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, 01:54 AM
  #176
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,231
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
The Sedin twins. To play together for instance. IF they were free agents at the end of the season, they could theoretically sign deals like this so they could play together on a contending team that might not have the cap space to sign them to significant deals. Teams do it so that they can sign better players.
This would never happen for the same reason that contracts get front loaded in the first place. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (especially if that bird can be invested and collect interest instead of devaluing via economical inflation). Guys also want as much money as possible up front because it's a tough sport. **** happens, careers end.

It wouldn't ever happen.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 01:56 AM
  #177
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
This would never happen for the same reason that contracts get front loaded in the first place. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (especially if that bird can be invested and collect interest instead of devaluing via economical inflation). Guys also want as much money as possible up front because it's a tough sport. **** happens, careers end.

It wouldn't ever happen.
They would have gotten 40 of the 56 million in the first four years...... that's 70%

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 01:56 AM
  #178
Wyrm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,043
vCash: 500
Do I understand it correctly that if NHLPA gives in to these demands then 3 teams (Hawks, Canucks and Devils) will have an unfair advantage with their loophole-based contracts?

Wyrm is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 01:57 AM
  #179
DGen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
I stole Eklund's dog and he told me this:
NHLPA will not agree.
Kovalchuk, Luongo's deal nixed.
Luongo to PHI e4, also the NYI are interested because they like longterm goaltenders. e3.
Hossa news will come tonight.
Kovy will make 200 mil in the KHL for 10 seasons e5!

DGen is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 01:57 AM
  #180
ProstheticConscience
Das ist mein Land
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
I knew it. I ****ing knew it.

Suppose the Luongo deal does get voided somehow. Regardless of whether you think the player is worth the money, the Canucks have built their entire team around it. Lu's cap hit influences every free agent signing and trade MG has made over the last year. Now the NHL comes back and says, "Oh, we changed our minds and decided to rewrite the CBA. Restructure your whole team."? My one hope with the situation was that there was no way to mess with Luongo's contract without doing the same with Hossa's and invalidating last year's Stanley Cup champs, one of the New NHL's flagship franchises. Sadly, it seems my hope is misplaced. Unbef!ckinglievable.

Oh, and who exactly do people think are creating these contracts that are so horribly bad for the NHL that the league must ignore its own CBA? The players?

ProstheticConscience is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 01:58 AM
  #181
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,011
vCash: 500
The point of age should be 35, not 40. Any years beyond 35 on a contract should be binding if the player plays or not, regardless of when the contract was initiated. Why the league allowed these contracts in the first place is beyond me......except that it is the NHL.

ThisYearsModel is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:07 AM
  #182
gd7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 127
vCash: 500
From the Vancouver Sun Article:

"NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly refuted the Post report, telling ESPN late Wednesday that 'no ultimatum has been given.'

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Report+sends+conditions+approving+Kovalchuk+deal/3471430/story.html#ixzz0yLj4Ybqr"

What are the chances Daly flat out denies something that the NHL has actually done? Not good IMO. Seems like a lot of freaking out over nothing.

gd7 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:08 AM
  #183
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
I knew it. I ****ing knew it.

Suppose the Luongo deal does get voided somehow. Regardless of whether you think the player is worth the money, the Canucks have built their entire team around it. Lu's cap hit influences every free agent signing and trade MG has made over the last year. Now the NHL comes back and says, "Oh, we changed our minds and decided to rewrite the CBA. Restructure your whole team."? My one hope with the situation was that there was no way to mess with Luongo's contract without doing the same with Hossa's and invalidating last year's Stanley Cup champs, one of the New NHL's flagship franchises. Sadly, it seems my hope is misplaced. Unbef!ckinglievable.

Oh, and who exactly do people think are creating these contracts that are so horribly bad for the NHL that the league must ignore its own CBA? The players?
What is even more annoying is that the last UFA goalie that can play as a starter (kind of) signed a contract YESTERDAY! This would be disastrous for the Canucks, and I'd be forced to Fed-Ex NHL head office a weeks worth of my excrement in a Tupperware container.

jimmythescot is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:14 AM
  #184
Wyrm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmythescot View Post
What is even more annoying is that the last UFA goalie that can play as a starter (kind of) signed a contract YESTERDAY! This would be disastrous for the Canucks, and I'd be forced to Fed-Ex NHL head office a weeks worth of my excrement in a Tupperware container.
No use, bud. Bettman is already full of it.

