• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Greatness=PavelDatsyuk

NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

From ESPN.com insider section:

The New Jersey Devils are at a standstill until an arbitrator decides whether the Ilya Kovalchuk deal is valid or not. But, either way, they may have to trade some players for financial reasons.

The Devils are about $3.5 million under the cap and, if Kovalchuk's deal is deemed valid, they Devils will need to dump about $2.5 million in salaries, at least. But if the arbitrator finds that the Devils violated the CBA, the NHL could fine the Devils between $1 and $5 million, the Bergen County Record's Tom Gulitti tweets.

And the worst part: That fine counts agains the Devils cap hit for the upcoming season. So if the arbitrator rules for the NHL -- and the NHL wants to send a strong message -- the league could fine the Devils a hefty amount. (The league doesn't have to impose any punishment, if they don't want.) This would not only hurt the Devils' chances of re-structuring a deal and getting Kovy re-signed, but it could force the Devils to deal away some contracts to stay under the cap.

Potential trade casualties are: Dainius Zubrus, Jamie Langenbrunner and possibly Patrik Elias and Brian Rolston, although the latter two may be hard to move.[/Quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Montreal Gazette :

...

It's not surprising the NHLPA decided to grieve this decision. For starters, it's important that the group, which has been without a leader since Paul Kelly was fired last year, flexes its muscles in the lead-up to the negotiations on the next CBA. It's also not surprising because the NHL is vulnerable in this case. It has already approved similar contracts from Roberto Luongo and Marian Hossa.

...

...

Kovalchuk also faces a fine ranging from $250,000 to $1 million.

The Devils could also lose draft picks.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how the arbitrator rules, but if he/she rules in favor of NJ/Kovalchuk, the cap really becomes pointless.

The league will face some challenge because of the Luongo and Hossa deals, but the Kovalchuk deal goes quite a bit further than those (i.e. not all that comparable). However, I don't think those deals should have been approved either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how the arbitrator rules, but if he/she rules in favor of NJ/Kovalchuk, the cap really becomes pointless.

The league will face some challenge because of the Luongo and Hossa deals, but the Kovalchuk deal goes quite a bit further than those (i.e. not all that comparable). However, I don't think those deals should have been approved either.

not being biased, but the only 2 deals that should have been approved are Zetterberg and Franzen. simply because their contracts end at the "generic" retirement age of 40. Luongo goes to 42 or 43 and Hossa goes to 42, which is ridiculous. the CBA should state that players can only sign multi year contracts to take them to the age of 40. anything after the age of 40 is 1 year deals until retirement.

the NHL should do away with front loading contracts. every year the player is under contract should be the same amount. if a player signs for 5 years 25 mil, it should be 5 mil/year. none of this 8mil, 8mil, 3mil, 3mil, 3mil contract bulls***. any contract like that should be circumvention of the salary cap. all of the ridiculous loopholes and cap rules and what not are digging the business side of the NHL into a very large hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not being biased, but the only 2 deals that should have been approved are Zetterberg and Franzen. simply because their contracts end at the "generic" retirement age of 40. Luongo goes to 42 or 43 and Hossa goes to 42, which is ridiculous. the CBA should state that players can only sign multi year contracts to take them to the age of 40. anything after the age of 40 is 1 year deals until retirement.

the NHL should do away with front loading contracts. every year the player is under contract should be the same amount. if a player signs for 5 years 25 mil, it should be 5 mil/year. none of this 8mil, 8mil, 3mil, 3mil, 3mil contract bulls***. any contract like that should be circumvention of the salary cap. all of the ridiculous loopholes and cap rules and what not are digging the business side of the NHL into a very large hole.

I agree to an extent with you. I have no problem with a 40 year old signing a 2 year deal. I think saying someone like Mark Recchi can only sign a year at time isn't right. But I get what you're saying. I am with you that these longer term deals should stop at age 40. So if you are 31 you can go ahead and sign a long term deal but it can't be longer than 9 years. Most players start to decline a lot after the age of 37 or 38.

As for front loading I'm not against it. Zetterberg gets most of his money by 38 and I think that's ok but I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL changes that in the next cba. Pierre LeBrun mentioned that one GM said they were throwing around the idea of taking the highest paying 5 years of the long term deals and the average of those 5 years is what would be the cap #. That way you can front load all you want but aren't circumventing the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to an extent with you. I have no problem with a 40 year old signing a 2 year deal. I think saying someone like Mark Recchi can only sign a year at time isn't right. But I get what you're saying. I am with you that these longer term deals should stop at age 40. So if you are 31 you can go ahead and sign a long term deal but it can't be longer than 9 years. Most players start to decline a lot after the age of 37 or 38.

