HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Free Agent Frenzy Part II - Now with more Florida.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2011, 06:35 PM
  #701
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevsFan7545 View Post
Why Complain ??? Just Enjoy
No complaints. They went from an elite status to better than average status with conflicting moves. I just don't understand the logic.

apice3* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:35 PM
  #702
ZadorovNJD*
go away fatso
 
ZadorovNJD*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Umm al-Qaiwan
Posts: 10,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
They had to get to the cap floor. I don't think Florida is afraid of an over 35 contract because if Jovo retires during it that is 4.16 they don't have to spend to get to the floor.
ie. Floor circumvention.

ZadorovNJD* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:36 PM
  #703
Classic Devil
Moderator Emeritus
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 34,184
vCash: 500
Awards:
Anyway, I just shot Daly an email asking him questions about the nature of circumvention and contract rejections. I'm not really expecting an answer, but we'll see.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:36 PM
  #704
TheUnseenHand
Hashbrown Selfie
 
TheUnseenHand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Appleton, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 20,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Hey, just trying to spread the big news arounds my man. Huskins is pretty rad news.

I just wanted to let you guys settle down a bit before you do something to me that you would regret...
Frankly I don't care now, and didn't care when it was announced, that the Rags got Richards. Also don't care about the contract. Hope he fails miserably, obviously, but I care more about what the Devils have to do than what the Rags are doing.

Hopefully your excitement is short lived

TheUnseenHand is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:37 PM
  #705
MJB Devils23*
No lockout!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 37,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Devil View Post
Anyway, I just shot Daly an email asking him questions about the nature of circumvention and contract rejections. I'm not really expecting an answer, but we'll see.
He answered all of our questions last year.

MJB Devils23* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:38 PM
  #706
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Given the lack of rules in place at the time and what the NHL had previously allowed (previous deals into the 40's) the docking of draft picks was excessive. Again in the ruling the arbitrator determined while the league was in their right to reject it the Devils did not intend to violate the CBA.

Reject the contract fine, but the removing of picks was excessive given the lack of rules in place and the league's previous acceptance of contracts into the age 40's.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:39 PM
  #707
Alvvays
I know u u cant sing
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,582
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottyk9 View Post
Don't worry no one would regret it
I think you would definitely regret hurting my feelings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnseenHand View Post
Frankly I don't care now, and didn't care when it was announced, that the Rags got Richards. Also don't care about the contract. Hope he fails miserably, obviously, but I care more about what the Devils have to do than what the Rags are doing.

Hopefully your excitement is short lived
And I hope Kovalchuk falls of a cliff.

(In a metaphoric sense, not literal.)

Alvvays is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:40 PM
  #708
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 3743
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Still missing the point.

Let's try it this way. 40 years old is acceptable in your book. Fine.

Is 41 acceptable? It's only another year. It is acceptable? Ok, 42. Is that acceptable? Ok, 43. Is that acceptable? My question is, where is the line drawn. At what age does the contract become illegal?

As mentioned before, Luongo is signed until 43 years old. Kovy at 44 is illegal though. Was the cut-off 43.5? How was Lou or Kovy supposed to know?

I'm not disagreeing that the contract was shady - it was. My question is, why were the other contracts deemed legal? The younger age at the end of the contract? Then at what point does it transcend for acceptable to 1st rounder forfeit worthy? We broke a rule that didn't exist and were substantially penalized.
Law is a field filled with ambiguity, and those ambiguities are clarified through precedent. There's no question that it sucks for the Devils that they were the ones that stepped over the line and got reprimanded for it, but that is the risk taken by pushing beyond the bounds of the prior deals.

Most importantly in this regard, you're ignoring the fact that Bettman warned the GMs after the Luongo/Hossa deals that they were suspect and the league was investigating them, and they remained under investigation throughout the entire Kovalchuk fiaso last summer. Notice was given by Bettman that contracts ending at 43 (and even lower) were under investigation for circumvention. That fact should've provided some degree of notice that pushing the bounds even further was a risky proposition.

azrok22 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:40 PM
  #709
EliasR8
Brendan Shanahan!
 
EliasR8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 13,762
vCash: 500
@JeffMarek
Jeff Marek
Oilers sign Ryan Nugent-Hopkins to a three-year entry level deal.

Hopefully Larsson gets signed soon as well. Along with Zach.

EliasR8 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:41 PM
  #710
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Oiler sign Nugent-Hopkins (damn these kids and their hippy parents) to a entry level deal.