Wyrm is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:14 AM
  #185
EmeticDonut
Registered User
 
EmeticDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScubaaaBob View Post
I really can't see the NHL rejecting Luongo and Hossa contracts... how could they?.
If they can change the rules in the middle of the CBA, then they sure as hell can devoid any contracts as they see fit. What's the point in having the CBA if they can change the rules whenever they see something they don't like? But the current CBA is a horrible piece of crap when it's so ambiguous in it's wording on what is circumvention or not.

In the end the NHL will once again be looked at as a joke, lockout or not.

EmeticDonut is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:15 AM
  #186
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
If true, it will be interesting to see what the NHLPA does.

Long and creative contracts like these benefit the star player, but at the expense of the lesser paid players. Should the NHLPA fight to secure bigger paydays for it's high profile players at the expense of the lesser paid players who make up an overwhelming percentage of the union? This situation is not as straightforward as past labor strife and in my opinion it wouldn't be a slam dunk to get the players on board for some kind of strike/walkout over this particular issue.

Because these contracts increase overall salary much higher than the cap, the burden falls on the rank and file members who lose some of their salaries. Is it really fair to the NHLPA membership to ask their members that make less to lose $20K+ of their income to subsidize these contracts? It is not fair in the slightest.

Of course there is the other side of the coin, as these star players are more responsible for generating revenues. That kind of thing is difficult to quantify, however.

If I was the NHLPA, I would work with the league on this issue to find a happy medium. Rather than start a rumble with the NHL, why not work with them on fixing these creative contracts and ask for some changes to the escrow system in return. The NHLPA honestly doesn't have much to lose by these contracts going away, they get the same piece of the pie regardless, it's just distributed more evenly. They can use this dialogue to maybe tweak some other parts of the CBA that may be working against them. It's quite possible they could come to a solution that both sides are happy with.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:19 AM
  #187
Aqualung
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Country: United States
Posts: 2,018
vCash: 500
Now I don't pretend to be knowledgeable in labor disputes (union and employer) but if there is any else who can help clear this up...

Both the TEAMS and the PLAYERS signed according to within the boundaries of the CBA. These are part of reasonable expectations for both sides given the CBA. However, NHL wants to amend the CBA in the MIDDLE of it's due course and then APPLY it RETROACTIVELY to HOSSA, and to pending contracts for LUONGO and KOVALCHUK.

[Now when I say pending for Luongo, that is in fact because he hasn't played into his first year of the contract yet]

The NHL up until now has been acting outside the boundaries of the CBA. I don't believe the NHL has the right to "decline" a contract that fits within the CBA. However, there is a clause in the CBA about cap circumvention. But in that case the NHL still doesn't have, nor should have, leverage over the NHLPA to give ultimatums. Unions, while they aren't as sacredly protected as before in this country, are still protected especially against injunctions from it's employers. The NHL should not be allowed to simply void contracts if amendments are not met. The reasonable expectations of the contracts agreed to by the parties earlier should be protected.

If the NHL is allowed to give such ultimatums, the Clayton Act which protects and places the Unions and the Employers (NHL) on equal footing would be violated. The NHLPA, instead of responding directly to NHL, should file a complaint.

This is not my area of expertise though. I'm going off the top of my head.

Aqualung is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:26 AM
  #188
sixgunsdad
Registered User
 
sixgunsdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeticDonut View Post
If they can change the rules in the middle of the CBA, then they sure as hell can devoid any contracts as they see fit. What's the point in having the CBA if they can change the rules whenever they see something they don't like? But the current CBA is a horrible piece of crap when it's so ambiguous in it's wording on what is circumvention or not.

In the end the NHL will once again be looked at as a joke, lockout or not.
Any contract can be amended as long as both sides agree to it

sixgunsdad is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:26 AM
  #189
ProstheticConscience
Das ist mein Land
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Also, one of the reasons Bettman and his evil little cadre are doing this now (aside fro Kovalchuk's deal forcing the issue) is they know the NHLPA is in a complete shambles. Have been since the lockout. Damn, I really wish they'd somehow get together with the Teamsters or some union that has its ***** together.

ProstheticConscience is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:28 AM
  #190
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,381
vCash: 500
If Vancouver is unable to resign Luongo...?

Would they get something in return... like a draft pick?