As for front loading I'm not against it. Zetterberg gets most of his money by 38 and I think that's ok but I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL changes that in the next cba. Pierre LeBrun mentioned that one GM said they were throwing around the idea of taking the highest paying 5 years of the long term deals and the average of those 5 years is what would be the cap #. That way you can front load all you want but aren't circumventing the cap.

yeah, i heard something about that 5 year thing. that's what they do for government pension is take your best 5 years averaged out... Z's my favorite player, but even i think his contract is mildly BS with the 2 years at 1mil at the end. atleast it doesn't go past 40, but the salary should be the same every year to make it fair for every team. in reality, the change in a player in 5 years sometimes is drastic. the new CBA could even implement a signing structure like a player of a certain age can sign for X # of years:

18-21 can sign for max 10 years

22-30 can sign for max 5 years

31-37 can sign for max 3 years

40+ signs 1 year deals

each year the player is signed, the same salary will be collected by the player and applied to the salary cap on an annual basis.

i'm not sure how performance bonus' count against the cap, but the base salary for each player should count against the cap and performance bonus shouldn't, but should be a max of 1 mil/year that the player performs to earn as incentives under the table provided by the team owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i heard something about that 5 year thing. that's what they do for government pension is take your best 5 years averaged out... Z's my favorite player, but even i think his contract is mildly BS with the 2 years at 1mil at the end. atleast it doesn't go past 40, but the salary should be the same every year to make it fair for every team. in reality, the change in a player in 5 years sometimes is drastic. the new CBA could even implement a signing structure like a player of a certain age can sign for X # of years:

18-21 can sign for max 10 years

22-30 can sign for max 5 years

31-37 can sign for max 3 years

40+ signs 1 year deals

each year the player is signed, the same salary will be collected by the player and applied to the salary cap on an annual basis.

i'm not sure how performance bonus' count against the cap, but the base salary for each player should count against the cap and performance bonus shouldn't, but should be a max of 1 mil/year that the player performs to earn as incentives under the table provided by the team owner.

Currently, performance bonuses get differed to the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA   
Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

Am I the only one who has a sour taste in my mouth when I read Kovalchuk would be fined? I know it's chump change too him, but still wtf. They were pushing the ballot with a loophole that others had been exposing, just not as much so. I understand that life isn't fair, but that just makes me roll the eyes and laugh at the NHL execs who wonder why people can't get into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, performance bonuses get differed to the following year.

Not really. They can be deferred, if the team was over the cap the previous year, but for the most part bonuses count against the current year's cap.

Bonuses are calculated as salary for the purpose of determining the average amount on a contract. So they are figured into the cap amount for each player that has one. There is a bonus cushion up to 7.5% of the cap, so teams aren't penalized for bonus money they don't pay, but if they do use that cushion, the excess counts toward the cap the next year. Also, if at any time during the season, a bonus becomes impossible to reach, the amount of that bonus is removed from the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who has a sour taste in my mouth when I read Kovalchuk would be fined? I know it's chump change too him, but still wtf. They were pushing the ballot with a loophole that others had been exposing, just not as much so. I understand that life isn't fair, but that just makes me roll the eyes and laugh at the NHL execs who wonder why people can't get into the game.

Fine Nj or Kovy? I can understand the league fining NJ but If they fine Kovy that's completely retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine Nj or Kovy? I can understand the league fining NJ but If they fine Kovy that's completely retarded.

Agreed. Kovalchuk shouldn't have to pay anything; he's already going to be out millions of dollars as it is.

I don't really think anyone should be fined. If they have some sort of limit in mind, make a rule about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I know what I'm talking about, but I think it's dumb that the Devils, and especially Kovy, could be fined. Sure, you let Hossa's go through, no prob, but now not only do you void Kovalchuk's contract for going a whole 2 years longer, you FINE them for pushing the envelope? I mean, I DO think they were trying to circumvent the cap, but voiding the contract was the proper action to take, and it didn't need to go further than that, especially when the NHL should have nipped this in the bud. Don't punish the crap out of the Devils and Kovalchuk just because the rules weren't clearly defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't surprise me.

I would be surprised if he did go. Seems pretty clear to me by now that he wants to play in the NHL. He already turned down multiple massive KHL contracts. He is just trying to get as much money while playing in the NHL for a contender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol that would be hilarious if that was the final straw that broke the camels back.

"whats this? A fine? A FINE?? WHAT!! GOD DAMN YOU!!! IM GOING TO RUSSIA"

Well if that article was right about players getting 45 cents on the dollar having to pay another type of fine I wouldn't be to happy as well. The money they make is still good compared to most of America though. I think most people would get mad no matter how much you make if over half the money you gross you don't even touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if he did go. Seems pretty clear to me by now that he wants to play in the NHL. He already turned down multiple massive KHL contracts. He is just trying to get as much money while playing in the NHL for a contender.

Who wouldn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if he did go. Seems pretty clear to me by now that he wants to play in the NHL. He already turned down multiple massive KHL contracts. He is just trying to get as much money while playing in the NHL for a contender.

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. At first I thought he was all about the money, but considering those KHL contracts he turned down, it seems like he's a lot about the money, but he's also about the Cup, too. I'd still like to see him with the Kings instead of the Devils...less money, but still realistic money, and much more Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why this is bad news for the league. Another lockout in 2012?

From George Malik's blog on MLive

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2010/08/sunday_scuttlebutt_red_wings_p.html

Finally, the New York Post's Larry Brooks offers a fantastic take on the NHL's decision to grieve Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year contract with the New Jersey Devils.

