• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

DaWingsin071

Kovie

Rate this topic

67 posts in this topic

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

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.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

dragonballgtz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
<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 by rage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
<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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now