Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
devilsrule33

Kovalchuk/NHL Opinions

The Kovalchuk Saga   95 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe that the exact contract Ilya Kovalchuk signed should be allowed in the NHL?

    • Yes
      60
    • No
      35
  2. 2. Do you believe the NHL was justified in rejecting the Kovalchuk deal

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      73
    • No - But I can admit it is only because it involves the Devils. Reject it if it was any other team
      16
  3. 3. If #2 (No), why?

    • Legal in the CBA
      32
    • NHL has already set the precedent with past deals
      56
    • Other
      7
  4. 4. Do you believe Ilya Kovalchuk had any intention of playing out all 17 years in the contract?

    • Yes
      24
    • No
      71
  5. 5. What do you believe is the most suspicious aspect of this deal to the NHL?

    • Length - 17 years
      13
    • Age at the end of the deal - 44 years old
      31
    • Final 5 years at $550,000
      51
  6. 6. What should the maximum length of a contract be?

    • 7
      2
    • 10
      19
    • 12
      8
    • 15
      21
    • Unlimited
      33
    • Other - Please Specify
      12

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

22 posts in this topic

Just a bunch of questions to see where the board stands on everything that has went down. Please feel free to reply with further explanations.

Edited by devilsrule33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i believe the contract signed should be allowed since it is legal and there has been precedents set with other contracts. if the league is not happy with the CBA that should be addressed in a couple years when it is up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose "Other" on the last question. I don't think a contract signed prior to age 35 should be allowed to extend beyond age 40. Doing that really is just trying to lower the cap number. I mean, c'mon, there is 5 years there you can write off if necessary!

Now I don't agree with all these LONG heavily front loaded contracts to start with, I do think that extending them with league minimum pay in the last few years is a severe loop-hole in the CBA, which to be fair, GMs are rightly exploiting.

NHL: lesson learnt...having a cap number is fine, but you have to limit the range the actual salary can be about this number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose "Other" on the last question. I don't think a contract signed prior to age 35 should be allowed to extend beyond age 40. Doing that really is just trying to lower the cap number. I mean, c'mon, there is 5 years there you can write off if necessary!

Now I don't agree with all these LONG heavily front loaded contracts to start with, I do think that extending them with league minimum pay in the last few years is a severe loop-hole in the CBA, which to be fair, GMs are rightly exploiting.

NHL: lesson learnt...having a cap number is fine, but you have to limit the range the actual salary can be about this number.

the problem is that they had to stop these the first time and didn't. and there's plenty of them, including lesser knowns such as Duncan Keith's (albeit not as severe)

if you allow one and don't allow another one, it's kind of thorny. the Devils did them a favor by making the contract unique, though.

IMO, Luongo's is the most ridiculous because of his playing style. it's possible he might break down and not make it halfway through at anything resembling what he is now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding one of the questions:

It should not matter what the salary of the last few seasons are.

If the NHL thinks that this contract was made to circumvent the cap, it doesn't matter if the last 5 years are 1 mill, 2 mill, or pennies. As long as the last 5 years bring down the entire cap hit, it qualifies (to the NHL) as cap circumvention.

If the Devils add 2 mill to the deal and make the last few years 1 mill each, the NHL *should* reject it as well on the same basis as this one.

It has to be the age/length of the deal, but again, unless the NHL has evidence that Kovy plans to retire at age 42 and *both* parties were aware of that fact (as in, it is not enough if the NHL proves that only the Devils intended for Kovy to retire at age 42), they have no case and this is just a calculated risk that the NHL took.

No systems arbitrator means that all parties involved will want to get this resolved without filing a grievance. Thus, the NHL successfully accomplishes what it sought out to do, it drew the line in the sand. Had there been a systems arbitrator in place, this would have gone the distance. So another failure on the NHLPA's part, thankfully it should only cost the Devils .8 in salary cap space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) no they shouldn't be allowed. They clearly undermine a salary cap

BUT

2) no, they are not justified in this rejection because the CBA clearly states that this is legal as far as all rules previously agreed upon in the 2005 CBA other than the "I don't care that we didn't agree on this, I can decide I don't like this then void the contract and there is nothing you can do about it" clause where they determine if it circumvents the cap.

3 & 4) I don't think he INTENDS to play out this contract, but he may decide later that he still wants to play so it's an irrelevant point really, and I think the most suspicious part of the deal that would indicate his intent is that the last 5 years are far below what even the worst NHL rookies would make. This, however, is not a sure thing considering chelios just played for about that much last season and was playing on an AHL contract the year before so no one can arbitrarily make the determination that because it's almost no money he won't be playing.

5) I think that in the next CBA they can finish these contracts off forever by disallowing all multiyear contracts that extend beyond age 40. once you turn 40 you are required to sign 1 year contracts every season. Problem solved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is that they had to stop these the first time and didn't. and there's plenty of them, including lesser knowns such as Duncan Keith's (albeit not as severe)

if you allow one and don't allow another one, it's kind of thorny. the Devils did them a favor by making the contract unique, though.

