HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Ilya Kovalchuk to the Devils UPDATE: NHL rejects contract (Part III)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 01:44 PM
  #76
Roamin
Registered User
 
Roamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFDM View Post
True hehe. I have a hard time following this thread... it's repeating itself all over though...
it was a good idea, but i doubt the NHLPA would agree on something like that.
and its reading this entire part 1, 2 and now 3 was a good time kill at work.

either way, glad its happening. no matter the outcome, vague rules will be a lot more solid from here on in!

Roamin is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:46 PM
  #77
Crescent Street
Saturday Nite Hockey
 
Crescent Street's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
The NHLPA has 5 days to register a grievance after the original rejection by the NHL. After which a decision must be made by an arbiter 48 hours after the NHLPA files its grievance. So minimum- 3 days, max, a week after the rejection.

If the NHLPA does not file a grievance, then the contract is null and void, and Kovalchuk becomes a free agent again.
Thanks. I still can't find any incriminating evidence that suggests Lou did this on purpose to force the NHL's hand. I just think he went with the rules as they are today, stretched them even further than Hossa's and Luongo's contracts did and now the NHL is pissed and realizes they need to put an end to it before another one of these silly contracts pops up.

Either way, I hope it just ends up in favor of the game and us fans are not subjected to another lockout.

Crescent Street is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:48 PM
  #78
Granlund2Pulkkinen*
New Kid on the Block
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Country: South Africa
Posts: 39,942
vCash: 50
I can't believe we'll probably make it to August before Kovy has signed.

Granlund2Pulkkinen* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:48 PM
  #79
eklunds source
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
The Luongo and Hossa deals are just as bad.

They all accomplish the same thing. All 3 contracts add years at the end of the contract that are less then market value to lower the cap hit. 2, 3 or 6 years added to the contract doesn't matter. The last years lower the cap hit. Hossa wont play in the NHL till he's 42. Luongo wont play in the NHL till he's 43.

The NHL should have done this last year with the Hossa and Luongo deals.
Hossa's contract expires at age 41 (not 42). Luongo's expires at 41.7 (not 43). Kovalchuk's expires at 43.7 - a full two years longer than anyone else's contracts.

mod:delete

from behindthenethockey:

PlayerEnd AgeYearsValue
Lecavalier38.71185
Hossa41.01262.8
Keith38.51372
Zetterberg39.21273
Luongo41.71371
Franzen39.01143.5
Pronger41.2734.45
Ohlund38.3725.25
Savard38.5728.05
Kovalchuk43.717102

Maybe they are all cap circumvention of some kind or another, but whereas most of those deals were "somewhat" shady, Kovalchuk's blows them out of the water. A full 2 years past the oldest athlete under contract. A full $17 million dollars more than anyone else, for total value. A full 4 years longer than any of those de-escalating contracts.

edit: another table from that page showing the Average Annual Value (cap hit) and the AAV with the low-price years removed:
PlayerAAVMain AAV'Discount'
Lecavalier7.79.82.1
Hossa5.27.92.7
Keith5.56.91.4
Zetterberg6.17.51.4
Luongo5.5 7.11.6
Franzen4.05.11.2
Pronger4.97.42.4
Ohlund3.6 4.50.8
Savard4.06.42.4
Kovalchuk6.09.53.5


Last edited by mouser: 07-21-2010 at 03:27 PM. Reason: flaming
eklunds source is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:48 PM
  #80
Jersey Fresh
Video Et Taceo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.A.
Country: Israel
Posts: 7,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
They did that earlier this summer and warned GM's that contracts like this would be rejected. That is the key.

I still do not get why people insist that relying on contracts the league made a point of pointing out that they made a mistake in approving, to the point of warning GMs not to even try any more of these or they would be rejected. The league has made it clear that the 'precedent' you are relying on they reject whole cloth as an error detrimental to the league that they wish they could reverse.
So they allow MULTIPLE contracts that apparently cross the line, and now they've gotten found the balls to put an end to it? If you could link me to this warning, I'd be appreciative. Haven't seen it, and to be honest, find it quite hard to believe that that being the case, Lou would throw it down anyway. Doesn't make any sense.

Jersey Fresh is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:50 PM
  #81
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by gambitlebo View Post
No, LA didn't want "the player" at a price that would risk them losing some of the younger player, plain clear and simple.

Hence the only team will to give "the player" his $10/10 was Jersey.

One player can not win a championship.

