Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DevsFan7545

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

12,307 posts in this topic

precisely. and what's more lol is that people really believed that kovalchuk would play any of those 550k years. yeah, if he were a ranger, you'd believe that.

You're right. But I also don't believe that Hossa, Pronger and Luongo will be playing in the last two or three years of their deals.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo, Pronger and Savard have not played a game under their currenct contracts.

never mind, though you were talking about something else. according to Mirtle, Hossa and those three have been singled out in the ruling.

Edited by maxpower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think Bettman hates the Devils? :unsure: Because he hired Campbell who DOES hate the Devils? Fair enough. Why else - because he rejected this contract -- I dont mind that so much.

Why else?

The Nashville thing, the Marty rule, and the fact that he HAPPENED to do something he SHOULD have done years ago only when the Devils cashed in on a stupid loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, thats a lot of loot. Looking at that TRI, how could a new Parise contract look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luongo, Pronger and Savard have not played a game under their currenct contracts.

never mind, though you were talking about something else. according to Mirtle, Hossa and those three have been singled out in the ruling.

My link

Link for the Mirtle article.

Still, I think he's reading too much into what Bloch wrote about the "possibility" of being voided by the league. It's most likely a means of Bloch being able to get the result he felt was right while not having to take a position on the other deals.

I agree that it's at least conceivable that the league might go after the long term deals that haven't started yet, but the fact remains they have been registered for more than a year and there is nothing except the terms of the deals themselves to "investigate." The estoppel principle would still apply.

I really hope that the league concludes that it made its point and the line is drawn at the deals that it has already approved. The longer this drags out, the more it destroys the credibility of the league. It'll get even worse if deals start retroactively getting voided.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering, now that the league has its precedent, if it'll shoot down even something that's the exact same thing as the Hossa deal. We all know that all of these deals are retirement contracts. Unless there's some sort of smoking gun evidence that shows the Devils and/or Kovy actually believed he wouldn't play out the remainder of the deal, Bloch seems to have based his ruling on some objective standard.

IANAL, but I think that would give Lou grounds to take the NHL to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

precisely. and what's more lol is that people really believed that kovalchuk would play any of those 550k years. yeah, if he were a ranger, you'd believe that.

how about 14 years, 98 million, with no years that go below 2 million?

7 7 10 10 10 10 8 8 7 7 6 4 2 2

If LA offered $80 why should the Devils now be stuck at $98. I agree with TG that Kovy has to work with NJD at this point. 15/90. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow viewership went down. around 5:30ish it was almost 300 users reading, now 98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LA offered $80 why should the Devils now be stuck at $98. I agree with TG that Kovy has to work with NJD at this point. 15/90. Done.

because kovalchuk can still go to russia and make 100 million in 5 years? i don't think kovalchuk should have to give up $10 million because the nhlpa agreed on a crappy arbitrator and argued the case terribly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow viewership went down. around 5:30ish it was almost 300 users reading, now 98

we need our energy :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IANAL, but I think that would give Lou grounds to take the NHL to court.

Nope. It's very hard to get around an arbitrator's ruling. The only thing that would have a chance is if the league retroactively voids deals it already approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because kovalchuk can still go to russia and make 100 million in 5 years? i don't think kovalchuk should have to give up $10 million because the nhlpa agreed on a crappy arbitrator and argued the case terribly.

Thanks Mr. Grossman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. It's very hard to get around an arbitrator's ruling. The only thing that would have a chance is if the league retroactively voids deals it already approved.

If the Devils and Kovalchuk agreed on a deal identical to Hossa's, how can the league get away with rejecting it without ramification? The 17yr deal obviously went beyond any other deal so far, but what would happen if the league rejected another deal that did not go as far as that, and an arbitrator upheld the rejection? Why would the principle of estoppel not apply in that circumstance? The league not challenging Hossa's contract has established that a contract with those terms does not circumvent the cap. How can the league then go ahead and reject an identical contract?