IMO, Luongo's is the most ridiculous because of his playing style. it's possible he might break down and not make it halfway through at anything resembling what he is now

this is more of a problem for vancouver, no? his salary doesn't go down to 3.8 million until luongo is 39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The length of the contract should be dependent on the player's age at signing. If a player is 38, the chances of him playing past age 40 are higher than a 27 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the current CBA allows for it - that's it.

now, the new CBA should close this loophole a bit.

personally, i would not allow a multi year deal to be signed that takes a player past his 40th birthday season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.

for people looking w/ Devils glasses - yes. but i really don't have a problem with it per se. but there is risk involved for sure. what if kovalchuk turns into a 25-30 goal guy in 3 years and essentially floats? the devils will still owe him $60MM for the next 7 years.

and players signing these deals will insist on NMC's so there's no threat of the minors to make them retire. you could argue it's an advantage to richer clubs, but they should have some advantage - they're the ones that pumps money back into the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said no to Kovy's intentions of playing out the entire contract. But I also don't think Hossa/ Pronger/ Luongo have any intention either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The length of the contract should be dependent on the player's age at signing. If a player is 38, the chances of him playing past age 40 are higher than a 27 year old.

I agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.

It really is (although now it is worse at 53-4). I thought more than 9 people would admit it is only because it was a Devils deal getting rejected. I took that poll basically right off ESPN. The results are that 69% believe that the NHL was justified to 31% with over 33,000 votes. No surprise there that the state of New Jersey is the only state that disagrees.

And this has been my point about any debate. No one would have the same opinion if it was there team so almost every argument is pointless. The same Penguins fans who are happy the NHL rejected the deal would be furious if it stopped them from signing say Malkin long-term. And the same Devils fans here 2ho are upset would be the ones laughing now.

On this board, most posters are asking for Campbell to throw the book at player who injures a player badly or gives a cheapshot. Yet when Janssen hit Kaberle a few years ago, fans were dissecting that video like it was the Zapruder Film to show it wasn't dirty. They were pretty pissed when Cam got 3 games.

Very few die hard sports fans can truly take the blinders off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see what the problem is with deals the way they are. All I've seen is that other GMs are upset, but I haven't really heard reasons. I'm not sure why they're so upset, though, since so many of them have handed out contracts like this at one point or another.

It makes the players happy because they can get their big paydays. It makes the teams happy because it allows them to have a manageable cap hit. It makes fans happy because they can buy a player's jersey and know he'll be around to keep it relevant for more than a year or two.

I guess the ones making the biggest stinks would be the smaller markets who can't financially afford the big paydays at the start of these contracts, thus defeating the "spirit of the cap", aka parity. And I guess they'd have a point. Looks like I answered my own question.

Maybe the true solution doesn't lie in changing the way contracts are structured, but instead lies in more meaningful revenue sharing. But then the case could be made that some teams could hover about the cap floor, picking up big cap contracts that pay little (think Kovalchuk when he's 42) while raking in the revenue-sharing bucks ... the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NHL, so to speak.

Perhaps the only possible solution is coming to a realization that no matter what system is put in place, loopholes will be found and exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIG - lower salaried players also have a beef because these contract hand out more salary than the cap - thus increasing expenses for the league - thus keeping more of the players' escrow. guys making under $1.5MM take a huge bite when the escrow gets held. i don't want this to turn into an argument over guys getting paid millions to play a game - we're past that and it's really a sh!tty argument to use in sports. its idealistic and just untrue. we love it - it's theater but it's still a job for these guys and earning potential in this career is VERY limited.

Regarding solutions - many here could write a completely new CBA that makes sense and would be a fair compromise for each side - providing a way for big markets and small markets to have a relatively level playing field while still giving an advantage to clubs in higher revenue markets because they're the ones that are making the most money for the league in the first place. that's for another time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, hopefully this brings back the 'Us (the devils) against the world' attitude that it seemed like we used to use to our advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think his contract SHOULD be allowed but I don't think the NHL was justified in denying it, because it follows precedents and the CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No these types of deals shouldn't be allowed.

No they are not justified in rejecting it because of precedent.

No he will not play when he's 44.

The $550K for the last four years is the most suspicious part of it.

And I don't think there should be a maximum amount of years in a contract, but there should be a rule put in place to get rid of these types of deals. Maybe make it so the amount of money has to be the same each year or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIG - lower salaried players also have a beef because these contract hand out more salary than the cap - thus increasing expenses for the league - thus keeping more of the players' escrow. guys making under $1.5MM take a huge bite when the escrow gets held. i don't want this to turn into an argument over guys getting paid millions to play a game - we're past that and it's really a sh!tty argument to use in sports. its idealistic and just untrue. we love it - it's theater but it's still a job for these guys and earning potential in this career is VERY limited.

Ah, escrow. That sounds familiar now that you mention it. Thanks for pointing that aspect out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No these types of deals shouldn't be allowed.

No they are not justified in rejecting it because of precedent.

No he will not play when he's 44.

The $550K for the last four years is the most suspicious part of it.

Agreed 100%

And I don't think there should be a maximum amount of years in a contract, but there should be a rule put in place to get rid of these types of deals. Maybe make it so the amount of money has to be the same each year or something.

I think there should be a rule that a contract can not have a 20% variance from the cap hit, or something like that.

cap hit: 6mm...

min salary 4.8mm

max salary 7.2mm

This prevents 'hiding' salary...

Unfortunately, this kills lifetime deals where decline pay is built into your contract. However, I don't think you can have a lifetime deal and have accurate cap hits at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole mess is just a can of worms that didn't need to be opened yet imo.

Settle it when the CBA expires. Use this as evidence against the loophole to fix it. But so long as we're still in this CBA, it's competely legal and the NHL's going to look stupid trying to fight it.

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