I have no idea what you mean by you wouldn't play in LA either with their core so I'll leave that alone.
you obviously have comprehension issues, I said If I was Lombardi I wouldnt give him that deal with their core

nowhere did I say Kovy wouldnt play with the kings

The fact is Kovy wanted a certain deal, lombardi wouldnt give it to him..... so he doesnt deserve the player..... plain and simple.

But given the players that lombardi has I wouldnt give what it takes to get Kovy either.

hopefully now you understand better

Isles_Guy* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:50 PM
  #82
WinningIsntBoring
 
WinningIsntBoring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Hossa's contract expires at age 41 (not 42). Luongo's expires at 41.7 (not 43). Kovalchuk's expires at 43.7 - a full two years longer than anyone else's contracts.

mod:delete

from behindthenethockey:

PlayerEnd AgeYearsValue
Lecavalier38.71185
Hossa41.01262.8
Keith38.51372
Zetterberg39.21273
Luongo41.71371
Franzen39.01143.5
Pronger41.2734.45
Ohlund38.3725.25
Savard38.5728.05
Kovalchuk43.717102

Maybe they are all cap circumvention of some kind or another, but whereas most of those deals were "somewhat" shady, Kovalchuk's blows them out of the water. In the last 5 years of Kovalchuk's contract, he makes 1/5th the money that Luongo makes in the last 5 years of his.
So Luongo playing until 42 is just as likely as Kovalchuk playing until 44?

I agree both are ridiculous contracts, but the precedent has already been set.


Last edited by mouser: 07-21-2010 at 03:28 PM. Reason: qep
WinningIsntBoring is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:51 PM
  #83
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Fresh View Post
So they allow MULTIPLE contracts that apparently cross the line, and now they've gotten found the balls to put an end to it? If you could link me to this warning, I'd be appreciative. Haven't seen it, and to be honest find it, find it quite hard to believe that that being the case, Lou would throw it down anyway. Doesn't make any sense.
Better late then never.

What is really scary if the NHL takes it to arbitration and loses on the grounds that they can not conclusively prove that Kovalchuk will not play out his entire contract. Next year, all the big money teams will offer up 20 year contracts to 30 year old players on the grounds that "If Gordie Howe could play until he was 50, why not (insert free agent here)."

Finlandia WOAT is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:52 PM
  #84
CBJenga
Registered User
 
CBJenga's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Fresh View Post
Listen, if it's a hard cap, it should be a hard cap for everyone. However, the fact remains the league allowed it to get to this point by allowing contracts like Hossa's and Luongo's and now they should deal with it. There is not a single difference in Kovalchuk's contracts to the other two, they were made with the same intention of circumventing the cap and to reject one and not the other is wrong and preferential. So no, I don't see a difference. There may be a line (that the NHL never specified), but in relation to the other contracts that were approved I don't think the Devils have crossed it.

They should make a public statement about circumvention now (saying something like further of these contracts won't be permitted) and then deal with it in the next CBA. But to go about the way they have is not the way a league should be run.
Yes there is a difference.

a) Five years at the end instead of two. Which is more likely, Hossa playing from 38-42 at $1mil/yr, or Kovy playing from 40-44 at $550K. If you really can't see any difference between those two situations...well....

b) Those contracts were constantly decreasing. Kovy takes a pay cut(from last year) for the next two years, and then suddenly almost doubles his salary.... Yeah, that's EXACTLY the same as taking a raise for the next few years, and then having the contract steadily decline.

CBJenga is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:54 PM
  #85
Just Win
Free Larsson
 
Just Win's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Germany
Posts: 10,806
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Hossa's contract expires at age 41 (not 42). Luongo's expires at 41.7 (not 43). Kovalchuk's expires at 43.7 - a full two years longer than anyone else's contracts.

mod:delete

from behindthenethockey:

PlayerEnd AgeYearsValue
Lecavalier38.71185
Hossa41.01262.8
Keith38.51372
Zetterberg39.21273
Luongo41.71371
Franzen39.01143.5
Pronger41.2734.45
Ohlund38.3725.25
Savard38.5728.05
Kovalchuk43.717102

Maybe they are all cap circumvention of some kind or another, but whereas most of those deals were "somewhat" shady, Kovalchuk's blows them out of the water. A full 2 years past the oldest athlete under contract. A full $17 million dollars more than anyone else, for total value. A full 4 years longer than any of those de-escalating contracts.
Hossa is born January 12, 1979 and his contract ends 2021. That's over 42 not 41.

