Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The arbiter could look at the wording of the clause, see the NHL gets to decide what salary cap circumvention is, and then say, "well the NHL decided this one is, which is their right". The NHL goes, "hey this guy is older than anyone else and we think it's too old and just their to lower cap hit". The Judge goes, "that seems reasonable enough". Arbiter rules for the NHL. And completely ignores the fact that the NHL allowed other players to sign until that age? Luongo's contract is until 43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) I understand that an arbitrator will decide if it gets disputed, but I don't understand the opinion that the arbitrator will side with the league despite the league showing obvious precedence in the past at allowing these contracts. How can a neutral arbitrator look at the CBA, see that no rules were broken, and then look at past examples, and see that they were all allowed, and then rule against us? It makes no sense. In short, unless you can show in a court, in layman's terms, that the arbitrator's decision was the product of corruption, the arbitrator's decision stands. Maybe the arbitrator looks at it the way we do or maybe not. All that's needed is a somewhat reasoned basis for the arbitrator's decision. EDIT: The standard of review might be a little different since it involves a collective bargaining agreement. I don't know one way or the other. Edited July 21, 2010 by Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 there is two different rules the 50% rule and the 100% rule the 100% rule states that over a 3 year period of the contract (I will use Luongo's for example) the salary can not drop by 3 times the lowest value so for Luongo's he is paid $1 million in the second to last year, but 2 years previous he was paid $3.375 million which is a violation of the 100% rule the 50% rule (which seems to be a more strictly enforced rule) states that the lower of the first 2 seasons salary divided by 2 is the greatest amount the contracts value can drop from one year to the next. In Kovalchuk's case, as has been said a few times, his first two years are $6 million so the value from one year to the next can not be any more than $3 million I'm going by what I read here: http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm#100pct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The problem is, while not violating the letter of the CBA, it violates the spirit, which the league is equally justified in using to not approve. So the cap guy wouldn't know for sure how the league would look at it, spiritually, since he's not there any more. The league is making a joke of itself if this is what they're arguing. It screams of favoritism and bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 At this point we might as well bite the bullet and give him the same money for 15 years, maybe with less bonuses. It would still be a pretty good deal but would we still be under 10% of the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 And completely ignores the fact that the NHL allowed other players to sign until that age? Luongo's contract is until 43. Kovalchuk would be 44, so that's older, which means can be viewed as completely different than anyone but other players signed to 44, which I believe there are no comparables. And yes, the league probably gets to arbitrarily select what is "in the spirit" and what "isn't" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The league is making a joke of itself if this is what they're arguing. It screams of favoritism and bias. if kovalchuk's contract went until he was 42, i'd agree. it doesn't. it goes longer than any contract to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 My roommate's watching MLB Network and they just did a New Era commercial... "that's not my cap! that's my cap!" STOP TORTURING ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Somewhere in Newark, an intern is quietly removing all of the jelly from the office fridges. This made me LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So, uh...who wants to take bets that Gary Bettman thinks Intent To Blow is real? Steve's article from this morning: http://intenttoblow.com/?p=833 I died laughing 4 or 5 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheprodigy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This is BS. The NHL picked the wrong GM to screw over. Lou is going to go on a rampage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyrsuck26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I'm speechless......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) "tsnjamesduthieBest guess: Devils/Kovy could restructure, but agents I spoke to figure Kovy likes his deal just the way it is, and will ask PA to grieve." Fingers crossed the arbiter finds for the NHLPA Edited July 21, 2010 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickwall30 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 drop one year off the contract and pull ~1.5 million from wherever in the rest of the deal and then throw it on the end so it looks more like Luongo's deal. Lets see them reject it after it becomes a near carbon copy of his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prucenterrules Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I hope we win the cup and get to BOOOOOOOOO Bettman like fvcking crazy. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 dchesnokov Only two NHL forwards have retired after their 44th birthday since 1917. http://*******/a8uUlE (Thanks, John)half a minute ago via web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSC Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I hope we win the cup and get to BOOOOOOOOO Bettman like fvcking crazy. I never thought I'd have so much hate for one little bald man... I hope to God you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Fingers crossed the arbiter finds for the NHLPA even if it doesn't, the devils would just move to plan B anyway if they didn't win the grievance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice dog Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Why did Lou tell TG he thought it was a stupid contract? He should throw a jelly jar at himself. I thought he was a moron for saying as much but figured they waited since Saturday so the NHL could approve it. or did Lou WANT this to be rejected? whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITBsstirling Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I died laughing 4 or 5 times Let me be the first to apologize. Fake news FAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 uh.... you know what sucks the most about this happening..... we now have another thread that is taking off, damn you rejection thread that i've posted in already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acklaw Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Somebody should tell the folks at NHL.com. The front page of that website looks like it was written by the Devils PR department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 even if it doesn't, the devils would just move to plan B anyway if they didn't win the grievance. I agree, I think plan B will be what will happen, 15 years, 101 million is the worst case scenario, I'm thinking, which is still pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I hope we win the cup and get to BOOOOOOOOO Bettman like fvcking crazy. He'll veto our championship and have Caps play the Penguins for the Cup instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I agree, I think plan B will be what will happen, 15 years, 101 million is the worst case scenario, I'm thinking, which is still pretty good. Now that the cards are on the table, I think Kovy would give a little money-wise and we'd wind up closer to 6.3-6.5 AAV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts