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.

NHL may reject KOVY and Luongo deals. Issues Ultimatium.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2010, 11:39 AM
  #276
The Perfect Paradox
Registered User
 
The Perfect Paradox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,528
vCash: 500
IMHO, I don't see the league voiding past contracts like Hossa and Luongo.

I think those names were mentioned strictly as threats. I don't know much about the current CBA, but would the league be allowed to penalize the respected teams/players? I mean they signed the contract a year ago....

The Perfect Paradox is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:41 AM
  #277
mgeise
Registered User
 
mgeise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 500
From the OP, I got the feeling that they will allow the Hossa, Luongo, and new Kovy deals to exist as long as this loophole is closed. I really don't see the NHL voiding any deals (except the Kovy deal, because it really sparked this and still hasn't been accepted) because there are so many other similar deals out there that would have to be reviewed.

That being said, the NHL is looking to establish regulations for these contracts in the future, which I love to see. So, keep the NHLPA happy by grandfathering in all the current contracts, but stop teams from doing this in the future.

mgeise is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:44 AM
  #278
Hockify
Registered User
 
Hockify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMapleLaughs View Post
Contracts where the player plays beyond their 40th birthdate:

-Luongo
-Zetterberg
-Franzen
-Pronger
-Hossa
-Lecavalier
-Brodeur
-Recchi
-Draper
-Lidstrom
-Whitney
-Dipietro
-(Kovy)

1. If the Luongo deal is voided, then the NHL has to explain why it's okay for Brodeur and Dipietro to play beyond their 40th birthdate.

2. If the Luongo deal is voided immediately, then the NHL has to explain why all the other contracts are not voided immediately.

3. If the Hossa deal is voided, then the NHL has to void the Stanley Cup just won by the Hawks. (Perhaps the Flyers and Hawks should re-play the series, sans Hossa and Pronger. No, that's too ridiculous, right? Almost as ridiculous as waiting a full season before voiding a deal.)

4. If the Hossa deal is voided, they also have to explain why it's okay for Zetterberg, Franzen, Recchi, Draper, Whitney and Lecavalier to play beyond their 40th birthdate.

5. If any existing contracts are voided, then the NHL should prepare for a player strike soon.

6. If the NHL is taking a stance on cap-circumvention, then they have to explain why other cap-circumventing deals like the Kiprusoff contract are okay.

Dipietro's contract doesn't go beyond 40 he is 40 when it ends. Minor detail I know but just pointing it out.

Hockify is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:46 AM
  #279
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
The league has nothing to lose. If the PA refuses the "proposal", the league can go after those contracts. They'll be a massive thorn to the PA's side. Will the PA be willing to go to arbitration for each and every contract like those? Maybe I'm just drinking too much kool-aid, but I don't see how the PA would want to go through all that trouble.

MJB Devils23* is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:50 AM
  #280
johnnycanuck
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Elliotte Friedman makes a strong case for the NHLPA perhaps having a little more leverage than some may think. The PA would probably welcome a second arbitration that could set a precedent for all long-term deals, while the NHL should want to avoid such a scenario, at all costs:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-cost-nhl.html

johnnycanuck is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:50 AM
  #281
yukoner88
Registered User
 
yukoner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dawson City, YT
Posts: 2,996
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby604 View Post
THANK GOD!

12 years of Luongo is insane.

5 years 30 million or get bent.
This+your avatar=

Im not a Canucks fan but I'm still intrigued by whay might be going thru Gillis' head over this

yukoner88 is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:58 AM
  #282
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,707
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMapleLaughs View Post
Contracts where the player plays beyond their 40th birthdate:

-Luongo
-Zetterberg
-Franzen
-Pronger
-Hossa
-Lecavalier
-Brodeur
-Recchi
-Draper
-Lidstrom
-Whitney
-Dipietro
-(Kovy)

1. If the Luongo deal is voided, then the NHL has to explain why it's okay for Brodeur and Dipietro to play beyond their 40th birthdate.

2. If the Luongo deal is voided immediately, then the NHL has to explain why all the other contracts are not voided immediately.

3. If the Hossa deal is voided, then the NHL has to void the Stanley Cup just won by the Hawks. (Perhaps the Flyers and Hawks should re-play the series, sans Hossa and Pronger. No, that's too ridiculous, right? Almost as ridiculous as waiting a full season before voiding a deal.)

4. If the Hossa deal is voided, they also have to explain why it's okay for Zetterberg, Franzen, Recchi, Draper, Whitney and Lecavalier to play beyond their 40th birthdate.

5. If any existing contracts are voided, then the NHL should prepare for a player strike soon.

6. If the NHL is taking a stance on cap-circumvention, then they have to explain why other cap-circumventing deals like the Kiprusoff contract are okay.
1.) DiPietro's deal is 4.5M per year, there is no front or backload. It is irrelevant if it was 1 year or 100 years in length. They are not avoiding any cap hit. Brodeur is similar with a 5.2M flat salary.

2.) Luongo has not played under his new contract. Hossa has. It's easier to void a contract that hasn't begun versus one that's already under way.

3.) The CBA gives the NHL certain powers when applying punishment. Everything including fines, cap fines, voiding of contracts and voiding of wins. They don't have do any of these, it's entirely in the digression of the league.

4.) Recchi has been on 1 year deals, no issue there. Zetterberg and Franzen expire in years that classify them as 39 years old (at the beginning of season). Draper is a 35+ contract so it's irrelevant. Whitney is 35+ and a flat amount. Lecavalier is really the only close one.

5.) I very much doubt the players strike over this. They know what a work stoppage would do, especially when they see the gains the league as a whole has made after the lockout. Players, as a whole, are getting far more money now than they were before.

6.) Kiprusoff's deal expires when he's the ripe old age of 37 (turns 38 in the season). It's no more a cap evasion deal than Jason Blake's deal is.


Last edited by hatterson: 09-02-2010 at 12:37 PM.
hatterson is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 11:59 AM
  #283
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
Wow. . . I really hope the NHLPA doesn't give in.

SkullSplitter is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:05 PM
  #284
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnycanuck View Post
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Elliotte Friedman makes a strong case for the NHLPA perhaps having a little more leverage than some may think. The PA would probably welcome a second arbitration that could set a precedent for all long-term deals, while the NHL should want to avoid such a scenario, at all costs:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-cost-nhl.html
I agree that the NHLPA must have some leverage in this or the NHL would not be trying, however heavy handed it seems, to make a deal. Neither side really wants to go to arbitration again. The risk of losing is too great. Can the NHLPA agree to this deal without a vote from the members?

5 hours until the next chapter. Or will it be like TV show with "to be continued" on the screen when we thought it would be over.

onlyalad is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:09 PM
  #285
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,707
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyalad View Post
I agree that the NHLPA must have some leverage in this or the NHL would not be trying, however heavy handed it seems, to make a deal. Neither side really wants to go to arbitration again. The risk of losing is too great. Can the NHLPA agree to this deal without a vote from the members?

5 hours until the next chapter. Or will it be like TV show with "to be continued" on the screen when we thought it would be over.
29 hours not 5

Anyway, I think the NHLPA would need a vote of some kind on this. Although it would be the same as most union votes. The NHLPA and the NHL would agree to something and the NHLPA would have it's members vote in a yes/no fashion.

hatterson is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:11 PM
  #286
umwoz
Registered User
 
umwoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
1.) DiPietro's deal is 4.5M per year, there is no front or backload. It is irrelevant if it was 1 year or 100 years in length. They are not avoiding any cap hit. Brodeur is similar with a 5.2M flat salary.

2.) Luongo has not played under his new contract. Hossa has. It's easier to void a contract that hasn't begun versus one that's already under way.

3.) The CBA gives the NHL certain powers when applying punishment. Everything including fines, cap fines, voiding of contracts and voiding of wins. They don't have do any of these, it's entirely in the digression of the league.

4.) Recchi has been on 1 year deals, no issue there. Zetterberg and Franzen expire in years that classify them as 39 years old (at the beginning of season). Draper is a 35+ contract so it's irrelevant. Whitney is 35+ and a flat amount. Lecavalier is really the only close one.

5.) I very much doubt the players strike over this. They know what a work stoppage would do, especially when they see the gains the league as a whole has made after the lockout. Players, as a whole, are getting farm more money now than they were before.