Luongo is born April 04, 1979 and his contract ends 2022. He will be 43.

You might want to check those numbers before using them....


Last edited by mouser: 07-21-2010 at 03:28 PM. Reason: qep
Just Win is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:54 PM
  #86
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,283
vCash: 500
Most of the posts that support/dont support the deal are based purely out of uneducated opinions.

Contract law is one of the most confusing aspects of law to study. Hell, its confusing to most attorneys that went to school for it. I highly doubt anyone on HF is qualified to make a statement of fact about the rejection of the Kovi deal, even attorneys. Just because a criminal defense attorney is an attorney does not mean they know how the NHL CBA works...

Im sure one aspect of the NHL CBA could be argued to have four different meanings, thats just the way law works (which is why case law exists to support defendants and/or plaintiffs). Also, the outcome is dependant upon another persons translation of the agreement. There is no clear cut right/wrong listed, therefore, the way the CBA reads is only of partial importance..... Its the interpretation that matters.

If the Hossa, luongo deals truthfully resulted in the teams getting a warning from the NHL then I would wager that all GMs were made aware of the issue by the NHL. 17 years is ridiculous and the intentions of the Devils/Kovi are clear as day, IMO..... But, who knows? These things play out oddly and it could go either way.

Wish the NHL would have a soft cap with a luxary tax.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:55 PM
  #87
njdevil1229
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eklunds source View Post
Hossa's contract expires at age 41 (not 42). Luongo's expires at 41.7 (not 43). Kovalchuk's expires at 43.7 - a full two years longer than anyone else's contracts.

mod:delete

from behindthenethockey:

PlayerEnd AgeYearsValue
Lecavalier38.71185
Hossa41.01262.8
Keith38.51372
Zetterberg39.21273
Luongo41.71371
Franzen39.01143.5
Pronger41.2734.45
Ohlund38.3725.25
Savard38.5728.05
Kovalchuk43.717102

Maybe they are all cap circumvention of some kind or another, but whereas most of those deals were "somewhat" shady, Kovalchuk's blows them out of the water. A full 2 years past the oldest athlete under contract. A full $17 million dollars more than anyone else, for total value. A full 4 years longer than any of those de-escalating contracts.
You are right. They are all ways to alleviate a severe cap hit. Some are slightly different than others. However, it is within the current rules of the CBA. Either they are all legal or they are all illegal. You can't pick and choose which are legal and which aren't. Obviously the Devils tacked on the last 6 years to lower the cap hit the same way the Blackhawks tacked on the last 4 years to lower his cap hit.

Bottom line is even though one may be more extreme than the others, the precedent has been set under the same principles...to lower the cap hit.


Last edited by mouser: 07-21-2010 at 03:28 PM. Reason: qep
njdevil1229 is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:55 PM
  #88
Brooklyndevil
82nd Airborne
 
Brooklyndevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
They did that earlier this summer and warned GM's that contracts like this would be rejected. That is the key.

I still do not get why people insist that relying on contracts the league made a point of pointing out that they made a mistake in approving, to the point of warning GMs not to even try any more of these or they would be rejected. The league has made it clear that the 'precedent' you are relying on they reject whole cloth as an error detrimental to the league that they wish they could reverse.
Do you have a copy of this warning, because I highly doubt that Lou wouldn't have informed his owner that we can't do it. Yes, Lou did state he didn't like the deal, but also mentioned that that it was legal. I'm sure that's what his cap people and lawyers who wrote the contract told him. And by the way, my wife is attorney, but doesn't go around throwing it in peoples faces because she thinks she's smarter than anyone else. Smugness is quite an ugly trait.

Brooklyndevil is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:58 PM
  #89
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
Huh? The CURRENT CBA allows the league to reject these deals. That they erroneously (implicit in the warning they gave GM's earlier this summer) allowed a few to pass through does not change the CBA language allowing them to reject contracts like these.
Youre absolutely right, they can reject them.

You said youre lawyer, so this should be easy-sauce for you.

Hypothetical:

The Devils submit a new contract that is equal to or less than 15 years in length (taking Kovalchuk to age 42 or less), salary doesnt matter.

The league can reject it, but the Devils or NHLPA (Kovalchuk) will file a grievance which will be heard by an arbiter.

The league's evidence is: We dont prefer these contracts, even though the CBA doesnt specify their illegality.

The NHLPA's evidence is: Luongo's, Hossa's and Pronger's contracts signed, sealed and delivered as valid contracts by the league.

