Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheMazz

So Apparently The Rumor Is Kovy Could Be Coming Back

241 posts in this topic

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second.  So this is the case:  "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs"  So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad.  The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

 

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens.  Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense.  I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help?  It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second.  So this is the case:  "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs"  So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad.  The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

 

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens.  Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense.  I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help?  It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

 

I thought about that, but I don't think my reading necessarily negates the first clause. For instance, a player retires with only a year left on his deal, and remains retired for a couple of years after his contract would have otherwise expired before he decides to make a go at a comeback, sort of like Rafalski.  Or, even better, it might be someone that would otherwise have an existing contract, but wants to come back on a new deal.  That's where the first clause comes in.  The second clause applies when a player and the team wants the player to come back on the terms of his existing contract.  So, if you wanted to give more credit to Costa than he deserves, it's possible that's at least what the Devils are "discussing". 

 

Note that if this were being interpreted by a court I would definitely say your view wins out.  But ultimately, it's up to the Commissioner who doesn't have to worry about appeals courts, and the like.  I mean, I didn't imagine that the Devils could be penalized for cap circumvention notwithstanding the ruling of the arbitrator, as that was clearly meant to punish under the table dealings, but Bettman thought otherwise.

 

EDIT:  Your view would also make the phrase in the second clause "at any time after the expiry of one year" superfluous, as it could have just said something to the effect of: "in the event that a player is eliglble for reinstatement in accordance with the first clause..." here's how it's handled.

 

But yeah, the ambiguity comes from the fact that the By-Laws were probably written before you started seeing the front loaded long term deals, so no one thought it would be an issue.  That's why it's also possible that the By-Laws have been amended. 

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kovy doesn't like the KHL and wants to come back.  Sure bet.  I would do a 3 year/4 million per year deal for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of us would accept Kovy back, the big question is... Will the locker room accept it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rule is more for players not to leave their current teams to get out of their contract only to go to a new team.  It's to protect teams from losing key components.  So, it is logical that the more loosely interpretation is viable in this case.  

 

If the cap conversation comes back into play there is no way his cap is going to be less than it was before.  If this does come to fruition were looking at at least a 7m cap hit throughout the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kovy doesn't like the KHL and wants to come back.  Sure bet.  I would do a 3 year/4 million per year deal for him.

he is worth and will make a lot more than 4million per. thats just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kovy doesn't like the KHL and wants to come back.  Sure bet.  I would do a 3 year/4 million per year deal for him.

 

What possibly gives you that impression?

 

Again even if he hated it. Even if the Devils desperately wanted him back, there is not a chance in hell the rest of the owners or GMs will allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of us would accept Kovy back, the big question is... Will the locker room accept it?

 

Patty will have a problem with this. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What possibly gives you that impression?

Again even if he hated it. Even if the Devils desperately wanted him back, there is not a chance in hell the rest of the owners or GMs will allow it.

Right, but if he really hated it, he could sit out for a year, do his Rocky IV training regimen, and come back without needing owner approval. It's also possible that he could come back under the deal he has, although the Devils probably don't want to do that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siding from a personal point of view, no. But when your owners carry influence, sometimes other owners cater to them. Blitzer and Harris probably have influence and so it may not be far fetched that they let Kovy back as a favor to them.

They don't have any influence. And to be honest some of the teams would probably spite them for getting a pick back.

As long as Sather and Burke are employed you can write the Rangers and Flames down as NOs should it ever be voted.

Put this dead horse to rest already.

I know a lot of us would accept Kovy back, the big question is... Will the locker room accept it?

No chance. More drama that's unnecessary. Let's build a cohesive and chemistry forged team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its obvious that the KHL didn't pan out for Kovy and that the excitement level of the league itself is fairly marginal compared to the NHL.  I'm of the opinion that Kovy went to the KHL for several reasons

 

1) out of protest for the CBA and lockout that caused the players to lose money and games last year

 

2) an exorbitant amount of money (probably cash) being thrown at him from the KHL, not to mention, the popularity level increase he would experience by going to the KHL, and so, out of protest, he had a viable alternative to NHL hockey

 

3) Sochi - this was up in the air after the lockout and hence he didn't want to risk missing this competition in his home country

 

Ultimately, this year worth of "trial" didn't pan out for him in Russia, and now that the dust settled, he is seeing if he can make a viable return that would be mutually beneficial for him and the NHL.

 

Trust me, the NHL will WIN the PR war with the KHL should Kovy return, and hence, it may be in the best interest of the NHL to let him back.

 

Of course, a "special exception" would have to be made in order to avoid cases like this in the future.  But let's face it, Kovalchuk is no Alexsey Morozov, so it's pretty obvious that for a special player a special exception could be made. 