6.) Kiprusoff's deal expires when he's the ripe old age of 37 (turns 38 in the season). It's no more a cap evasion deal than Jason Blake's deal is.
To think I had to post my thoughts on my own, silly me!

umwoz is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:15 PM
  #287
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,756
vCash: 500
This whole thing is idiotic, and frankly illegal unless the NHL has rules I did not know of. What they are purposing would be akin to if I signed a contract for renovations on my house then decided the agreed to price was too steep and demanded they lower their rates or I would terminate the contract. Works beautifully in a fantasy world, in reality, not so much. The NHL was incompetent and should have to live with prior incompetence. Saying "Oh we were stupid before however ignore that! We are just going to change the rules now!" does not compute.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:19 PM
  #288
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectraljulian View Post
Wow. . . I really hope the NHLPA doesn't give in.
yeah, those 4 or 5 incredibly wealthy athletes are really getting screwed!!

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:21 PM
  #289
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
yeah, those 4 or 5 incredibly wealthy athletes are really getting screwed!!
The big thing to me here is this:

"That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary."

I think this just stinks for fans. So if Tampa Bay wants to sign Stamkos to a 6 or more year deal they'd be penalized? That's just stupid.

This doesn't just affect Hossa, Luongo, Kovalchuk, etc. This affects everyone, including fans.

SkullSplitter is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:23 PM
  #290
SaucyNavel
GinoGinoGino
 
SaucyNavel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,005
vCash: 500
Find an owner for the Coyotes before you worry about other things.

SaucyNavel is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:24 PM
  #291
Tim McCracken
Good loser = LOSER!
 
Tim McCracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jail
Posts: 712
vCash: 500
Too lazy to read the whole thread but it's a little whacked out that the owner's hired gun is basically telling the players he won't allow them to sign the ridiculous contracts the owners are presenting to them? Only in The Count's world......


Tim McCracken is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:31 PM
  #292
kasper11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Zetterberg and Franzen expire in years that classify them as 39 years old (at the beginning of season).
How does this really matter though?

If the league decides, unilaterally, that contracts that go to age 40 are ok, but contracts that go beyond age 40 are not, isn't that actually changing the terms of the CBA rather than investigating all potentially circumventing contracts? What right does the NHL have to determine that 39 is ok but 40 is not, since there is absolutely nothing in the CBA that separates a contract that goes to 40 from a contract that goes beyond 40?

kasper11 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:33 PM
  #293
McDonagh
Slow it down 30GHz
 
McDonagh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,799
vCash: 500
I think the Rangers cheated the system with Redden's contract, how do I complain about this and get it voided?

McDonagh is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:34 PM
  #294
HawksFan37
Registered User
 
HawksFan37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
The league can't go back in time. If there was a problem with any of the aforementioned contracts, the league should have brought their arbitration case at the time the contracts were submitted, not one year later. Or made the player ineligable while their "investigation" was ongoing, instead of letting the player play under that contract.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that these long-term deals carry a significant amount of risk to the team that is signing them. That's a heck of a long commitment to make, and a lot of money to commit. What if the player gets injured and isn't of the same value in Year 4 of the deal? You could possibly be stuck with a $5.5-$6M cap hit for a player for those last years of the deal when the player is now a $3M player. Or how are you supposed to know that the player doesn't want to play when he's 38-39? Then you're stuck with a cap hit of $5-6M for some 38-39 year old player. So there is risk involved, not just all benefit to the team's signing these deals.

The key point I think is this. When a lot of these long-term deals were signed, there was nothing specific in the rules against the long term deals, and the league through its inactions on the early long-term deals (Zetterberg as an example), created the atmosphere where teams thought they could get away with these deals. There was no Kovalchuk arbitrator's ruling at that time.

Here's the problem. Let's say I'm GM of Team X one year ago. Player Y's agent has come to me with some long-term proposal. I'm a bit skeptical of it, there's a lot of risk. What if Player Y gets hurt? What if his play drops off in year 5? That's a lot of money to commit to one guy, etc. But with the current atmosphere, there is a benefit to me from a salary cap perspective if I sign this longer term deal. I weigh the risk and the benfits, and I decide the benefits outweigh the risk. So I sign Player Y.

What if one year ago, the Kovalchuk arbitration ruling was known? Now I'm not so sure I can get that salary cap benefit. Now all of a sudden the risks start to outweigh the benefits. I have to try to renogiate the terms with Player Y (ie less money because I have more risk than benefit), or maybe I don't sign him at all.

This is why you can't go back in time. There's no telling what GMs would have done differently had they known what the guidelines were. They were following the rules, and going with what the League had been allowing at that time.

If the NHL and NHLPA want to put together some sort of guidelines going forward and on future contracts in order to bridge the gap to the next CBA, so be it. But you can't apply today's atmosphere to decisions that were made in last year's atmosphere (of which, subsequent roster decisions were based on). The NHL starts doing that, it just confirms to a lot of people that the league is a joke.