Care to guess which way that meeting goes? I have a strong feeling the NHLPA wins and the NHL looks awful foolish in the process.

The league cannot arbitrarily allow one team to sign a premier player to a sweetheart deal and not another, IMO. The next CBA will address this, I am sure, but for now the league is handcuffed, IMO.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 01:58 PM
  #90
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Fresh View Post
So they allow MULTIPLE contracts that apparently cross the line, and now they've gotten found the balls to put an end to it? If you could link me to this warning, I'd be appreciative. Haven't seen it, and to be honest, find it quite hard to believe that that being the case, Lou would throw it down anyway. Doesn't make any sense.
More than a year ago, the league warned GMs that it was unhappy with the number of long-term deals whose cap hit was made more manageable by heavily front-loading the contract and tacking on years at the end. These deals worked for players because they made most of the money early in the contract; the deals worked for GMs who were looking to keep the average cap hit as low as possible, giving them more financial flexibility.


........


Clearly, though, the league believed its warning to cease and desist these kinds of deals was falling on deaf ears; and when it saw the whopper deal Kovalchuk, his agent Jay Grossman, and New Jersey president and GM Lou Lamoriello came up with, the league said "enough."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/column...ott&id=5397260

The league has warned teams that if they continued to construct contracts like this, there would be consequences. This is a clear message by the NHL

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wi...9cP3DieyckcUsI

Do a google search you can find a hundred other references.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:00 PM
  #91
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Fresh View Post
So they allow MULTIPLE contracts that apparently cross the line, and now they've gotten found the balls to put an end to it? If you could link me to this warning, I'd be appreciative. Haven't seen it, and to be honest, find it quite hard to believe that that being the case, Lou would throw it down anyway. Doesn't make any sense.
you must be clueless. last year they investigated the Hossa signing
with 3 relatively add on years......That was your warning. the Devils went with 6 relatively add on years. where does it stop?

hell if thats ok why dont the Devils make it an 80 year deal and make it a 1M dollar cap hit...... Devils fans arent stupid, they know why this was done......if it were the rangers who did this they'd be up in arms screaming for action......

show some honesty guys

Isles_Guy* is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:02 PM
  #92
parabola
Global Moderator
novus ordo seclorum
 
parabola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Posts: 40,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinningIsntBoring View Post
So Luongo playing until 42 is just as likely as Kovalchuk playing until 44?

I agree both are ridiculous contracts, but the precedent has already been set.
The difference being Kovalchuk makes WAY less money in those later years than Luongo does.

And goalies (at least ones of the calibre of Luongo/Brodeur etc...) tend to play a lot longer. Brodeur's contract lasts until he's 40.

Luongo's contract is obvious cap circumvention too, but it's far from a ridiculous contract. I can at least make a solid argument for why Luongo's contract could be allowed.

__________________
parabola is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:03 PM
  #93
WinningIsntBoring
 
WinningIsntBoring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isles_Guy View Post
you must be clueless. last year they investigated the Hossa signing
with 3 relatively add on years......That was your warning. the Devils went with 6 relatively add on years. where does it stop?

hell if thats ok why dont the Devils make it an 80 year deal and make it a 1M dollar cap hit...... Devils fans arent stupid, they know why this was done......if it were the rangers who did this they'd be up in arms screaming for action......

show some honesty guys
I agree that the contract is ridiculous, but you can't pick and choose which to deny with the current precedences.

WinningIsntBoring is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:03 PM
  #94
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Youre absolutely right, they can reject them.

You said youre lawyer, so this should be easy-sauce for you.

Hypothetical:

The Devils submit a new contract that is equal to or less than 15 years in length (taking Kovalchuk to age 42 or less), salary doesnt matter.

The league can reject it, but the Devils or NHLPA (Kovalchuk) will file a grievance which will be heard by an arbiter.

The league's evidence is: We dont prefer these contracts, even though the CBA doesnt specify their illegality.

The NHLPA's evidence is: Luongo's, Hossa's and Pronger's contracts signed, sealed and delivered as valid contracts by the league.

Care to guess which way that meeting goes? I have a strong feeling the NHLPA wins and the NHL looks awful foolish in the process.

The league cannot arbitrarily allow one team to sign a premier player to a sweetheart deal and not another, IMO. The next CBA will address this, I am sure, but for now the league is handcuffed, IMO.
I really do not think that the argument "They let other people do bad things, why not us?!?" will work.
Sure, the NHL will look like classless hypocrites if they reject the deal. But that does not make the deal any better in front of an arbiter.

