rage 24 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 Mark Everson reports Devils GM Lou Lamoriello remains in the hunt for Kovalchuk, adding it's not interfering with what he's doing with the roster. "Wild rumbles" have the Devils offering up a 17-year, $100 million contract, but there's also speculation they might lower any offer they made. http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1535:the-kovalchuk-free-agent-watch-july-9-2010&catid=5:trade-rumors&Itemid=4 Well that's just funny. That's totally not even possible in the CBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 Mark Everson reports Devils GM Lou Lamoriello remains in the hunt for Kovalchuk, adding it's not interfering with what he's doing with the roster. "Wild rumbles" have the Devils offering up a 17-year, $100 million contract, but there's also speculation they might lower any offer they made. http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1535:the-kovalchuk-free-agent-watch-july-9-2010&catid=5:trade-rumors&Itemid=4 Well that's just funny. That's totally not even possible in the CBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShanahanMan 473 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 100 million? Christ that's a lot. I would think that after his disappointing run with New Jersey, his value would have decreased a bit. Apparently not. 1 dragonballgtz reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 Not to mention the 17 year part. DIdn't they learn anything from their neighbor's 15 year deal of a broken goaltender? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 Mark Everson reports Devils GM Lou Lamoriello remains in the hunt for Kovalchuk, adding it's not interfering with what he's doing with the roster. "Wild rumbles" have the Devils offering up a 17-year, $100 million contract, but there's also speculation they might lower any offer they made. http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1535:the-kovalchuk-free-agent-watch-july-9-2010&catid=5:trade-rumors&Itemid=4 Well that's just funny. That's totally not even possible in the CBA. I sure hope not. IMO the maximum term for a contract should be five years, these 10-year and 15-year contracts are just ridiculous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rage 24 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 (edited) <br />I sure hope not. IMO the maximum term for a contract should be five years, these 10-year and 15-year contracts are just ridiculous.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />They can't do that anyway. He's almost 30 right? So that would bring him to like 45 and that the NHL would not allow. Didn't the 'Hawks almost get in trouble for the Hossa deal that brings him to 41??<br /><br />And then there's the Philly and Pronger deal that was looked into as well by the league. <br /><br />It's impossible. If Kovie was 23, maybe.... Edited July 10, 2010 by rage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted July 10, 2010 They can't do that anyway. He's almost 30 right? So that would bring him to like 45 and that the NHL would not allow. Didn't the 'Hawks almost get in trouble for the Hossa deal that brings him to 41?? And then there's the Philly and Pronger deal that was looked into as well by the league. It's impossible. If Kovie was 23, maybe.... Well, it is possible that these guys will keep playing until their mid-40s, unlikely as it may be. Kovie is 27 so he would be about 45 at the end of a 17-year contract. It just seems so retarded to me that players can be signed through the rest of their careers in their early to mid-20s. It's just wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rage 24 Report post Posted July 11, 2010 <br />Well, it is possible that these guys will keep playing until their mid-40s, unlikely as it may be. Kovie is 27 so he would be about 45 at the end of a 17-year contract. It just seems so retarded to me that players can be signed through the rest of their careers in their early to mid-20s. It's just wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1543:latest-kovalchuk-and-modano-news-july-10-2010&catid=5:trade-rumors&Itemid=4 NORTHJERSEY.COM/NEW YORK POST: reported it appears the New Jersey Devils are playing the waiting game with Ilya Kovalchuk while there's apparently nothing new to report on his status. The Devils are rumored to have offered up a seven-year, $60 million contract plus a 17-year, $100 million offer. ------------------------ Somebody clarify something for me. Didn't the league look hard at the Pronger and Hossa deals last year? And they were only bringing those players to 41 or something. How the hell could that be possible to sign a guy until he's 45??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king_malice 17 Report post Posted July 11, 2010 lol ok today i read from Eklund...i know but he said Wings could be one of the teams offering a 1yr deal, not saying its going to happen, but i do remember before the Olympics someone McKenzie or Dreger saying Holland was interested in bringing in Kovie depending on how he played with Datsyuk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted July 11, 2010 http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/report_kovalchuk_drama_ends_tomorrow/ Maybe signing with LA, tomorrow? Who knows. About a week ago it was said he was going to be a Devil. Is he worth it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 I guess it is just more negotiations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted July 12, 2010 I sure hope not. IMO the maximum term for a contract should be five years, these 10-year and 15-year contracts are just ridiculous. Best make it eight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweWings 45 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 Best make it eight. Should also depend on whether or not the team drafted the player. And maybe how long the contract extends past the age of 35. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 Best make it eight. That would be the absolute ceiling for me. 7-8 is fine but 10 is too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 That would be the absolute ceiling for me. 7-8 is fine but 10 is too much. I don't think there should ever be a limit - if a team wants to lock a player in, they should be able to for as long as they want... the only place it gets hazy, is the age which the contract will end, to circumvent the cap... maybe put a cap on what age that contract can take a player to (say 38 for arguments sake) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 I don't think there should ever be a limit - if a team wants to lock a player in, they should be able to for as long as they want... the only place it gets hazy, is the age which the contract will end, to circumvent the cap... maybe put a cap on what age that contract can take a player to (say 38 for arguments sake) I can see your point of view as well. This makes for some interesting discussion for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim 5 Report post Posted July 12, 2010 this is an obvious loophole in the cap. no doubt this will be addressed in the next cba. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites