Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Kovalchuk Re-Signs with Devils


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#41 EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:Da Ville Mi

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:43 PM

A $5.8 mil cap hit for Kovalchuk would be pretty good. Since he's under 35, wouldn't they be off the hook if he retired before the end of this contract?


Correct. If the player is under 35 the day the season starts, they can retire and the remainder of the contract is void.

Edit: Note its the age of the first day of the season in question, not the age when the contract is signed. This is what Philadelphia apparently misunderstood on the Pronger extension.

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA, 19 July 2010 - 12:49 PM.

Victory Honda Forever.

Like my posts? Contact Hossa4life for information regarding my fan club

#42 SweWings

SweWings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:43 PM

Finally. This Kovie thing got to the point where I really didn't care where he signed as long as he did sign before I became old and gray.

#43 crotty99

crotty99

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:44 PM

A $5.8 mil cap hit for Kovalchuk would be pretty good. Since he's under 35, wouldn't they be off the hook if he retired before the end of this contract?


Yea what seeinred said pretty much.

Imagine if he DID play into his 40's...wouldn't want to be paying him almost 6m a year haha.

Posted Image


Thanks TeeMan!


#44 EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:Da Ville Mi

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:46 PM

They would be, yeah. That's why these really long term deals look so shady. It makes you wonder if they have an understanding that a player is going to retire at a certain age. There's no way the Devils can expect Kovy to play into his mid-40s.



No, I get why they're made. The difference is our players are signed until an age where they can be reasonably expected to play still. No one expects a player to play until they're 44.


Even if the NHL could prove that there were agreements for Kovalchuck to retire before then (which there probably were), there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the CBA.
Victory Honda Forever.

Like my posts? Contact Hossa4life for information regarding my fan club

#45 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:50 PM

They would be, yeah. That's why these really long term deals look so shady. It makes you wonder if they have an understanding that a player is going to retire at a certain age. There's no way the Devils can expect Kovy to play into his mid-40s.



No, I get why they're made. The difference is our players are signed until an age where they can be reasonably expected to play still. No one expects a player to play until they're 44.

unless their last name ends in 'elios

seriously though, this is ridiculous, these long term deals should only be allowed to take a player to 40, as that is still a realistic age to be able to compete at a pretty high level in today's game and generally speaking, even if a guy does retire early, he's probably only shaving 3 years off his cap hit at most - not 6+... kinda defeats the "hard cap"

EDIT - for the record, I love these long term deals and think they are genius from a GM standpoint and perfectly within the rules... but they should still have SOME sort of regulation on it...

Edited by stevkrause, 19 July 2010 - 12:51 PM.

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#46 mindfly

mindfly

    GRRRRR

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,170 posts
  • Location:The Multiverse

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:54 PM

It's the same with Hossa, at 42 years old or something, zetterberg&mule at 40, most likely they will end their career a few years earlier than that.

Bettman will find a way to disallow these type of contracts soon :ph34r:

#47 xtrememachine1

xtrememachine1

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 19 July 2010 - 12:56 PM

Bettman will find a way to disallow these type of contracts soon :ph34r:


Not before Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin sign deals like these.

#48 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:03 PM

David Clarkson to Detroit for Miller, Ritola and a 3rd round pick, gets them 2 bodies and saves 1.5 on the cap!

Then send Zubrus back to Washington (where he played his best hockey) along with Travis Zajack for John Erskine, Matt Bradley, a high draft pick and a prospect... gets them below the cap, fills out their roster and replenished the farm system a little bit with what they lost to get Ilya... quick, someone get me Lou's number, I need to make a call!!!

:ph34r:

Wow... not a single person is going to call me insane, tell me this is not NHL 2010 by EA, ask what I'm smoking, or explain in essay form why this trade wouldn't happen? I'm dissapointed in you LGW, I expect more of you...
:hehe:

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#49 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:09 PM

Yea what seeinred said pretty much.

Imagine if he DID play into his 40's...wouldn't want to be paying him almost 6m a year haha.


I'm sure his pay those last 4-5 years is really low, $1M or so, that way he can retire and made most of the money. The cap hit would be bad but I doubt the actual pay is.


Even if the NHL could prove that there were agreements for Kovalchuck to retire before then (which there probably were), there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the CBA.


Not quite true, the CBA specifically prohibits attempts to circumvent the cap. What that would be exactly is unclear but the NHL could easily argue that this is what is being done here.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#50 SweWings

SweWings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:28 PM

Not quite true, the CBA specifically prohibits attempts to circumvent the cap. What that would be exactly is unclear but the NHL could easily argue that this is what is being done here.

They could but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDnXkFVEQ0Y

#51 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:34 PM

They could but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDnXkFVEQ0Y


I'm not saying that it will happen, I'm not certain that the NHL will challenge the signing if it goes until he is 44 my point is they can challenge it and might chose to do so. They were not happy with the Hossa and Pronger signings last year and commented on the fact it was the first long term contracts that extended into a player's 40's, this contract (again if true) would extend to 44, is that attempting to circumvent the cap? If not would 45, 46, 47? At some point as the limit keeps being pushed they may decided to challenge a contract as being designed to circumvent the cap.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#52 Hank Dats 'N Homer

Hank Dats 'N Homer

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 953 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:37 PM

With a contract like that, if he were to retire before his contract is up does he still get paid until the age the contract lists? Or is the contract completely voided? I know some of you are saying that the contract is void if he retires but does that just mean his salary wouldnt count against the Cap after they retire but the team is still on the hook to pay him until the end of his contract? So basically he can sit on his but at home an just collect the money watching the games from tv? Or is the contract completly voided and the team is no longer obligated to pay him the remainder of the contract if he decides to retire early?

