Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DevsFan7545

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

12,307 posts in this topic

Darren Dreger twitter

@NJDevils26 Kovalchuk's contract was rejected and the follow up is why I'm following this story.

Not sure if he means this one or the old one

Wait nevermind, a member on TG's fire and ice blog said this was in response to a comment about the old contract

Edited by Prucenterrules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYP_Brooksie Told that averaging highest consec 5 yrs of longterm deal as cap hit is not part of talks. Restrictions would apply to deals past 35,40 only

This is actually really good news. I couldn't imagine the PA accepting the averaging of highest cosecutive 5 years. I can see them accepting the 40+ rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good article

NHL Taking Out Its Frustrations On Ilya Kovalchuk and The Fans

The two men who are helping to cause pain for the NHLPA, some NHL teams, agents, players and most importantly, the fans.

Late last week, it became clear that the New Jersey Devils and Ilya Kovalchuk had once again come…>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYP_Brooksie Told that averaging highest consec 5 yrs of longterm deal as cap hit is not part of talks. Restrictions would apply to deals past 35,40 only

This is actually really good news. I couldn't imagine the PA accepting the averaging of highest cosecutive 5 years. I can see them accepting the 40+ rule.

The PA ain't taking that. That would make all cap hits on long term deals ridiculous.

I could imagine the PA accepting the average of the highest five consecutive years on 7-10 year contracts and the average of the highest 8 consecutive years on 11+ year contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYP_Brooksie Told that averaging highest consec 5 yrs of longterm deal as cap hit is not part of talks. Restrictions would apply to deals past 35,40 only

This is actually really good news. I couldn't imagine the PA accepting the averaging of highest cosecutive 5 years. I can see them accepting the 40+ rule.

i interpret this differently. i interpret it as yes, the highest 5 years will be the salary cap hit, but only for deals that extend past 35 (or 40). so if for some reason an age 22 player coming off an entry level deal signed an 8 year contract, this rule would not apply to his contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is how i feel right now ever since the summer. :headless chicken::yucky::wacko:

if i don't get good news on friday, it might be time for a room with cushions on the wall

Edited by grcenter47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remembered when we played floor hockey in my PE class one day. I checked a kid and he hit the floor, got up and snatched my stick from me.

In high school gym class we were allowed to bring our own sticks and skates, it was awesome. But then one day my friend hit the teacher square in the face with the ball while trying to dump it and we never got to play hockey again. They set it up so they split the class into three different sports and you got to pick which sport you wanted to do for that two-month or so span. When hockey wasn't available I always went for volleyball and softball, that was a lot of fun. One time the choices were fitness walking, conditioning, and basketball. Luckily that was the session I had health class instead.

Gym in middle school sucked, it was 42 minutes long and most of the time was spent running around the track. The rest of the time we played basketball. When you subtract the time they gave us to get changed before and after, and stretch, I have no idea how we managed to have any fun at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahha yea... we pretty much had 15 minutes of actual fun.... the rest of the time consisted of getting changed, stretching, attendance, instruction, and getting dressed :rant:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i interpret this differently. i interpret it as yes, the highest 5 years will be the salary cap hit, but only for deals that extend past 35 (or 40). so if for some reason an age 22 player coming off an entry level deal signed an 8 year contract, this rule would not apply to his contract.

Hmm yea it could be read that way also... Interesting. Although he says it's "not part of talks". It seems to imply it's not part of the discussions at all...

The PA ain't taking that. That would make all cap hits on long term deals ridiculous.

If it's 40+, then not really. Regardless, it looks like the NHL is done accepting long term deals past 40 anyways, whether the PA likes it or not.

Edited by Amberite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm yea it could be read that way also... Interesting. Although he says it's "not part of talks". It seems to imply it's not part of the discussions at all...

yeah i think your interpretation is more likely. stupid twitter. so i guess the idea would be that cap years post 40 don't count towards cap average, and probably that multi-year contracts signed before a certain age (i would think 30) count as 35+ contracts. or something like that.

If it's 40+, then not really. Regardless, it looks like the NHL is done accepting long term deals past 40 anyways, whether the PA likes it or not.

well, no, they would definitely accept a kovalchuk contract that paid out 6.67 every year for 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm yea it could be read that way also... Interesting. Although he says it's "not part of talks". It seems to imply it's not part of the discussions at all...

If it's 40+, then not really. Regardless, it looks like the NHL is done accepting long term deals past 40 anyways, whether the PA likes it or not.

If we're talking the 40+ rule being included as was the rumor yesterday then, like I said yesterday:

Why would the PA reject this? This makes the unofficial rules official. It's completely fair what the league is asking for. The new rules will stop all these investigations and rejections in/of future contracts. The PA isn't losing much here - the rules only apply to players who's contracts go past 40 and are longer than 5 years. How many contracts are there that take players into their 40's in the NHL anyway? How many 5+ year deals does each team have? I'd say all these rules will do is take about 1-2 million dollars in cap room from all teams and prevent future rejected contracts and subsequent arbitrations.

