NHL examining other long term contracts

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

This is really sorta wierd to me... I'm sure if pressed, feces would hit the fan.

This isn't bettman/NHL vs NHLPA... it's bettman/NHL vs GM's & NHLPA... not good.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

It'd be icing on the cake if after the offseason they've had, Chicago loses Hossa, or have to redo a contract and pay him more

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

hahahaha from those wonderful blackcawks fans

"How Detroit continues to escape notice for starting all this is beyond me."

"Iltch is paying the NHL under the table

If they void this contract I will flip

Bettman "Hey Lets go investigate those contracts by Philly, Van and Chicago"

Assistant "What about Detroit?"

Bettman " Wouldnt want Detroit going down the tubes anytime soon like the rest of that dump of a city, I dont know of any contracts that Detroit has done this with. All perfectly legal"

Assistant " But.."

Bettman "****" as he proceeds to pull a cheque for 2.5 Mill out of his back pocket written from the Iltchs with the words "Thanks Gary" on the cheque"

"If they go after this 4... they MUST look at the Detroit contracts too."

wow just wow.

Edited August 10, 2010 by hillbillywingsfan

[FunkedUp 29]

I don't know why people are worried about Z and Mule. Their contracts can't be voided. They're safe!

link

[stevkrause 1,247]

I saw a kid at Starbucks the other day wearing a Devils Kovalchuk jersey-style t-shirt. Poor kid.

I still think he'll end up on NJ when all is said and done - What I'm predicting now, is a 13 year deal worth 90 mil... takes him up to 40 lowers the hit to 6.9

Year - Value:

1. 11 mil

2. 11 mil

3. 10 mil

4. 10 mil

5. 9 mil

6. 9 mil

7. 8 mil

8. 7 mil

9. 6 mil

10. 4mil

11. 3 mil

13. 2 mil

this way it's harder to argue that it's JUST to lower cap hit (even though we basically know it is) and he still gets a boatload...

watch for it...

[VM1138 1,921]

This is shady. A very slippery slope. We know many players don't play past 40, but who are we to say who will or won't?

Kovalchuks' contract didn't violate any rules, it was just blatantly unfair. I don't l ike it when organizations make up rules as they go. But whatever.

Now they want to retroactively reject contracts? If it wasn't wrong at the time why is it wrong now?

[stevkrause 1,247]

This is shady. A very slippery slope. We know many players don't play past 40, but who are we to say who will or won't?

Kovalchuks' contract didn't violate any rules, it was just blatantly unfair. I don't l ike it when organizations make up rules as they go. But whatever.

Now they want to retroactively reject contracts? If it wasn't wrong at the time why is it wrong now?

none of the allowed deals will be repealed, they're just blowing smoke to try and "scare off" deals like this in the future... Bettman is good at blowing smoke...

[Echolalia 2,961]

none of the allowed deals will be repealed, they're just blowing smoke to try and "scare off" deals like this in the future... Bettman is good at blowing smoke...

Its not the only thing he's good at blowing

Edited August 10, 2010 by Echolalia

[hillbillywingsfan 792]

none of the allowed deals will be repealed, they're just blowing smoke to try and "scare off" deals like this in the future... Bettman is good at blowing smoke...

and a certin someones weiner thats gonna stay nameless cause we don't want the thread to turn into nothing but...well you know who talk. hahahahah

but yeah i agree...it just would'nt be right to change the deals now that they have a;lready been down and the teams have formed up because of them.

Edited August 10, 2010 by hillbillywingsfan

[Grim 5]

this way it's harder to argue that it's JUST to lower cap hit (even though we basically know it is) and he still gets a boatload...

watch for it...

Just the fact that LL and Kovalchuk's camps did not *immediately* offer a backup contract to avoid arbitration speaks volumes. Kovalcuk had no intention whatsoever of playing out that long contract. Now that the NHL has this precedent in its pocket, it will be very difficult for any player to get a mega-longterm deal before the next CBA. I bet Kovie skips out to the KHL in the shortterm.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

From a Flyers blog -

Philadelphia Flyers, 2010 Stanley Cup Champions?

Okay, so that title is a little misleading. But in the wake of the Ilya Kovalchuk arbitration ruling yesterday and the dismissal of his 17-year contract with the Devils, one other fascinating point has been raised.

We talked last night about how Richard Bloch mentioned in his ruling that contracts for Chris Pronger, Marian Hossa, Marc Savard and Roberto Luongo could still be thrown out by the NHL for circumenting the salary cap, as prohibited in Article 26 of the CBA. Outside of tossing the contract out, there are penalties that the Commissioner could levy on teams if they are found to be in violation of Article 26.

According to the CBA, Gary Bettman himself may fine any team that circumvents the cap up to $5 million, force forfeiture of draft picks as determined by the Commissioner, and force forfeiture of games. Ah, yes, that last one got your attention, didn't it?

The exact language of that section:

(iv) Declare a forfeiture of any NHL Game(s) determined to have been affected by a Circumvention;

Which leads me to where we're going with this: could the Blackhawks be forced to forfeit their Stanley Cup victory? Hear me out on this.

There's one difference between the Hossa deal and those of Pronger, Savard and Luongo. The latter three do not begin until this upcoming season, while the Hossa deal began at the start of last season. As a result, only the circumvention by the Blackhawks in the Hossa deal would have impacted NHL games.

If the League determines that the Hossa contract was in violation of Article 26 of the CBA, it would be fully within their power to strip the Blackhawks of all 68 wins -- 52 regular season, 16 playoff -- that they racked up in 2009-2010. Obviously, the Stanley Cup would go with them.

