HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

So, Lou... still best buds?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2010, 09:14 PM
  #1
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
So, Lou... still best buds?

http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.ph...ned_3_million/
Quote:
"The Club has been fined $3 million.

The Club will forfeit its third-round draft choice in 2011 as well as a first-round draft choice in one of the next four Entry Drafts. It will be the Club’s decision when, within the next four years, it will forfeit its first-round choice. "

"The Devils released a statement from general manager Lou Lamoriello.

“We were today advised of the ruling by the Commissioner with respect to the Kovalchuk matter. We disagree with the decision. We acted in good faith and did nothing wrong. We will have no further comment.”
Well. Well, well. Welly well wellenstein.

Seems to me like Lamoriello was one of Bettman's guys. One of the owners sticking up for him. I get the impression that, you know, this may not be the case any more.

A) Do people think this ruling is fair?

B) Do people think this is going to come back to bite Bettman in the behind?

Personally, I think the answer to A is absolutely not. The fine is ludicrous and the penalized picks are outright ridiculous.

As far as B goes... maybe. Just maybe. Between the NHLPA allegedly getting Fehr and this complete political fumble by Bettman, I have higher hopes than I've had in a long, long time that his days as Commish are numbered.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 09:28 PM
  #2
Chairman Maouth
Registered User
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,563
vCash: 50
Kudos on the title.

I don't think the ruling is fair. The Devils submitted a contract for approval and it was rejected. Why should there be a punishment at all?

Bettman appears to made of Teflon. I'm not sure anything about this will stick either.

Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:13 PM
  #3
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Maouth View Post
Kudos on the title.

I don't think the ruling is fair. The Devils submitted a contract for approval and it was rejected. Why should there be a punishment at all?

Bettman appears to made of Teflon. I'm not sure anything about this will stick either.
This entire thing has been rather strange. I agree with that point, so it's not like the Devils were able to circumvent anything. The CBA does say that any attempt to do so, even if fails, is still punishable but this does seem very harsh since the Devils were unable to accomplish the feat.

Lou also made it so easy for this to be blocked. The NTC and NMC clauses were akin to waving the red flag in front of angry bull, after adding seven weasel years. (Although I have read that bulls are color blind....)

Why make an example of the Devils? The Hawks won a Cup after bringing in one of those contracts. Holland, in spite of everything we want to say here, massaged the cap so well, he got in two of these contract types... although he was much more clever about it than Lou, apparently.

Maybe Bettman was still angry at Lou for his first two acts of circumvention, back in the Malakov and Mogilny days right after the lockout. I have yet to figure out why Lou made those signings.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:13 PM
  #4
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,356
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
It's a petty move by Bettman. What Lou did was really no different than what several other GMs have already tried - there was really no reason for him to believe the original contract wouldn't go through considering the precedent the league had already set and Lou himself questioned the deal at the original press conference, so it's not like the Devils were hardliners on it.

If Bettman looks to make things ugly with the next CBA, I can see this coming back to bite him a bit. Something gives me the impression that Lou has a long memory.

__________________
blah, blah, blah
Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:17 PM
  #5
Chairman Maouth
Registered User
 
Chairman Maouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fire Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,563
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
This entire thing has been rather strange. I agree with that point, so it's not like the Devils were able to circumvent anything. The CBA does say that any attempt to do so, even if fails, is still punishable but this does seem very harsh since the Devils were unable to accomplish the feat.

Lou also made it so easy for this to be blocked. The NTC and NMC clauses were akin to waving the red flag in front of angry bull, after adding seven weasel years. (Although I have read that bulls are color blind....)

Why make an example of the Devils? The Hawks won a Cup after bringing in one of those contracts. Holland, in spite of everything we want to say here, massaged the cap so well, he got in two of these contract types... although he was much more clever about it than Lou, apparently.

Maybe Bettman was still angry at Lou for his first two acts of circumvention, back in the Malakov and Mogilny days right after the lockout. I have yet to figure out why Lou made those signings.
I wasn't aware of the part I highlighted. But you're right, it's like submitting an essay to a teacher where you didn't cheat, but you went off the rails with your topic or something and he sent you back for a rewrite. It certainly seems over-bearing when you can submit a contract for approval that can then be subjected to punishment.

Chairman Maouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:42 PM
  #6
Kiddington
heehats
 
Kiddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
As far as B goes... maybe. Just maybe. Between the NHLPA allegedly getting Fehr and this complete political fumble by Bettman, I have higher hopes than I've had in a long, long time that his days as Commish are numbered.
Lets just hope that it all goes down before 2012. I have higher confidence that the rumored third lockout that could very well happen will be prevented as long as Bettman isn't involved.

Kiddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:45 PM
  #7
Risotto
Registered User
 
Risotto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 564
vCash: 500
i don't understand why Bettman laid down this punishment. you can say its a deterrant, but that was taken care of when they put in the new language in the CBA to take care of these front loaded deals. it was going to be harder to cheat the cap.

i am a bit surprised with this Pierre Lebrun tweet

http://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/status/24423794214

Quote:
I had a few GMs tell me they were hoping the Devils would be hit hard.

Risotto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 10:46 PM
  #8
petesrw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 406
vCash: 500
Glad we are on the same page.

I hope this is overturned.... somehow, because the NHL does not deserve to collect on this fine. The rules they are selectively enforcing almost forced one of the best players in the league out.

What a terrible way to run this league.

edit:

Quote:
I had a few GMs tell me they were hoping the Devils would be hit hard.
Not surprising. The rest of the league gains with NJs loss.

petesrw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 11:17 PM
  #9
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risotto View Post
i don't understand why Bettman laid down this punishment. you can say its a deterrant, but that was taken care of when they put in the new language in the CBA to take care of these front loaded deals. it was going to be harder to cheat the cap.

i am a bit surprised with this Pierre Lebrun tweet

http://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/status/24423794214
Labrun is a shill for Bettman.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 06:54 AM
  #10
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
... and really, if you are a GM of another NHL team, it's all the better for you if the Devils are hit hard. They are one of only four or five teams in the whole West that's ever remotely like consistently dangerous (being incredibly kind), so kicking in their spokes a little bit is very helpful to the numerous also-rans in that Conference.

Still, this punishment is mind-bogglingly excessive. The contract was never initially approved. Kovy never played a game under a shady deal. Nobody else was negotiating with him (that we know of). There was, literally, no harm committed to or by any actor in this entire drama.

IMO, the reason Bettman slapped NJ as hard as he did is to try and keep teams from going this direction with deals. He's essentially said that if a team submits a deal the NHL rejects, they can be crushed with fines and lost picks on top of not being able to employ the player under that deal.

It's craziness.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 08:09 AM
  #11
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
they were trying to cheat rightout and got caught. Now they are getting their punishment.

Just because you were caught in the act, therefore no damage done, doesn't mean you are getting away harmless. You were doing something you weren't supposed to do and you got caught.

Imagine a guy trying to blow up a building to smithereens with bombs and was prevented doing so. Should he get away free because no harm done?

I say harsher penalty would have been better but I'll live.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 08:33 AM
  #12
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,356
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
they were trying to cheat rightout and got caught. Now they are getting their punishment.

Just because you were caught in the act, therefore no damage done, doesn't mean you are getting away harmless. You were doing something you weren't supposed to do and you got caught.

Imagine a guy trying to blow up a building to smithereens with bombs and was prevented doing so. Should he get away free because no harm done?

I say harsher penalty would have been better but I'll live.
except the NHL didn't say boo about the eight guys who showed up before that with bombs and blew up some doors, a few windows and the mailbox. HD's got it right, the NHL is just trying to send a message with this but, like their various attempts at "cleaning up the game," it doesn't work so well when they pick and choose where and when to do their crackdowns.

Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 09:03 AM
  #13
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
except the NHL didn't say boo about the eight guys who showed up before that with bombs and blew up some doors, a few windows and the mailbox. HD's got it right, the NHL is just trying to send a message with this but, like their various attempts at "cleaning up the game," it doesn't work so well when they pick and choose where and when to do their crackdowns.
so what are you sayin? because they didn't do a good job before they shouldnt do a good job now? well if they chose to do whatever they liked, I'm sure you would have seen more penalties.

They had some evidence but they weren't sure if they could prosecute them.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 09:13 AM
  #14
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
except the NHL didn't say boo about the eight guys who showed up before that with bombs and blew up some doors, a few windows and the mailbox. HD's got it right, the NHL is just trying to send a message with this but, like their various attempts at "cleaning up the game," it doesn't work so well when they pick and choose where and when to do their crackdowns.
Look, I am not on the side of the NHL/Bettman, but to characterize the Kovy deal with Luongo/Hossa isnt nearly the same.

No one else in the league submitted a deal that took a player to 44 years old. 42? Yes. Not 44.

NJ purposely pushed the envelope as far as they could and it got rejected. I think the "punishment" for submitting that deal is ridiculous and unnecessary, but I fully realize why the deal was rejected.

