't try it. They signed him at 34 years old thinking since he was 34, the contract would be fine and they wouldn't get stuck with him. They didn't realize the contract would have the old fart clause because it started when he was 35. They tried to circumvent the system, but couldn't because well......they're idiots.

Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:53 AM
  #64
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,900
vCash: 500
Yes, it is, Jersey Man.


It's even more unbelievable the number of Trolls coming by and trying to make themselves sound intelligent....and failing miserably.


Just end this insanity, Lou. Please?

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:55 AM
  #65
PacManNJD
Legend
 
PacManNJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 201
Country: United States
Posts: 18,785
vCash: 500
I love how everyone has seemed to forget about Recchi and his agreement to play until 43 now...

PacManNJD is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:55 AM
  #66
Devils731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenwo2 View Post
Mere Speculation. MAY Happen....May NOT Happen.


We don't know and we won't know so How can the NHL KNOW?

You follow?
The NHL doesn't have to know, it just had to believe the intent to not play is there. Everyone here believes the intent is not to play those last years on the contract.

If the leagues main argument is the age the contract goes to then the arbiters main question will probably be, "would a reasonable man expect Kovalchuk to be playing at 44 for $500k?" If the answer is no then the league most likely wins.

Devils731 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:55 AM
  #67
sbresistor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,058
vCash: 500
since there is no provision for max contract length and no age limit on when a player must retire - wouldn't canceling the contract based on the age of 44 be age discrimination?

If they are canceling because of the $ amount, can't the Devils just add 500k to each of the last seven years and call it a day?

sbresistor is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 07:57 AM
  #68
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils731 View Post
The NHL doesn't have to know, it just had to believe the intent to not play is there. Everyone here believes the intent is not to play those last years on the contract.

If the leagues main argument is the age the contract goes to then the arbiters main question will probably be, "would a reasonable man expect Kovalchuk to be playing at 44 for $500k?" If the answer is no then the league most likely wins.
And how can the league determine this "intent to not play"? The only way is to get a Dolorian and go back to the future to see if Kovy does in fact do what they THINK he will do.

Otherwise, everything else is PURE SPECULATION.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sbresistor View Post
since there is no provision for max contract length and no age limit on when a player must retire - wouldn't canceling the contract based on the age of 44 be age discrimination?

If they are canceling because of the $ amount, can't the Devils just add 500k to each of the last seven years and call it a day?
They can and they SHOULD. They shouldn't have to get rid of the last two years or ANY years from that contract just because some GM's out there are ******** about the Devils getting THE Superstar and not any of the "Original Six".

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:02 AM
  #69
Devils731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
So if contracts can last indefinitely, as long as there is proof that someone played until they were that old then the Devils were dumb to end the contract at 17 years. They should have made the contract 25 years long, take Kovy to 52, which we've seen Gordie Howe do.

So 25 years, 106 million, average cap hit of 4.24 million. That should be just as legal as the current Kovy contract if the argument is "hey, some guy played until that old so it's unfair to assume Kovy can't"

Devils731 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:02 AM
  #70
martyisgod
Registered User
 
martyisgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sayreville
Country: United States
Posts: 777
vCash: 500
you can not base decisions like that on opinions, you need facts. Is it likely he will play until 44? probably not, but who knows. He can have the intention to, but what happens is he has a career ending injury when he is 37? They cant base it on stuff like hearsay, im telling you, they are just doing this now for their argument in the next CBA negotiations

martyisgod is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:04 AM
  #71
ola1973
Registered User
 
ola1973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
I'm starting to wonder if that press conference Tuesday wasn't an attempt by the Devils to make this "rejection" more public, as in not allowing the league to strongarm them into revising the deal.

I was watching the interviews on NHL.com with Zach, Patty, Langs and Marty and Marty said something interesting. That in all the times he's re-signed with the Devils, he got conference calls but never a presser. And didn't think anyone ever did before. Now you can argue that this signing a NO.1 as a UFA is a big deal ....


OH, and about Kovy's intent to play, after watching that presser Tuesday, I fully believe that he plans on playing at 44 and fully expects to finally win the Conn Smythe that year. (and no I'm not being sarcastic)

ola1973 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:05 AM
  #72
martyisgod
Registered User
 
martyisgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sayreville
Country: United States
Posts: 777
vCash: 500
how about 15 year, 101 million?

martyisgod is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:05 AM
  #73
Devils731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenwo2 View Post
And how can the league determine this "intent to not play"? The only way is to get a Dolorian and go back to the future to see if Kovy does in fact do what they THINK he will do.

Otherwise, everything else is PURE SPECULATION.
The league is allowed to speculate. It becomes unreasonable, to the point of absurdity, to believe Kovalchuk will be playing under this contract at 44 years old. That's the leagues position, and until the contract was rejected it seemed we all would have agreed Kovy wouldn't be playing then.

Devils731 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:06 AM
  #74
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 23,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils731 View Post
So if contracts can last indefinitely, as long as there is proof that someone played until they were that old then the Devils were dumb to end the contract at 17 years. They should have made the contract 25 years long, take Kovy to 52, which we've seen Gordie Howe do.

So 25 years, 106 million, average cap hit of 4.24 million. That should be just as legal as the current Kovy contract if the argument is "hey, some guy played until that old so it's unfair to assume Kovy can't"
You didn't answer the question : how can the league determine this "intent to not play"?


You cannot answer the question because it's impossible to determine this.

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 08:06 AM
  #75
Richer 44
Registered User
 
Richer 44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Whitehouse, NJ
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 500
If we seriously lose Kovy over this I am going to go "300" style on Bettman

Richer 44 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 12:41 AM.

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.