Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

NHL Rejects Kovalchuk's Contract


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#21 SweWings

SweWings

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:18 PM

Not really surprising. But I guess this means we're narrowing in on what is considered acceptable.

#22 puffy

puffy

    Slightly Insane

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:19 PM

Screw the cap and revenue sharing!

Why the hell should the stronger teams like the Wings,Leafs,Habs,Rangers ect. be expected to pay for these hopeless markets like Phoenix and Atlanta? It's not our fault they can't form a decent fanbase.

The league has become watered down with 30 teams. Guys who would have never made the NHL in late 80s/early 90s are now becoming NHL regulars. It's no wonder the quality of the game has suffered. I would not be against eliminating a few teams and going back to a 24 team format.

Edited by puffy, 20 July 2010 - 09:22 PM.


#23 EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

    Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:26 PM

Screw the cap and revenue sharing!

Why the hell should the stronger teams like the Wings,Leafs,Habs,Rangers ect. be expected to pay for these hopeless markets like Phoenix and Atlanta? It's not our fault they can't form a decent fanbase.

The league has become watered down with 30 teams. Guys who would have never made the NHL in late 80s/early 90s are now becoming NHL regulars. It's no wonder the quality of the game has suffered. I would not be against eliminating a few teams and going back to a 24 team format.


The average NHL player as a whole has never been better then now. Sports evolve, and you may argue that less teams= less diluted talent, but everyone seems to forget that back even in the 80's the league was over 90% NA.

There is a much bigger pool to draw from today. This is the reason the league has a lot more top guys, but no truly elite guys that stand miles ahead of everyone like Lemueix and Gretzky did. The vast increase in youth leagues/training, as well as far more balanced nutrition and talent pool to draw from has made for far more player parity then you could ever imagine.

You're going to call me insane, but I would honestly be shocked if Boyd Deverauex as he is now would not have been a consistent all-star in the 50s. The conditioning, speed, and overall talent of all the players will continue to improve, its just the natural way a sport grows. Do you really think the quality of game has suffered? If so, I suggest you get your nostalgia glasses off, and watch how easy it was for skill players to dominate in the 80s. Slow-ass defensemen and non-butterfly goaltending... yeah real challenging.

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA, 20 July 2010 - 09:41 PM.

Victory Honda Forever.

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

#24 Glubki

Glubki

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts
  • Location:Sarasota, FL

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:30 PM

I wonder if a new deal will be announced quickly. You have to wonder if NJ might have worked out a couple deals. Try this one and because there was a huge risk of having it not approved, work out another one as well.


Jersey can't afford much more of a cap hit - knock 3-5 years off that contract and the average hit will force them out of the running for Kovy. Their highest paid players have NTC and NMC's so shorter term deals are out of the question. They would have had a tough time just clearing the 1.5 to 2 million for him at the 5.8 million cap hit or whatever it was.
If you have an online nemesis you are spending too much time online....

#25 HenryMalredo

HenryMalredo

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts
  • Location:East Lansing

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:33 PM

Wasn't a huge fan of this deal, but It bothers me that the league is invalidating this deal by a subjective standard and has not made clear what they see this standard as. Of course the deal violates the so-called "spirit" of the cap, but I don't see how you could say it does so anymore than any of the other deals. If the NHL has a problem with these deals, it should wait for the next cba.

#26 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,647 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:33 PM

Screw the cap and revenue sharing!

Why the hell should the stronger teams like the Wings,Leafs,Habs,Rangers ect. be expected to pay for these hopeless markets like Phoenix and Atlanta? It's not our fault they can't form a decent fanbase.

The league has become watered down with 30 teams. Guys who would have never made the NHL in late 80s/early 90s are now becoming NHL regulars. It's no wonder the quality of the game has suffered. I would not be against eliminating a few teams and going back to a 24 team format.

:thumbup:

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#27 Jesusberg

Jesusberg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,661 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 09:40 PM

I'm actually kind of surprised. Yeah, the contract is pretty out there, but I really didn't think the league would negate it. Interesting to say the least.

#28 Glubki

Glubki

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts
  • Location:Sarasota, FL

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:01 PM

Wasn't a huge fan of this deal, but It bothers me that the league is invalidating this deal by a subjective standard and has not made clear what they see this standard as. Of course the deal violates the so-called "spirit" of the cap, but I don't see how you could say it does so anymore than any of the other deals. If the NHL has a problem with these deals, it should wait for the next cba.


I don't know the specifics of all the long term deals that have been handed out in the past 5 years but the difference in comparison to Z's and Franzen's contracts is the front/middle loading of dollars in the Kovy contract instead of an average hit against the total in each year. Apparently that is what the league has an issue with and rightly so.

