Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DevsFan7545

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

12,307 posts in this topic

The analogy doesn't have an ending yet since the arbitrator hasn't made his decision yet. The ticket has been written, but now it's being challened in court on the grounds that they were just keeping up with traffic. (It still isn't 100% perfect, but how many analogies are?) We'll hopefully know by Friday whether the judge buys it.

I just don't like it.

The SI guy is saying the Devils knew they were breaking the law going over 65 but should be ok since others broke the law too.

The NHLPA isn't arguing that, the NHLPA is going to argue the contract broke no law, or in this analogy, were going 64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speeding analogy needs to be moved to Montana.

The old Daytime speedlimit "Safe for driving conditions" but <100mph

The other contracts were doing 85 mph

Ilya comes by clocking 95

No laws broken, but interpretation of "safe driving conditions" by the coppers (Buttman) comes into play.

smilydev.gif

EDIT: Just went and looked, It actually says "Reasonable and Prudent" No mention of any number speed limit during the daytime.

Just clarification for all you board lawyers out there. (I also know that was ten years ago)

Edited by Masked Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$550,000 or 1 mill is not that big of a difference in terms of dollars....we all know that all of the players are not going to play out the contracts, it was a loophole and teams exposed it...

it's 550,000 between 2023 and 2027. that is what is significant.

since money's purchasing power typically gets cut in half every 20 years, that 550,000 of today will be worth a lot less in 17 years.

I've written this several times before. The 17 year deal is not the most significant part. The age 44 is slightly more significant, but I think the biggest issue is that effectively Kovalchuk will be playing for about $300,000 of today's money in year 2027. That is what I see the biggest point.

If those last 5 years were 1 million each (a realistic league-minimum salary between 2023 - 2027) , the NHL would have accepted the contract.

The 17 years would not have mattered, nor would the age 44 have mattered.

The NHL would have held it's nose and not rejected the deal.

Edited by BlueSkirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's 550,000 between 2023 and 2027. that is what is significant.

since money's purchasing power typically gets cut in half every 20 years, that 550,000 of today will be worth a lot less in 17 years.

I've written this several times before. The 17 year deal is not the most significant part. The age 44 is slightly more significant, but I think the biggest issue is that effectively Kovalchuk will be playing for about $300,000 of today's money in year 2027. That is what I see the biggest point.

If those last 5 years were 1 million each (a realistic league-minimum salary between 2023 - 2027) , the NHL would have accepted the contract.

The 17 years would not have mattered, nor would the age 44 have mattered.

The NHL would have held it's nose and not rejected the deal.

So you think the NHL rejected the deal just to cost Kovy $2.25 mill? (an extra $450,000 for the last 5 years, bringing them to $1 mill/per)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I just think the future value of $550,000 was too blatant to be a realistic league minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I just think the future value of $550,000 was too blatant to be a realistic league minimum.

I believe any contract that has a value under league minimum for that season gets bumped up to the new league minimum, maybe it was Tri who pointed that out?

I think it'd be interesting if the NHLPA argues that Kovy would have accepted a flat contract of 6 million every year but wanted the contract super front loaded because of the time value of money, and not because he could retire early with all his money. Any grain of sand the NHLPA can add to their side could be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going nuts trying to find this too. Finally got it.

On the main Hell page with the list of threads, there are columns for Thread Title, Started By, Last Post, etc. Click on the number of replies under Stats. Then do the Happy Dance.

Cool, thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's start winning stanley cups again and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets keeping winning stanley cups then and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy

Amen to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the back end of the contract has to get bumped to whatever league minimum is at the time that would change the cap hit. Not a lot but it would change. Assuming the contract is approved, how would the league go about calculating cap hit in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really F'ing mad. That's a crapload of money, regardless of how much other money I have left. If you have 50k in the bank, it'd be like blowing 1,250 down at AC, but worse, because your absolute dollar amount lost is so much greater.

To relate to situations I'm more familiar with. I've seen people tank a 1 million dollar mortgage over a 100 dollar fee they didn't realize they'd have to pay themselves.

So if you won the lottery you'd take the annuity rather than the lump sum so the government wouldn't get a bigger cut of your total winnings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speeding analogy needs to be moved to Montana.

The old Daytime speedlimit "Safe for driving conditions" but <100mph

The other contracts were doing 85 mph

Ilya comes by clocking 95

No laws broken, but interpretation of "safe driving conditions" by the coppers (Buttman) comes into play.

smilydev.gif

EDIT: Just went and looked, It actually says "Reasonable and Prudent" No mention of any number speed limit during the daytime.

Just clarification for all you board lawyers out there. (I also know that was ten years ago)

If i didn't fear you'd want me to prove it, I'd use the wub smilie in response. :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:horse:

:hail:

(and hence our current viewership of a whopping 33!)

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you won the lottery you'd take the annuity rather than the lump sum so the government wouldn't get a bigger cut of your total winnings?

I would, bigger payoff in the long run, it would just take longer. But more of it would be mine, not the government's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:hail:

(and hence our current viewership of a whopping 33!)

Haha yeah I just figured at this point I'm going to use this baby to raise my post count cause I'm bored and it's hot outside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the back end of the contract has to get bumped to whatever league minimum is at the time that would change the cap hit. Not a lot but it would change. Assuming the contract is approved, how would the league go about calculating cap hit in that case?

wouldn't change it at all since such a thing is impossible to anticipate.

people played for less than league minimum last year. i'm not sure what the procedure is there, but they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many gazes of death Lou has given the NHL peeps at the arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you won the lottery you'd take the annuity rather than the lump sum so the government wouldn't get a bigger cut of your total winnings?

Impossible to know without a thorough look into the exact situation. Depends on things like lump sum payout size, annuity size and length, assumed return over time, assumed risk over time, assumed inflation, current vs expected future tax rates, how much "present value" I'd be willing to give up just to get it all now, etc......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the typical averages today you should take the lump sum.. Finance 201 B )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many gazes of death Lou has given the NHL peeps at the arbitration.

i was thinking the same thing!

lou during an arbitration hearing should be a pay per view... :e-drama:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah remember when ziggy palffy was traded to the rangers, except the league nixed the deal?

sometimes your posts come from a different planet, and this one above is one of them. saying such a thing with certainty is patently absurd. again, the league let the devils get away with absolute murder in 2006 and 2007.

Bzzz, wrong try again.

I can't find any source that says the NHL rejected a Palffy deal. Here's a link of all NY Times articles about the Palffy trade, and only that the league would look into it, and that the issue that was holding it up was television rights.

But the proof is, is that the league did not reject loads of other deals that did the exact same thing, when the teams making the deals were the Flyers, Red Wings, and Blackhawks.

And whatever the league allowed the Devils to do about shedding salaries is a nice little red herring. As I said, it wasn't about animus against the Devils (of course you ignore that), but the very fact that deals to artificially lower cap hits by signing players past their sold before date were approved when more tv friendly teams were involved, shows there is a double standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! 5 months free or most premium televisions package? I jump in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0