Would like to see the terms so we can focus better on what Larsson will get.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:42 PM
  #711
Classic Devil
Moderator Emeritus
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 34,184
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korean Devil 23 View Post
He answered all of our questions last year.
We'll see.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:46 PM
  #712
DangleSnipeCelly
Formerly KupsforKovy
 
DangleSnipeCelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rockaway
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
I cant help but lol at the Avs. They give up a 1st and 2nd, instead of signing him to an offer sheet that would only give up a 2nd.

DangleSnipeCelly is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:51 PM
  #713
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
Law is a field filled with ambiguity, and those ambiguities are clarified through precedent. There's no question that it sucks for the Devils that they were the ones that stepped over the line and got reprimanded for it, but that is the risk taken by pushing beyond the bounds of the prior deals.

Most importantly in this regard, you're ignoring the fact that Bettman warned the GMs after the Luongo/Hossa deals that they were suspect and the league was investigating them, and they remained under investigation throughout the entire Kovalchuk fiaso last summer. Notice was given by Bettman that contracts ending at 43 (and even lower) were under investigation for circumvention. That fact should've provided some degree of notice that pushing the bounds even further was a risky proposition.
Alright fine. Investigate all you want. Why was ours the one found illegal? Why was ours the one that resulted in a 1st round fine?

Here's my idea to fix the cap stupidity. Whatever a player gets paid in year X is his cap hit. You want to sign a player to a contract that pays him 10 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2? Fine. 10 mil and 2 mil cap hits, respectively. Never really understood why a players contracted salary 15 years from today effects his cap implications this year.

apice3* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:52 PM
  #714
Classic Devil
Moderator Emeritus
 
Classic Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 34,184
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Alright fine. Investigate all you want. Why was ours the one found illegal? Why was ours the one that resulted in a 1st round fine?

Here's my idea to fix the cap stupidity. Whatever a player gets paid in year X is his cap hit. You want to sign a player to a contract that pays him 10 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2? Fine. 10 mil and 2 mil cap hits, respectively. Never really understood why a players contracted salary 15 years from today effects his cap implications this year.
Better question is why they chose to reject ours and not theirs. The fine only came after it went to arbitration, so it you ask why they chose to fine, they can always hide behind "it went to arbitration and lost" as justification. On the other hand, they initiated the process by rejecting the contract, so the better question is why did they reject.

Classic Devil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:53 PM
  #715
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KupsforKovy View Post
I cant help but lol at the Avs. They give up a 1st and 2nd, instead of signing him to an offer sheet that would only give up a 2nd.
Washington would have matched. Colorado wouldn't get Varlamov. Neither team would have been happy.

apice3* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:53 PM
  #716
Alvvays
I know u u cant sing
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,582
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KupsforKovy View Post
I cant help but lol at the Avs. They give up a 1st and 2nd, instead of signing him to an offer sheet that would only give up a 2nd.
The Caps would have matched an offer sheet, it was reported.

Alvvays is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:54 PM
  #717
EliasR8
Brendan Shanahan!
 
EliasR8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 13,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KupsforKovy View Post
I cant help but lol at the Avs. They give up a 1st and 2nd, instead of signing him to an offer sheet that would only give up a 2nd.

nvm Brian Boyle said they would have matched it

EliasR8 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:54 PM
  #718
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
The Caps would have matched an offer sheet, it was reported.
You still don't offer up a first.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:55 PM
  #719
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Devil View Post
Better question is why they chose to reject ours and not theirs. The fine only came after it went to arbitration, so it you ask why they chose to fine, they can always hide behind "it went to arbitration and lost" as justification. On the other hand, they initiated the process by rejecting the contract, so the better question is why did they reject.
Exactly. I'm not as upset at the fact that we were penalized. I'm upset at that fact that we were the only ones penalized.

apice3* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 06:56 PM
  #720
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrdevil View Post
You still don't offer up a first.
Colorado is gambling. Their GM is showing his team confidence that they will rebound from last year.

apice3* is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 07:00 PM
  #721
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Devil View Post
Better question is why they chose to reject ours and not theirs. The fine only came after it went to arbitration, so it you ask why they chose to fine, they can always hide behind "it went to arbitration and lost" as justification. On the other hand, they initiated the process by rejecting the contract, so the better question is why did they reject.
Politics. They had told the Canucks they were going to reject to Luongo contract before the Canucks submitted anyways and it was accepted. They probably backed off not wanting to deal with the media backlash in Canada. They weren't going to reject to Pronger contract because they in the beginning stages of negotiating a new TC deal with Comcast the Flyers owners. And of course they weren't going to cross Illitch and Red Wings and reject the Zetterberg and Franzen deals. Off course Hossa had already played under his deals.