 

Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but if he really hated it, he could sit out for a year, do his Rocky IV training regimen, and come back without needing owner approval. It's also possible that he could come back under the deal he has, although the Devils probably don't want to do that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Realistically He would only have to sit out until march correct? since his last playoff game was around march. He just had knee surgery, Depending on how the knee feels he could simply just continue and rehab the knee until march and come back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about that, but I don't think my reading necessarily negates the first clause. For instance, a player retires with only a year left on his deal, and remains retired for a couple of years after his contract would have otherwise expired before he decides to make a go at a comeback, sort of like Rafalski.  Or, even better, it might be someone that would otherwise have an existing contract, but wants to come back on a new deal.  That's where the first clause comes in.  The second clause applies when a player and the team wants the player to come back on the terms of his existing contract.  So, if you wanted to give more credit to Costa than he deserves, it's possible that's at least what the Devils are "discussing". 

 

Note that if this were being interpreted by a court I would definitely say your view wins out.  But ultimately, it's up to the Commissioner who doesn't have to worry about appeals courts, and the like.  I mean, I didn't imagine that the Devils could be penalized for cap circumvention notwithstanding the ruling of the arbitrator, as that was clearly meant to punish under the table dealings, but Bettman thought otherwise.

 

EDIT:  Your view would also make the phrase in the second clause "at any time after the expiry of one year" superfluous, as it could have just said something to the effect of: "in the event that a player is eliglble for reinstatement in accordance with the first clause..." here's how it's handled.

 

But yeah, the ambiguity comes from the fact that the By-Laws were probably written before you started seeing the front loaded long term deals, so no one thought it would be an issue.  That's why it's also possible that the By-Laws have been amended. 

 

I mean, the by laws were possibly written when the idea of any NHLer jumping to Europe was patently absurd.

 

This second clauses states the means by which a player may be removed from the Voluntarily Retired list, with a reminder that it takes one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch there be some completely buried, unknown to everyone without a monacle and a flashlight, batsh!t crazy type of clause in the CBA that only Lou would find that allows NHL players whose last names start with the letters A-K who flee to Russia to re-enter the NHL Draft after one year away from the league, regardless of age... Then Lou drafts Kovalchuk with the 30th pick and trolls the whole world lmao. :P

Edited by MadDog2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't care if he's coming back but i was at sports authority today and found kovie jersey for 60 bucks, stitch on name plate on back, so i bought it thinking i'll just take the plate off and put on hopefully boucher or someone 17 after ryder. at check out, with a discount, i got it for 40 bucks. what a steal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a rival team do any favors for someone in their division?

This isn't doing anyone any favors. If anyone had any legitimate objections, that's one thing, but if someone in that position vetoed the move because they didn't want a rival team to receive a good player, that's petty and childish. The league runs on some sort of professionalism and courtesy. I don't think anyone in front offices are out to make enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't care if he's coming back but i was at sports authority today and found kovie jersey for 60 bucks, stitch on name plate on back, so i bought it thinking i'll just take the plate off and put on hopefully boucher or someone 17 after ryder. at check out, with a discount, i got it for 40 bucks. what a steal.

A friend of mine was talking to someone who worked somewhere in the Devils organization and told him his kid has a Kovi jersey, and he is so bummed out now since Kovi isnt on the team, and this guy told him flat out.."don't get rid of it...keep it"

for whatever its worth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kovy doesn't like the KHL and wants to come back. Sure bet. I would do a 3 year/4 million per year deal for him.

That deal is not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That deal is not even close.

yeah no way, Clowe makes more than that

he would get Zajac / Elias money at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine was talking to someone who worked somewhere in the Devils organization and told him his kid has a Kovi jersey, and he is so bummed out now since Kovi isnt on the team, and this guy told him flat out.."don't get rid of it...keep it"

for whatever its worth

Is this acquaintance of a friend the security guard at CAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this acquaintance of a friend the security guard at CAA?

no, listen, I know it sounds like BS, but I went to the Met / Yankee game at Citi Field a few weeks ago and when we got back we started talking hockey, we were both loaded as it was a bus trip from Rockland County to the game and then back, but he told me this story about him talking to a guy (maybe from group sales) in person, not on the phone, and he told him not to change or get rid of the jersey, keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't doing anyone any favors. If anyone had any legitimate objections, that's one thing, but if someone in that position vetoed the move because they didn't want a rival team to receive a good player, that's petty and childish. The league runs on some sort of professionalism and courtesy. I don't think anyone in front offices are out to make enemies.

So if Malkin "retired" and wanted back in a year later, you expect all of the metropolitan teams to just be fine with it? Especially when it got a bad contract off the books for a more manageable one, and all the penalties they got for signing him got reduced just months ago?

There's courtesy and there's stopping possible cap circumvention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be thrilled with this, as it would make the Devils out to be a very shady organization, colluding and happy to do under the table deals. that's not the Devils that refused to tank to get Mario Lemieux, that's a com0plete 180 degree turn. that said, 4 years/20MIL and it's Welcome Back Kovy! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, listen, I know it sounds like BS, but I went to the Met / Yankee game at Citi Field a few weeks ago and when we got back we started talking hockey, we were both loaded as it was a bus trip from Rockland County to the game and then back, but he told me this story about him talking to a guy (maybe from group sales) in person, not on the phone, and he told him not to change or get rid of the jersey, keep it.

 

What sounds like BS is that they would tell someone in sales 'by the way, Kovalchuk is coming back to the team, but only let possible season ticket holders know.'  

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0