He duly points out that it's the NHL, Gary Bettman, and Bill Daly attempting to circumvent the CBA here by imposing contract limits on players, general managers, and the NHLPA without collectively bargaining such limits into the CBA.

As arbitrator Richard Bloch prepares to hear both the NHL and PA's arguments regarding supposed CBA circumvention on Wednesday and Thursday, Brooks found an anonymous member of the PA hierarchy who's willing to call the NHL out for its attempt to screw players and fans after "losing" the battle to make it even harder for teams to retain their star players as Bill Daly, NHL sycophant Ted Saskin, Trevor Linden and, to some extent, Devils GM Lou Lamoriello authored the CBA during the lockout:

August 1, New York Post: "They absolutely tried to get the right to limit contract length," one of the NHLPA's prime negotiators into and throughout the lockout told Slap Shots. "It was another cap they wanted to impose, but we were able to win that one."

As Brooks notes, the NHL's grievance has a scary pre-second-lockout parallel--the NHL grieved three contracts because they refused to allow three contracts to include signing bonuses deferred to the 2004-2005 season, which the NHL fully intended to spend locking out its players and fans. The NHL lost the case, of course...

Though this is the first circumvention charge filed since the lockout, this is not the first time the league has brought larger collective bargaining issues into an arbitration hearing. This case bears striking similarity to the 2003 case in which the NHL claimed signing bonuses to Joe Sakic, Rob Blake and Pierre Turgeon constituted illegal lockout protection and therefore, circumvention. Signing bonuses were legal under the old CBA just as long-term, front-loaded contracts are legal under this CBA. Indeed, the league routinely registered contracts containing signing bonuses without protest, just as the league routinely has registered long-term, front-loaded contracts.

And, as Brooks points out, the NHL allowed two of the five teams it actually markets to fans, the Chicago Blackhawks and Vancouver Canucks, to sign Marian Hossa and Roberto Luongo to five-year contracts (the NHL essentially acknowledges that the Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals, Blackhawks, Canucks and Calgary Flames have individual players who merit individual praise, but as Wings fans know, the NHL's marketing department tends to ignore the Nicklas Lidstroms and Pavel Datysuks who receive no "face time" in national ad campaigns)...

Moreover, and perhaps most disturbingly, Gary Bettman, Bill Daly and the league seem to believe in preferential treatment toward their biggest allies during the lockout, like Boston Bruins owner and Board of Governors president Jeremy Jacobs, but newcomers without preferential status deserve the league's scorn:

No rule is violated in this contract any more than the Bruins' seven-year agreement with Marc Savard, that kicks in this year, violates the CBA. Savard, 33, is in for a cap hit of $4.01 million on a deal in which he's due to earn $14 million over the first two years, $11.5 the following two years, $1.5M the fifth year and the league minimum $525,000 each of the final two years of the deal. Both deals are structured so that the largest drop in annual compensation -- $3 million in Kovalchuk's contract from the 10th to 11th season, $3.5 million in Savard's contract from the fourth to fifth season -- complies with the "50-percent" rule relating to the average of the first two seasons. Apparently, the first one coming from Jeremy Jacobs' team was fine in the minds of the NHL, but this one from Lou Lamoriello's and Jeff Vanderbeek's team is not.

In other words, as we already know, some teams are more equal than others.

Just about every pundit and legal expert weighing in on the Kovalchuk case agrees that the NHL has no chance of winning this battle, but they certainly agree that between attempting to circumvent their own "sweetheart" CBA and floating the thought balloon that they'd restrict the salary cap to $48 million to force high-spending teams to gut their rosters--and likely demand another across-the-board salary "rollback" from players to re-set the market--the NHL is both declaring labor war on the NHLPA ahead of the expiry of the CBA in 2012...

And the NHL's not-so-subtly informing its paying fans that they fully expect you and I to come back and embrace the game with open arms if they lock out their players and fans for the third time in fifteen seasons.

For the second time in a link-roundup and pseudo-column, I'm going to use that dirty word: I think that the NHL's acting both arrogantly and stupidly in this situation. Shame on the NHL for daring to assume that its players and fans will fold in short order and give into a league that chooses to break its own rules and believes in periodically burning its village down in order to save it.

So I'll conclude with something I never thought I'd say aloud (or type): Gary Bettman, you're acting predictably like your little whiny spoiled brat self, and you deserve a five-minute major and a game misconduct for your immature actions.

Take a clue from Landon Ferraro and start acting like a grown-up instead of throwing yet another temper tantrum because you can't get your way in imposing term limits upon contracts in search of your equally stupid dream of imposing utter parity upon 30 teams, 700 players and millions of paying fans who are the reasons why your league's consistently earned over two and a half billion dollars while weathering a worldwide recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN .

The Ilya Kovalchuk contract situation is expected to be resolved today.

Independent arbitrator Richard Bloch is scheduled to rule today on whether or not Kovlachuk's 17-year, $102 million contract will stand, or be voided.

If the arbitrator rules in favour of the deal, than Kovlachuk will play the remainder of his career in New Jersey. If the deal is voided, the 27-year old sniper would once again be on the free agent market.

...

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