DarkReign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 09:29 AM
  #15
Huddy
No 13 ; No 40 = NP
 
Huddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,504
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Huddy
Then the Hawks and Vancouver should be fined as well....Any team that circumvented the cap should be hit w the same penalties...

This just shows how up and down the NHL can be....it shows w their officiating and now this...

The NFL is sorta becoming the new NHL...IE calvin johnson catch...

making up rules as we go, i see..

Huddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:25 AM
  #16
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeytown93 View Post
Then the Hawks and Vancouver should be fined as well....Any team that circumvented the cap should be hit w the same penalties...
Then the Wings should be fined as well.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:33 AM
  #17
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,692
vCash: 500
The rub is the fack Lou flat out said to the media he was trying to circumvent the cap. That arrogance cost him the money and picks. It made the league look bad and it was like a child going "You can't touch me! You can't touch me!" Well, the NHl proved that Yes, he CAN be touched

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:36 AM
  #18
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeytown93 View Post
Then the Hawks and Vancouver should be fined as well....Any team that circumvented the cap should be hit w the same penalties...

This just shows how up and down the NHL can be....it shows w their officiating and now this...

The NFL is sorta becoming the new NHL...IE calvin johnson catch...

making up rules as we go, i see..
If it's a matter of degrees, then yes, Hawks and Vancouver should be hit with some sort of sanction too. The arbiter specifically cited those deals as worthy of consideration of circumvention. If we just stick to what the accepted mediator selected out, Boston and Philly get added to the list.

I still find it odd, personally speaking, the Wings' contracts weren't mentioned in Bloch's report, but if that is the law of the land, then NJD was severely screwed over. Their contract was rejected after all. These other teams will reap the rewards of these deals while facing nothing as sanctions.

I suspect that tinkering with Hossa's situation would forever tarnish the Cup win, and thus the league let that go to avoid a pretty nasty PR situation. I'd like to think that if the Hawks had not won the Cup, this might have played out differently.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:41 AM
  #19
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
so what are you sayin? because they didn't do a good job before they shouldnt do a good job now? well if they chose to do whatever they liked, I'm sure you would have seen more penalties.

They had some evidence but they weren't sure if they could prosecute them.
So why was the Kovy deal cap circumvention worthy of being fined and punished while the Bertuzzi and Holmstrom deals aren't?

The only difference is degree. Both contracts used term to limit averaged cap hit, the Kovy deal just used more of it.

So given the basic fact that in Bettman's mind using term to limit averaged cap hit is completely acceptable in some degrees but not acceptable in too much of a degree, and that the term 'too much of a degree' is as close to an actual amount as anyone has... how can people be in favor of a punishment this harsh for something that didn't actually ever harm anyone or any negotiation, anywhere?

It's pretty crazy, really.

A team can offer a contract that pays out 90 million in the first 10 years and 10 million in the last 5, for an averaged cap hit of 6.666 mil, and that's totally okay.

A team can offer a contract that pays out 95 million in the first 10 years and 7 million in the last 7 for an average cap hit of 6 mil flat, and if that happens they get fined 3 mil and some pretty significant picks.

Really? Over an averaged cap savings of 600k a year? REALLY?

How about a deal that pays out 93 million in the first 10 and 12 million in the last 7, with an averaged cap hit of 6.16 mil? Would a team lose 3 mil and some picks for that one too?

Do we begin to see how stupid, petty and pointless this is?

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:43 AM
  #20
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,356
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
so what are you sayin? because they didn't do a good job before they shouldnt do a good job now? well if they chose to do whatever they liked, I'm sure you would have seen more penalties.

They had some evidence but they weren't sure if they could prosecute them.
It's not about doing a good job or a bad job, it's about being consistent and providing a reasonable expectation for what is and isn't allowed. The NHL goofed when they either missed this loophole originally or just figured teams wouldn't take advantage of it. If they thought it would be a problem, they needed to come down on these contracts when they first popped up because the intent of them, from Hossa to Luongo to Zetterberg, was pretty clear.

But the NHL sat on the sidelines and just let deal after deal go through. To come out and nail a team at this point is just ridiculous - especially to the extent the NHL is going with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
Look, I am not on the side of the NHL/Bettman, but to characterize the Kovy deal with Luongo/Hossa isnt nearly the same.

No one else in the league submitted a deal that took a player to 44 years old. 42? Yes. Not 44.

