Posted 21 July 2010 - 07:56 AM
The only contract you can really compare to this is the Hossa deal, which didn't exactly pass through with flying colours. If I was investigating the Hossa contract, I'm not sure I would have approved it, but going to the Kovalchuk contract, not approving is easy. Hossa's contract ends when he is 42 (too old if you ask me, but not 44 like Kovalchuk's). It's 12 years vs. Kovalchuk's 17 years. This is an issue, but not as big of an issue for me. The next issue is that Kovalchuk gets a larger % of the money in the deal earlier than the Hossa deal.
So, in summary, I think the NHL could have easily nixed the Hossa deal, but approving that deal shouldn't not give rise to consistency questions by not approving the Kovalchuk contract, there are enough significant differences.