Finlandia WOAT is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:03 PM
  #95
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
...and if the league does not allow NJ to sign Kovalchuk to the as-yet restructured deal, then theyre putting the Devils at a league-sanctioned competitive disadvantage.

If the Devils so choose, they could actually sue the league and IMO, most likely win.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:05 PM
  #96
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Youre absolutely right, they can reject them.

You said youre lawyer, so this should be easy-sauce for you.

Hypothetical:

The Devils submit a new contract that is equal to or less than 15 years in length (taking Kovalchuk to age 42 or less), salary doesnt matter.

The league can reject it, but the Devils or NHLPA (Kovalchuk) will file a grievance which will be heard by an arbiter.

The league's evidence is: We dont prefer these contracts, even though the CBA doesnt specify their illegality.

The NHLPA's evidence is: Luongo's, Hossa's and Pronger's contracts signed, sealed and delivered as valid contracts by the league.

Care to guess which way that meeting goes? I have a strong feeling the NHLPA wins and the NHL looks awful foolish in the process.

The league cannot arbitrarily allow one team to sign a premier player to a sweetheart deal and not another, IMO. The next CBA will address this, I am sure, but for now the league is handcuffed, IMO.
Why do people keep making this assumption? Why the hell not? The league can simply answer 'This deal is by far more eggregious. Also we made a mistake in approving those deals but can not go back now. We will be monitering them though and those cases are ongoing, and if those players do 'retire' early there can be consequences:

The NHL is allegedly "investigating" drastically-frontloaded contracts like Chris Pronger's, Roberto Luongo's, Marian Hossa's, Johan Franzen's and Henrik Zetterberg to see if there is any evidence of talk of retirement.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wi...9cP3DieyckcUsI

The NHL can further say that the 'loophole' that everyone recognizes took time to realize the potential ramifications of and to ignore it because of a few prior mistakes would be stupid. If you had a 'loophole' that some judge erroneously allowed a child rapist to get away with the crime, and the next judge interpreted the law correctly and did not let the next rapist to get away, could that criminal rely on the prior mistake to get off as well? In law and in fact this is not how precedent works.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:05 PM
  #97
BenedictGomez
1995/2000/2003
 
BenedictGomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PRNJ
Country: United States
Posts: 26,393
vCash: 500
Some people in this thread are being ridiculous.

Kovy and the Devils is getting done at either:

$102/15 at $6.8 Million

Or:

$100/15 at $6.67M


They cant balk at 42, when Hossa is 42 and Loluongo is 42. Just cut two years off the deal and bump the last few years up to $1M or $1.5M each. Done.

Wrist = Slapped.

BenedictGomez is online now  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:05 PM
  #98
Buggsy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by parabola View Post
The difference being Kovalchuk makes WAY less money in those later years than Luongo does.

And goalies (at least ones of the calibre of Luongo/Brodeur etc...) tend to play a lot longer. Brodeur's contract lasts until he's 40.

Luongo's contract is obvious cap circumvention too, but it's far from a ridiculous contract. I can at least make a solid argument for why Luongo's contract could be allowed.
Butterfly =/= Standup

Buggsy is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:06 PM
  #99
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice Me Up Baby View Post
I really do not think that the argument "They let other people do bad things, why not us?!?" will work.
Sure, the NHL will look like classless hypocrites if they reject the deal. But that does not make the deal any better in front of an arbiter.
Oh yes it does. The same theory behind playoff-bound teams being discouraged from scratching healthy players before the playoffs applies here as well.

Its competitive balance. Not allowing NJ to do this deal puts them at a disadvantage relative to other teams that were allowed (namely all the contenders, Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, etc).

I would like to state that I dont particularly like these deals one way or the other, allowed, disallowed, I dont care.

But when the league starts arbitrarily handicapping one team in favor of another, youre looking at a winnable lawsuit.

DarkReign is offline  
Old
07-21-2010, 02:06 PM
  #100
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
...and if the league does not allow NJ to sign Kovalchuk to the as-yet restructured deal, then theyre putting the Devils at a league-sanctioned competitive disadvantage.

If the Devils so choose, they could actually sue the league and IMO, most likely win.
Could you please quote where in the CBA it says that, in this situation, teams can quickly restructure the deal? I ask this because I have recently read the Article 11, and it states that until proven by an arbiter (if the NHLPA files a grievance) then the contract is NOT null and void.

Finlandia WOAT is online now  
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 11:28 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.