What the PA is going to get is less contract rejections and contract scrutiny as long as a contract follows the new rules. It may be a loss for the PA but what is turning down these rules going to do for the PA? It's going to get all these current contracts voided/fined and inspire the league to start giving more and more hell to teams and players who submit a long-term contract.

I don't even really think it's much of a loss. The PA will walk away with the league being less on their backs about contracts: That's the tradeoff, they take 2 rules that prevents ridiculous contract andget the league to have less argument for rejecting a contract that follows all rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't much care what anyone else says at this point in time. I have major issues with blackmail and that's exactly what the NHL is doing to the NHLPA.

The union is ineffective, about as useful as tits on a boar hog, and couldn't negotiate their way out of cage match with two freaking hamsters. Bettman and Co. have them by the balls with their right hand, a butcher knife in their left hand, and a demonic grin on their collective faces as they say to the NHLPA, "We have a deal, don't we? Or do you want to be castrated?"

I'll say more about this later, but I will say right now, I wonder how the players feel about their UNION right about now?

Wonder if they'd like to decertify the dang thing and start all over again because the NHL has officially broken this one's back.

B )

Edited by IceThief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We played either basketball or dodgeball in gym, occasionally football. Dodgeball was the best, because our Belarussian wrestler gym teacher would sometimes yell "threeeeee poooiiiinnnntttt liiiiinnnnee" and then you were allowed to cross half court to the three point lines. That was a free for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking the 40+ rule being included as was the rumor yesterday then, like I said yesterday:

Why would the PA reject this? This makes the unofficial rules official. It's completely fair what the league is asking for. The new rules will stop all these investigations and rejections in/of future contracts. The PA isn't losing much here - the rules only apply to players who's contracts go past 40 and are longer than 5 years. How many contracts are there that take players into their 40's in the NHL anyway? How many 5+ year deals does each team have? I'd say all these rules will do is take about 1-2 million dollars in cap room from all teams and prevent future rejected contracts and subsequent arbitrations.

What the PA is going to get is less contract rejections and contract scrutiny as long as a contract follows the new rules. It may be a loss for the PA but what is turning down these rules going to do for the PA? It's going to get all these current contracts voided/fined and inspire the league to start giving more and more hell to teams and players who submit a long-term contract.

I don't even really think it's much of a loss. The PA will walk away with the league being less on their backs about contracts: That's the tradeoff, they take 2 rules that prevents ridiculous contract andget the league to have less argument for rejecting a contract that follows all rules.

so if this ultimatum were to apply to the Kovalchuck contract wouldn't that just make it a 13 year 92, 93 million dollar deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MurphysLaw74: Was just told that Devils punishment for Kovalchuk deal could be $1-3 million and two first round draft picks. Ouch!

What?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might as well say that here... who the fvck is Jimmy Murphy? :lol: the last time we were supposed to get cap fined $5M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might as well say that here... who the fvck is Jimmy Murphy? :lol: the last time we were supposed to get cap fined $5M.

Never heard of him but supposedly he works for ESPN in Boston. A bunch of people retweeted it, but I'm gonna say it's bs until someone more reputable reports it. If it is in fact true, I will flip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of him but supposedly he works for ESPN in Boston. A bunch of people retweeted it, but I'm gonna say it's bs until someone more reputable reports it. If it is in fact true, I will flip.

At this point I wouldn't put anything past this sham of a league. I already gave them a piece of my mind in a blog :P

http://battleofny.blogspot.com/2010/09/nhls-power-play-keeps-devils-other.html

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of him but supposedly he works for ESPN in Boston. A bunch of people retweeted it, but I'm gonna say it's bs until someone more reputable reports it. If it is in fact true, I will flip.

I wouldn't be very concerned. they have to be soft on the teams themselves (although I don't see how they can be to Chicago because he's already played). if they're not, they create enemies and you don't want to be drawing owners closer to players.

and then there's the whole Flyers issue. they can't go soft on the Flyers and hard on other teams because that's a serious conflict of interest and something where you might actually see legal action.

Edited by maxpower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnsides Twitter:

Further, source said deal is close. "It looks like we are close and I can honestly tell you everybody comes out lookin' good on this one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brooks has this cryptic beginning to a tweet: 'sense that deal is there'

larry brooks is terrible at twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnsides Twitter:

Further, source said deal is close. "It looks like we are close and I can honestly tell you everybody comes out lookin' good on this one."

Oh sure it's close...until someone walks away from the table in a huff, we have another extension and everyone rolls their eyes over the holiday :P

I'll believe it when I see a ratified contract and both parties singing kum-buy-ah (however you spell it).

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't give me false hope a$$hole burnside, i know there won't be a decision tomorrow.

Temper it, but he hates the devils so much that it could be true. I doubt it though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnsides Twitter:

Further, source said deal is close. "It looks like we are close and I can honestly tell you everybody comes out lookin' good on this one."

Coming from Burnside, that could mean everyone BUT the Devils.

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