HawksFan37 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:35 PM
  #295
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
This whole thing is idiotic, and frankly illegal unless the NHL has rules I did not know of. What they are purposing would be akin to if I signed a contract for renovations on my house then decided the agreed to price was too steep and demanded they lower their rates or I would terminate the contract.
It's not like that at all.

a) The NHL is not threatening to terminate the CBA.

b) The NHL is not demanding players take less money.

c) This issue doesn't arise from something pre-determined, it arises from a loophole in the CBA that is being exploited to damage the system.

d) The mechanism for handling this issue was agreed-upon in advance.

Nothing at all like your example.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:36 PM
  #296
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Technically they can void the cup win. There's zero chance the NHL would ever do that as it would be PR suicide. But technically they can void any win that was affected by a circumvention contract.
technically, anything is possible I agree. But they aren't going to do it as a matter of practicality. Worse case, the contract is voided, Hossa becomes a free agent & the Hawks are hit with fines/lose draft picks...

edog37 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:38 PM
  #297
gongshowmonkey
Registered User
 
gongshowmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country:
Posts: 1,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Jack Sparrow View Post
I think the Rangers cheated the system with Redden's contract, how do I complain about this and get it voided?

gongshowmonkey is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:39 PM
  #298
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
1.) DiPietro's deal is 4.5M per year, there is no front or backload. It is irrelevant if it was 1 year or 100 years in length. They are not avoiding any cap hit. Brodeur is similar with a 5.2M flat salary.

2.) Luongo has not played under his new contract. Hossa has. It's easier to void a contract that hasn't begun versus one that's already under way.

3.) The CBA gives the NHL certain powers when applying punishment. Everything including fines, cap fines, voiding of contracts and voiding of wins. They don't have do any of these, it's entirely in the digression of the league.

4.) Recchi has been on 1 year deals, no issue there. Zetterberg and Franzen expire in years that classify them as 39 years old (at the beginning of season). Draper is a 35+ contract so it's irrelevant. Whitney is 35+ and a flat amount. Lecavalier is really the only close one.

5.) I very much doubt the players strike over this. They know what a work stoppage would do, especially when they see the gains the league as a whole has made after the lockout. Players, as a whole, are getting farm more money now than they were before.

6.) Kiprusoff's deal expires when he's the ripe old age of 37 (turns 38 in the season). It's no more a cap evasion deal than Jason Blake's deal is.
Dipietro's contract started the entire concept. Of course it matters.

Brodeur playing until that age and Hasek playing until he was older means that there is a case that Luongo could.

A player playing with an illegal contract means anything won by his team is voided. In better-run leagues, that is.

Again, the issue is age. Who's to say how old a player can be when they retire? It's okay for Recchi, Draper, Zetterberg and Franzen to play at that age, but not other players are able to? Okay.

Wanna bet? The PA just got themselves a bulldog in Fehr. If the NHL wants to play hardball, then they better be prepared for a player strike. Hello, baseball? The only thing preventing one would be that the NHL warchest is significantly bigger at the moment. I think they'll find common ground instead.

The point of the Kiprusoff long-term deal comparison is that the last cheap year is obviously tacked on to lower the cap hit. So why is his deal okay when others are not? Because he'll be younger? Okay.



Overall it looks like the NHL wants to be rid of this problem in the future. And the PA must agree that it's getting out of hand. They're talking and will probably come to an agreement soon. Hence the delay of the Kovy announcement.

If the NHL choses to void signed contracts, they'll have a lot of chaos on their hands. It's a bit much at this point, considering all the chaos the Kovy contract is creating already.

I'm expecting the Kovy deal to go through. Let the Devils live with that clusterfrack of a deal.

TOML is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:40 PM
  #299
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creamy Freshness View Post
I don't see why they necessarily have to void the Cup. The NHL could choose to just penalize the Hawks for cap circumvention by fining them or taking away a draft pick.
this....the Cup is Chicago's (at least until next June when the Pens win it again....). The absolute worst case would be fines & picks & Hossa become a UFA.

That being said, the league is holding this hammer over the heads of the NHLPA as a set up for the next CBA.

edog37 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 12:40 PM
  #300
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Korean Kid 23 View Post
Semantics. He's not denying the situation outright. He just refuses to use the word "ultimatum".
Of course, of course. How could I be so blind.


Tiranis 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 11:12 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.