And the investigation threat was ********. The CBA specifically outlines that the league has 5 days to reject a contract. The threat to void the other ones when it came to the second contract was ********.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 07:02 PM
  #722
njdevsfn95
Help JJJ, Sprite.
 
njdevsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 30,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaxjoDevil View Post
Not really. The frontloadedness was not the main reason NHL rejeced it. It was the belief that Devils&Kovy didn't really think Kovy would play when he was 44. That's why they got punished, not because they frontloaded a contract. It's pretty safe to say that a healthy Richards does honestly plan to play until he's 39.
That may be why they rejected it but Bloch, in his ruling, said he believed there was no bad faith by either party.

That means the Devils and Kovalchuk, but the ruling of an independent arbitrator, did nothing wrong as per WRITTEN CBA guidelines. The NHL chose to punish a team that acted in good faith.

**** that noise. Treat everyone the same or don't bother ****ing over 1 club when this nonsense occurred before and, most importantly, after Kovalchuk.

njdevsfn95 is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 07:03 PM
  #723
VaxjoDevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Princeton, NJ
Country: Sweden
Posts: 8,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Classic Devil View Post
Better question is why they chose to reject ours and not theirs. The fine only came after it went to arbitration, so it you ask why they chose to fine, they can always hide behind "it went to arbitration and lost" as justification. On the other hand, they initiated the process by rejecting the contract, so the better question is why did they reject.
Because they did not believe Devils believed he would play in the NHL when he was 44.

VaxjoDevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 07:04 PM
  #724
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Colorado is gambling. Their GM is showing his team confidence that they will rebound from last year.
Well if you gamble you want to take the best odds. Why not lottery protect the first round pick? You really think Washington is going to say no to a potential 10-30 first round pick for an asset they were losing anyways? You lottery protect the first rounder at least to give you two years to build out.

It is the same mistake Burke made with the Kessel trade.

jkrdevil is offline  
Old
07-02-2011, 07:04 PM
  #725
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 3743
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Alright fine. Investigate all you want. Why was ours the one found illegal? Why was ours the one that resulted in a 1st round fine?

Here's my idea to fix the cap stupidity. Whatever a player gets paid in year X is his cap hit. You want to sign a player to a contract that pays him 10 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2? Fine. 10 mil and 2 mil cap hits, respectively. Never really understood why a players contracted salary 15 years from today effects his cap implications this year.
In my honest opinion, the Kovalchuk Amendment makes things worse in the short term, because it essentially outlines the exact parameters of what is not cap circumvention. Both the Erhoff and Richards deals goes right up to those parameters, but not an inch further.

Quote:
**A contract of five seasons or more is considered a long-term contract.

**If the long-term contract extends beyond the player’s 41st birthday, the cap hit will be calculated two ways.

A) The average of the player’s salary every year in the contract up to the year after the player turns 41. (The player’s age on June 30 at the end of the season is considered his age for the full season).

B) In subsequent years, the actual salary for that season will be his cap hit. So, if the player makes $2 million in the season in which his 41 and $1 million when he is 42, his cap hit will be $2 million the first year and $1 million the second.

**For a long-term contract in which any of three years in it average to more than $5.75 million, then for purposes of calculating the salary cap hit, none of years, ages 36 to 40, will be valued at less than $1 million. In other words, if Player X has three years that average more than $5.75 million in a contract of longer than five years and he would make $600,000 at age 38, for the purposes of calculating the cap hit, $1 million would be the salary added into the total—not $600,000—for that season.

**Any contracts preceding this agreement, including Kovalchuk’s, would not be affected by this amendment.
With the "law" clarified, teams that were unwilling to offer these cap circumvention deals, whether out of a fear of going too far or principal, are now even willing to offer them. Buffalo, NY, Calgary, LA (was also willing to during the Kovalchuk fiasco) join the pre-existing culprits.

Now, any free agent with significant leverage would be an absolute idiot to not demand his own team structure the deal in this way. I suspect that may be some of the holdup with Parise. Look at the comparison of these two options (Parise is 27 in July).

He could sign a 7 year "traditional contract", taking him to 34, at a cap hit of $7.5m and walk away with $52.5m by the time he's 34. At this point he'd be looking for another contract.

Or, he could sign a 13 year cap circumvention deal taking him to 40 at a cap hit of 7.53 million. Under the below structured, he'd already have earned $80m by the time he was 34, and would still have another $22.5m coming before his salary plummeted.

12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
10
10
10
10
7.5
5
1
1
1


Cap circumvention? Absolutely. But that's the bed the NHL has made for itself with the Kovalchuk Amendment.

azrok22 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 03:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.