NJ purposely pushed the envelope as far as they could and it got rejected. I think the "punishment" for submitting that deal is ridiculous and unnecessary, but I fully realize why the deal was rejected.
Most of my response is above, but I don't think the ages matter. Did the Devils go a bit further than previous teams? Sure, but everyone knows the reason behind all of the deals that have been similar to it. We can window dress it all we want but the intent in all of them was to circumvent (or mitigate) the cap. It's unfair to come out and hammer a team now for doing something the NHL has already greenlighted several times in the past.

Winger98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 10:57 AM
  #21
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
Most of my response is above, but I don't think the ages matter. Did the Devils go a bit further than previous teams? Sure, but everyone knows the reason behind all of the deals that have been similar to it. We can window dress it all we want but the intent in all of them was to circumvent (or mitigate) the cap. It's unfair to come out and hammer a team now for doing something the NHL has already greenlighted several times in the past.
I wouldnt call it window dressing.

Z and Franzen make $1 million a year for the last couple years of their contract's that only take them to age 40.

Kovalchuk's 17yr deal paid him league minimum for basically the last 4-5 years (iirc).

To me, the difference isnt "window dressing", its cavernous.

DarkReign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 11:04 AM
  #22
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
So given the basic fact that in Bettman's mind using term to limit averaged cap hit is completely acceptable in some degrees but not acceptable in too much of a degree, and that the term 'too much of a degree' is as close to an actual amount as anyone has... how can people be in favor of a punishment this harsh for something that didn't actually ever harm anyone or any negotiation, anywhere?

It's pretty crazy, really.

A team can offer a contract that pays out 90 million in the first 10 years and 10 million in the last 5, for an averaged cap hit of 6.666 mil, and that's totally okay.

A team can offer a contract that pays out 95 million in the first 10 years and 7 million in the last 7 for an average cap hit of 6 mil flat, and if that happens they get fined 3 mil and some pretty significant picks.

Really? Over an averaged cap savings of 600k a year? REALLY?

How about a deal that pays out 93 million in the first 10 and 12 million in the last 7, with an averaged cap hit of 6.16 mil? Would a team lose 3 mil and some picks for that one too?

Do we begin to see how stupid, petty and pointless this is?
I think I see the reason why you dont get it. To me, I had a pretty good idea where about the line was. Some of you think the line was supposed to be drawn somewhere else. Maybe it was my bad that I insisted everyone to agree with my viewpoint.

ps if you want my opinion on this matter, I think I've already said enough about this matter somewhere in this forum.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 11:10 AM
  #23
Yemack
Registered User
 
Yemack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post
It's not about doing a good job or a bad job, it's about being consistent and providing a reasonable expectation for what is and isn't allowed. The NHL goofed when they either missed this loophole originally or just figured teams wouldn't take advantage of it. If they thought it would be a problem, they needed to come down on these contracts when they first popped up because the intent of them, from Hossa to Luongo to Zetterberg, was pretty clear.

But the NHL sat on the sidelines and just let deal after deal go through. To come out and nail a team at this point is just ridiculous - especially to the extent the NHL is going with it.
They goofed there is no doubt but they were trying to make it right and in the end, it happened. Like I said, they were collecting evidence but didnt have enough to nail it. They were just waiting for the right circumstances.

It would have been better if it were right from the beginning. Is it ridiculous? Maybe to some, maybe not to some. But point of my argument wasnt about people's feelings about this kovy saga. I would rather they fix it than leave it. And so should everyone.

Yemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 11:41 AM
  #24
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98 View Post

Most of my response is above, but I don't think the ages matter. Did the Devils go a bit further than previous teams? Sure, but everyone knows the reason behind all of the deals that have been similar to it. We can window dress it all we want but the intent in all of them was to circumvent (or mitigate) the cap. It's unfair to come out and hammer a team now for doing something the NHL has already greenlighted several times in the past.

Meanwhile..... New Jersey did not get the benefit of the attempted circumvention, but did get fined for trying, while the other teams will retain the fruits of their illicit [per the CBA] labor.

Very, very unfair.

  Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 11:49 AM
  #25
kdfsjljklgjfg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloversville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemack View Post
Imagine a guy trying to blow up a building to smithereens with bombs and was prevented doing so. Should he get away free because no harm done?
No, but there is a difference betweem being charged with murder and attempted murder.

I call the fine somewhat fair purely because there was an article I remember reading somewhere where Lou hinted that ownership kinda forced his hand and he didn't want anything to do with it. If ownership has to pay up a fine, that's the way things go, and you shouldn't try to cheat the cap. The picks, however, I think were a little harsh.

kdfsjljklgjfg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 AM.

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.