---

No longer addressing Daniel, but:

For the millionth time, THE PRONGER DEAL IS IRRELEVANT IN THIS DISCUSSION since it is a 35+ contract and the cap hit stays if he retires or is sent down to the minors.

Edited by David Puddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need our energy :rolleyes:

yeah, i guess everyone's physically and emotionally drained about now

urge to kill RISING...RISING!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Devils and Kovalchuk agreed on a deal identical to Hossa's, how can the league get away with rejecting it without ramification? The 17yr deal obviously went beyond any other deal so far, but what would happen if the league rejected another deal that did not go as far as that, and an arbitrator upheld the rejection?

Also, for the millionth time, THE PRONGER DEAL IS IRRELEVANT IN THIS DISCUSSION since it is a 35+ contract and the cap hit stays if he retires or is sent down to the minors.

if you think pronger is a flyer at the end of that deal, i have a bridge to sell you. the nhl will have to close that loophole somehow during the next CBA negotiation as well, otherwise pronger retires as a member of the atlanta thrashers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Devils and Kovalchuk agreed on a deal identical to Hossa's, how can the league get away with rejecting it without ramification? The 17yr deal obviously went beyond any other deal so far, but what would happen if the league rejected another deal that did not go as far as that, and an arbitrator upheld the rejection?

Also, for the millionth time, THE PRONGER DEAL IS IRRELEVANT IN THIS DISCUSSION since it is a 35+ contract and the cap hit stays if he retires or is sent down to the minors.

Because it wouldn't be the league's decision ultimately, but an arbitrator, according to the controlling document, i.e. the CBA. As long as there is some reasoned basis for the arbitrator's decision, it stands.

And the Pronger decision is relevant, despite the fact that it's a 35+ contract. Bloch's decision appears to turn on the likelihood of the player playing out the length of the entire deal. If the expectation is that he won't, the team is artifically lowering its cap hit. Without the front-loading, Pronger would cost the Flyers at least a $6.5 million cap hit for 3 to 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No longer addressing Daniel, but:

For the millionth time, THE PRONGER DEAL IS IRRELEVANT IN THIS DISCUSSION since it is a 35+ contract and the cap hit stays if he retires or is sent down to the minors.

But if he's traded it goes against the receiving team's salary cap, right? He would be very appealing to a team that wants to stay above the salary floor, save a ton of money and get a veteran defenseman for a year.

One team uses him while his cap hit is lower than it should be, another team uses him when it's higher than it should be. It's twice as bad! (not really, but it's still at least kind of bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for any of you who want to read the whole decision by bloch you can find it here

Copy of decision

sundstrom posted it earlier too..after reading it, I'm only more infuriated though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only real thing that offends me is the fact the ruling is almost VERBATIM what the NHL said when the deal was done.

that being said, I'm counting on Lou to rectify this situation, and if Kovy goes to any NHL team besides us, he'll lose ALL credibility he EVER had.

Here we go back for another 4 weeks of this crap.

Read sundstroms link -- that's because it IS :giggle: the arbitrator was stating their complaint -- so he could say THIS is what I also feel to be the case here thus PLAYERS LOSE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know it is just a summary of the Association's position, but man it seems like they missed the key points to the argument all together. i know they could not bring up past practice [still unsure why that actually is] but come on, its like they were either asleep at the wheel or did not adequately prepare for this.

congrats on the NHL making the NHLPA look like the little kids from the hockey episode of south park. [when the Red Wings beat the hell out of the kindergarteners]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sundstrom posted it earlier too..after reading it, I'm only more infuriated though

woops sorry didint dig further

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read sundstroms link -- that's because it IS :giggle: the arbitrator was stating their complaint -- so he could say THIS is what I also feel to be the case here thus PLAYERS LOSE!

the PA lost that badly. amazing that they're actually a step down from when they were run by Eric Lindros and a bucket of General Tso's chicken.

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