Just to add a thought. Kovy would be stupid to agree to a contract at 6m a year for each of the 17 years because if he retires in 10 years he would have signed a 10 year 60 million dollar deal when it all shakes out - not going to happen.

Edited by Glubki, 20 July 2010 - 10:09 PM.

If you have an online nemesis you are spending too much time online....

#29 puffy

puffy

    Slightly Insane

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:02 PM

The average NHL player as a whole has never been better then now. Sports evolve, and you may argue that less teams= less diluted talent, but everyone seems to forget that back even in the 80's the league was over 90% NA.

There is a much bigger pool to draw from today. This is the reason the league has a lot more top guys, but no truly elite guys that stand miles ahead of everyone like Lemueix and Gretzky did. The vast increase in youth leagues/training, as well as far more balanced nutrition and talent pool to draw from has made for far more player parity then you could ever imagine.

You're going to call me insane, but I would honestly be shocked if Boyd Deverauex as he is now would not have been a consistent all-star in the 50s. The conditioning, speed, and overall talent of all the players will continue to improve, its just the natural way a sport grows. Do you really think the quality of game has suffered? If so, I suggest you get your nostalgia glasses off, and watch how easy it was for skill players to dominate in the 80s. Slow-ass defensemen and non-butterfly goaltending... yeah real challenging.


Just because the talent pool is bigger doesn't mean we should be putting a hockey team in a desert!

I suppose if the NHL made wiser re-location decisions in the past I might be ok with a 30 team league, but frankly every team has 4 or 5 players that are temporary plugs at best.

From a players perspective it's great because they keep the dream alive, but from a fans perspective it's like...WTF are some of these guys doing here?

#30 EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

EZBAKETHAGANGSTA

    Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:08 PM

Just because the talent pool is bigger doesn't mean we should be putting a hockey team in a desert!

I suppose if the NHL made wiser re-location decisions in the past I might be ok with a 30 team league, but frankly every team has 4 or 5 players that are temporary plugs at best.

From a players perspective it's great because they keep the dream alive, but from a fans perspective it's like...WTF are some of these guys doing here?


1) I never disagreed that their should or should not be a team in non-traditional markets, was simply responding to your viewpoint that there are more scrubs in the NHL today.

2)4-5 plugs on every team? Name one besides Meech on the Red Wing's right now. Yes, there are journymen in the league, but there will always be. This does not reflect overall talent, but moreso how it's spread out between the average player and the then fringe players.

3)I know a lot of the players out there today are frustrating, but I suggest you re-watch some 80's hockey, there was actually a good wing's link posted just a few days ago. There may be players today who are far worse then the average nhler, but that is because of the talent level now, not because the average talent level has dipped. If the league's average player had the skillset of an all-star now, players like Dan Cleary would be considered a scrub, due to talent relativity, not due to an overall decline in talent of the league.

Edit: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that the league would be better with fewer teams, just that you can't look at a location of a team and judge whether or not it has a right to exist. There are sunbelt expansion horror stories to be sure, but teams like Tampa Bay, San Jose, and Dallas have all been some of the best supported teams the last few years.

As for too many scrubs in the league, of course it would be nice to see only the best of the best play, but I really don't see the epidemic of fringe NHLers you speak of. Do you really think a 4th liner in todays game like Drew Miller is worse then a 4th liner in the 80s?

Edited by EZBAKETHAGANGSTA, 20 July 2010 - 10:22 PM.

Victory Honda Forever.

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

#31 cjm502

cjm502

    This man was born to kick ass.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts
  • Location:Mid Michigan

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:15 PM

3rd post in the other Kovalchuk thread. WHO CALLED IT? THATS RIGHT, I DID.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

#32 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:26 PM

Wasn't a huge fan of this deal, but It bothers me that the league is invalidating this deal by a subjective standard and has not made clear what they see this standard as. Of course the deal violates the so-called "spirit" of the cap, but I don't see how you could say it does so anymore than any of the other deals. If the NHL has a problem with these deals, it should wait for the next cba.


Well, that's just it. The Kovy deal was worse in every way than any of the others. Longer, took him to a later age, more 'garbage' years, less money in those years, greater cap reduction as a result...like someone said in another discussion: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

A line has apparently been drawn, and it's somewhere between Luongo's deal and Kovy's. Or maybe Hossa's and Kovy's since goalies often have separate standards. Probably should have done it sooner, even with Lecavalier (I think he was the first to get a deal like this), but better late than never.