Now, this probably will never happen, but in line with the CBA and in line with the precedent set by Bloch's ruling, it could. And if it did, what would happen to the Cup? Would there just be no winner in 2009-2010, or would the runner up have claim to the title? Or would perhaps some other team -- the AHL's champion Hershey Bears, perhaps -- have the right to a claim?

We don't have access to the current agreement between the NHL and the Stanley Cup Trustees, who are the independent owners of the Cup. (The NHL does not own the Cup.) Unfortunately, we can only presume what would happen in this case -- it would like be solely up to the two Trustees, Brian O'Neill and Ian "Scotty" Morrison, who according to the Hockey Hall of Fame, "have absolute power over all matters regarding the Stanley Cup."

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

I saw a kid at Starbucks the other day wearing a Devils Kovalchuk jersey-style t-shirt. Poor kid.

Was he clearing tables?

When the arbitration process was announced, I heard someone on tv say that the losing side would probably file an appeal (more so if it was the NHLPA) delaying it even longer. No word on that yet.

[drumnj 459]

Like always NJ does things to excess and ruins it for the rest of the NHL

Bravo!

[dropkickshanahans 463]

From a Flyers blog -

After reading that, I was just thinking about how funny it would be if they just keep the Hawks as the cup winner, but maybe fine them, take away draft picks, and erase Hossa's name from the cup lol.

[crotty99 302]

After reading that, I was just thinking about how funny it would be if they just keep the Hawks as the cup winner, but maybe fine them, take away draft picks, and erase Hossa's name from the cup lol.

You never know, in Australia we recently had a rugby leauge team caught for breaching the salary cap over a period of time. The NRL stripped them of 2 championships and they can not earn any points on the table this year. The craziest punishment I have seen over here thats for sure.

Imagine if the NHL did something like that

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

Just further proof that the CBA was a joke and truly not needed. Bettman needs to go.

On Bettman needing to go, I agree 100%. But I'm in favor of the CBA being a joke. That totally helps us. You seriously want a real Cap? We'd be hosed.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Montreal Gazette .

[Chairman Maouth 97]

The "ïnvestigation" is nothing more than a tactic by the NHL that serves notice to anyone considering designing similar contracts in the future. The public relations nightmare that would come with voiding previously registered contracts is something the NHL wants no part of, let alone what the other implications of voiding contracts would be for the teams involved and the possible retaliatory measures they could take.

Voiding Roberto Luongo contract would be ‘in complete violation’ of CBA: prominent agent

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Voiding+Roberto+Luongo+contract+would+complete+violation+prominent+agent/3382913/story.html

[Zetts 236]

Looks like whatever happens to other teams the Wings are getting off free.

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

"Last October or November, the league requested and we sent all the paperwork in about the negotiations," Holland said. "Since the Kovalchuk thing, no one has said boo to us about it."

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Oh Twitter, you give me the most interesting information before I want to go to bed. Via James Mirtle's Twitter, the Vancouver Sun has this juicy tidbit about Roberto Luongo's contract:

Canuck general manager Mike Gillis confirmed in an email to the Vancouver Sun Monday night that the league is indeed studying Luongo's 12-year, $64 million contract.

"We have complied with the NHL request for information and are awaiting further instructions," Gillis said. "Cannot say anything further at this point."

Luongo's deal, signed last September, begins this season and will pay him $10 million in 2010-11. In the final year, when he is 43, Luongo is scheduled to make just $1 million. The goaltender's cap hit over the 12 years is $5.33 million.

Now we knew that the league was technically "still investigating" the Luongo deal, but I think the general consensus was that the investigation was akin to OJ Simpson looking for the "real killers" out on the golf course. Perhaps there's some bite to the bark, or perhaps the league was looking for a substantial precedent before charging forward.

Or maybe it was just that Mike Gillis called up his pals at the league office and said, "You know, maybe this Luongo guy's not as good as we thought he is. You wanna help us out?"

If that's the case, you know Boston Bruins GM Peter Chiarelli's speed-dialing Gary Bettman right now. "Hey, you hate those stacked contracts, right? There's this fellow named Marc Savard..."

[F2B&G 15]

Looks like whatever happens to other teams the Wings are getting off free.

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

That's because we remembered to include a fat check for Bettman.

[Shaman 713]

That's because we remembered to include a fat check for Bettman.

Because the Wings while they did do the same thing did it in a REASONABLE and REALISTIC way. What are the chances Hossa is worth his cap hit at 42? Astronomically low. What are the chances he will even still be a hawk at that age? Better get your lottery tickets cause those have better chances of hitting. Whereas Zetterberg, whats the chances hes going to play to 40? Not bad on most teams, and pretty good on the wings team. Will he be worth all of his cap hit? Id argue theres a chance he will be worth a good portion of it even after 35, but no, theres a trade off. The league isn't stupid, they understand since the chances of Zetterberg playing out his contract is good that the wings are essentially makings a trade off: Zetterberg worth more than his cap hit today for a Zetterberg who isn't worth as much down the road. The reason why Chicago, Vancouver, Boston are under investigation is because theres no realistic way the contracts are played out, therefore they are circumventing the CBA because unlike with the wings and Zetterberg the trade off is unlikely to be made and the teams get a great deal today, and no check for it tomorrow.

[F2B&G 15]

I know, it was a joke in reference to the whiny Chicago bandwagon.

[Tommy_Like_Wingy 25]

This is nothing more than the NHL trying to save face by making it seem like they're taking a closer look at these contracts to deter organizations from putting together these kinds of contracts in the future. It's not like anything will come of it.

[Guest scottj]

this reminds me of when you're in class and some kids are ******* with the teacher throwing little pieces of paper at him and everybody's having a good time gettin a couple giggles (while the teacher is not too sure what is going on but is kinda suspicious) and then that one idiot (New Jersey) throws his notebook right at the teachers head n everybody's fun is ruined

good job New Jersey... you're that kid