DingoAteMyBaby is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:31 AM
  #191
almostawake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
There was a situation described earlier.
Just as a basis
12 yr 56 mil
30-34 10m/yr
34-40 1m/yr
41 10m/yr
You're ignoring point 2:

Quote:
2. 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.
Obviously no one knows what that formula would be, but we can safely assume that it would pick out the 10M years in your proposal and weight them higher.

almostawake is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:35 AM
  #192
gd7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 127
vCash: 500
again, Daly has apparently denied that such an ultimatum has been given. I suppose its more fun to freak out and rage....

gd7 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:36 AM
  #193
Gardebut30
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
The NY Post misuses the word devoid and now everyone follows suit

Gardebut30 is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:43 AM
  #194
almostawake
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by warmplate View Post
If Vancouver is unable to resign Luongo...?

Would they get something in return... like a draft pick?
If the Luongo contract is voided the arbitrator ruled that the Canucks willfully circumvented the cap. Punishment is more likely than reward.

I'm not saying that punishment is likely. I'm saying that the probability of reward is so astronomically small that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of punishment, that's still a lot higher.

almostawake is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:43 AM
  #195
alternity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Surrey, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
It effects all the players.

The teams only have X cap dollars to spend. If they are forced to spend more of that number on their top end players, then they will be forced to employ more players under bargain contracts. This could foresee-ably shrink the middle class of players in the NHL, you would have a lot fewer guys making those 1.5-3 million dollar contracts who were now playing for less so that teams could pay their top end guys.

Think of it like this, if 5 players have to take 200k pay cuts on their next contract to make room for Luongo's extra million cap hit, there will probably be two or three guys looking at 10-20% pay cuts (and two more looking at smaller percentage losses, of course). That's five guys who's earning capacity was negatively impacted because the league wants to force the teams to honor the intent of the CBA (which they should).

It's the right thing for the league to do, and the NHLPA should be fighting it because it isn't in the best interest of their clients. Bettman should have nipped this in the bud, or the GM's should not have circumvented the cap so flagrantly . . . now the two sides could conceivably arrive at an impasse, only five years after the last lock out....

Sucks.
Besides the implications of not following the intent of the CBA, these long-term contracts create artificial cap room. Player salaries are tied to league revenues and the amount put into escrow sorts out any irregularities.

When Luongo has a much lower cap-hit, there isn't any extra money going into the system to pay for other players. The dollars are just being redistributed (which also applies to a higher cap hit, but to a lesser extent). The key difference being that each GM has a different view on how to divvy up the cap space between the players (so conceivably, if said middle class player is a free agent then he could simply find another GM who values him higher), while long-term contracts unilaterally affects anyone who pays into escrow.

So, basically, all the players are collectively paying for these artificial contracts. Now, I'm not sure exactly how much players would lose to escrow compared to a 200k or raise, but there is obviously going to be a point where the trend will be to push for these kinds of terms in negotiations at the expense of others- which carries some serious implications.

alternity is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:44 AM
  #196
DingoAteMyBaby
Registered User
 
DingoAteMyBaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by almostawake View Post
If the Luongo contract is voided the arbitrator ruled that the Canucks willfully circumvented the cap. Punishment is more likely than reward.

I'm not saying that punishment is likely. I'm saying that the probability of reward is so astronomically small that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of punishment, that's still a lot higher.
Oh fantastic

DingoAteMyBaby is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:48 AM
  #197
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,196
vCash: 500
I'll I can say is:

What a mess. There's no way out of this that's fair.

State of Hockey is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:48 AM
  #198
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by almostawake View Post
If the Luongo contract is voided the arbitrator ruled that the Canucks willfully circumvented the cap. Punishment is more likely than reward.

I'm not saying that punishment is likely. I'm saying that the probability of reward is so astronomically small that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of punishment, that's still a lot higher.
I agree with what you just said.

I have a hard time seeing the Canucks getting a punishment for a contract that technically hasn't started.

If any team comes out of this with a punishment it will be Chicago. Even if the punishment is a pretty minor one.

crazycanuck is online now  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:52 AM
  #199
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd7 View Post
again, Daly has apparently denied that such an ultimatum has been given. I suppose its more fun to freak out and rage....
Love how everyone is ignoring you. Typical HFBoards.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
09-02-2010, 02:53 AM
  #200
Meganuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,036
vCash: 500
So if the NHL can reject contracts that arent against the rules, then as an owner I would say **** YOU to the NHL and Bettman and not give any money for revenue sharing either.

ANd does this mean the Hawks give the Cup back? What a joke this is.

Meganuck* 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 01:32 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.