#33 puffy

puffy

    Slightly Insane

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:36 PM

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that the league would be better with fewer teams, just that you can't look at a location of a team and judge whether or not it has a right to exist. There are sunbelt expansion horror stories to be sure, but teams like Tampa Bay, San Jose, and Dallas have all been some of the best supported teams the last few years.

As for too many scrubs in the league, of course it would be nice to see only the best of the best play, but I really don't see the epidemic of fringe NHLers you speak of. Do you really think a 4th liner in todays game like Drew Miller is worse then a 4th liner in the 80s?


Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to see the Phoenix Coyotes,Atlanta Thrashers and Florida Panthers sell out every single night. I want NHL news to be the top story on ESPN.com 200 days a year. The only problem with that pipe dream is it's miserably failing at the moment. Fans in these markets aren't even willing to sell out an arena when tickets go as low as $14. Meanwhile in Toronto I pay $40 for parking and $120 for a ticket (If I'm lucky!) and yet they can sell out during a fatal blizzard!

Maybe I exaggerated a bit out of anger, but I still think the league would be much more entertaining today because each team would have more depth and guys like Rickard Wallin and Jason Williams would be no more!

Edited by puffy, 20 July 2010 - 10:37 PM.


#34 syntax

syntax

    Join the Empire!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Flint, MI

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:39 PM

This is bulls***, if the NHL will not allow contracts like this then they at least need to make the salary cap a soft cap with a luxury tax.



I agree with you on the softcap/luxury tax, but the contract IS bulls***. .01% of NHL players since the inception of the league retire after 40.
The Vladinator He earned the NHL Plus/Minus Award in 1995-96, with a plus/minus difference of plus-60. The +60 has been the highest rating a player has finished with in the past 20 seasons, since Wayne Gretzky finished with a +70 in the 1986-87 NHL season

Pavel Datsyuk > x (where x is the name of any active hockey player)

#35 Johnny Diamonds

Johnny Diamonds

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:50 PM

How is it bulls***? How would you really see this different than a 50 year contract that the player gets paid most of the money in the first 10 years?

Easy to say a 50 year contract is absurd, but this contract is just as absurd. You can point to other "similar" contracts, but with those, there is at least a reasonable chance the players will play out the deals. There is a zero chance this contract would be played out. Also, 95% of the cash is paid a little over half way through the contract......just stupid and obvious circumvention.


You wouldn't have these kind of looong contracts if a proper soft salary cap and luxury tax was in place. Bettman is a moron, it's hard to believe this guy was David Stern's understudy.

#36 Kira

Kira

    "I hope you're not from KGB"

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts
  • Location:Oh yeah, like you really care where I am.

Posted 20 July 2010 - 10:55 PM

You had to know this was going to happen. My only question is this: how many more of these long term deals might be scrutinized and found to be a little shady?

Edited by Kira, 20 July 2010 - 10:58 PM.

Posted Image

#37 TheDetroitRedWings

TheDetroitRedWings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 20 July 2010 - 11:27 PM

I'm a little surprised actually. Not because I disagree with the NHL on this. Cause I definitely agree with the rejection. But if they allowed Hossa's deal, how can they truly justify rejecting Ilya's deal? Hossa's deal is basically just as bad considering he is older than Kovalchuk. Yet another prime example of the NHL being inconsistent. What a shocker.

Edited by TheDetroitRedWings, 20 July 2010 - 11:27 PM.

12041887825_d4b1d5c02f_o.jpg


#38 dragonballgtz

dragonballgtz

    Yu-Gi-HOE

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,407 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 11:29 PM

I agree with you on the softcap/luxury tax, but the contract IS bulls***. .01% of NHL players since the inception of the league retire after 40.

And this all could of been avoided if the league would of acted on the DiPietro deal. Stop contracts like this from ever happening in the first place and there is no issue and clear understanding between the NHL and NHLPA on what is a realistic expectation on players finishing out their contracts.

EDIT: Why was hockey even stopped for a whole year for? The owners bitched that the players were making too much and now these same owners are giving players front loaded contracts just to sneak by the cap system they wanted in the first place. This is really just dumbness all around on both ends.

Edited by dragonballgtz, 20 July 2010 - 11:39 PM.


#39 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,647 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 20 July 2010 - 11:45 PM

You had to know this was going to happen. My only question is this: how many more of these long term deals might be scrutinized and found to be a little shady?


Hossa and Pronger's deals were already investigated earlier this year. Who's next?

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#40 Grim

Grim

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 20 July 2010 - 11:49 PM

wake up folks... the only reason this contract is being rejected is because an owner or two is protesting. more than likely its the Kings' owner raising a kerfuffle. the previous deals were allowed to go through cuz in the end no one objected.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users