#53 SweWings

SweWings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,917 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:41 PM

I'm not saying that it will happen, I'm not certain that the NHL will challenge the signing if it goes until he is 44 my point is they can challenge it and might chose to do so. They were not happy with the Hossa and Pronger signings last year and commented on the fact it was the first long term contracts that extended into a player's 40's, this contract (again if true) would extend to 44, is that attempting to circumvent the cap? If not would 45, 46, 47? At some point as the limit keeps being pushed they may decided to challenge a contract as being designed to circumvent the cap.

Certainly. But given that they've let those contracts slide it would have to take quite a push for the brass to step in, e.g. signing Doughty to a 25 year contract or something. Besides, my main reason for replying was to post the video under a thin veil (very thin) of promoting discussion.

#54 Frozen-Man

Frozen-Man

    Thanks for the memories

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,579 posts

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:51 PM

Certainly. But given that they've let those contracts slide it would have to take quite a push for the brass to step in, e.g. signing Doughty to a 25 year contract or something. Besides, my main reason for replying was to post the video under a thin veil (very thin) of promoting discussion.


No, I think it is a good discussion and an interesting one to have. I don't know if they will challenge that contract but the longer past 40 it gets it gets exponentially more unlikely to be a reality. At some point they would have to address it, what if a 34 year old player signs a 16 year contract getting about 8-10M the first couple of year and then drops off as rapidly as possible for the rest of the contract? At some point it is too much and has to be challenged, I don't know if this reaches that point but playing until 44 is pretty unlikely for Kovy.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain


#55 stevkrause

stevkrause

    Legend

  • Bronze Booster
  • 5,236 posts
  • Location:Detroit, MI

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:53 PM

Certainly. But given that they've let those contracts slide it would have to take quite a push for the brass to step in, e.g. signing Doughty to a 25 year contract or something. Besides, my main reason for replying was to post the video under a thin veil (very thin) of promoting discussion.

When Seabrook goes RFA next year, Kenny should offer him a 30 year deal at 90 million dollars, 3 million dollar cap hit for one of the better young d-men in the game!

Pay him 8-9 a year for the first 9 years then ride out the deal with minimum contracts :lol:

What?? he could play until he 55! :hehe:

Edited by stevkrause, 19 July 2010 - 01:54 PM.

All I have to say about Holland and our off-season:

Here in this thread

Here in this one as well

Here in this one too

and finally

Here


Holland is a damn good GM. period.


#56 henrik40

henrik40

    Lebda Sucks

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 812 posts
  • Location:Dallas, TX

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:54 PM

I get texts from espn.com related to the NHL and they are claiming its 17 years, 150 million. Either that's a typo, espn has awful sources, or that's just a ridiculously DUMB deal.

#57 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:58 PM

Honestly, the only way to really close this loophole would be to calculate the average retirement age of NHL players and make that the cutoff age for long-term contracts like this. Of course, calculating something like that is tough, because some players end up playing overseas once they retire, a la Hasek. It may just seem like an arbitrary age, but 40 seems to be the one that makes the most sense. There's absolutely no way Kovalchuk is playing until he's 44 and frankly, I don't even see him playing much past 40, if even that.

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!


#58 Z and D for the C

Z and D for the C

    This is the TBL forum, right?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,026 posts
  • Location:D, Michigan

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:58 PM

Puckdaddy is reporting the deal at 17 years 100mill+

Unconfirmed so far.


That's ridiculous.


Maybe next summer we can sign Semin to a 25 year, $81m contract that pays him 9m million for the first 5 years, 5m for the next 3 then 3m for the next 2 then 1m per season the next 15 and it's only a 3.24m cap hit!

Edited by Z and D for the C, 19 July 2010 - 01:59 PM.

Just cause you look like the gimp don't mean you play like the gimp!


#59 HankthaTank

HankthaTank

    3rd Line Center

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,815 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:00 PM

When Seabrook goes RFA next year, Kenny should offer him a 30 year deal at 90 million dollars, 3 million dollar cap hit for one of the better young d-men in the game!

Pay him 8-9 a year for the first 9 years then ride out the deal with minimum contracts :lol:

What?? he could play until he 55! :hehe:

The hell with it give Keith and Doughty each 15 year 45 mill deals. :thumbup: :hehe: :sly:
TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED.

#60 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 19 July 2010 - 02:00 PM

I get texts from espn.com related to the NHL and they are claiming its 17 years, 150 million. Either that's a typo, espn has awful sources, or that's just a ridiculously DUMB deal.


That has to be a typo...because that would make absolutely NO sense with the term of the deal. That's still an $8.8M/yr cap hit and the point of these cap-circumventing contracts is to LOWER the yearly cap hit.

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users