CarpathianForest Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I've read on other sites that it's just the last few years and that the player's salary can't drop more than 50% from one year to the next. Should be an easy fix. This was posted at devilsrule.com: "Altering the final 6 years would look like this: 21-22 = $1.75million 22-23 900 NHL 23-24 550 NHL 24-25 550 NHL 25-26 550 NHL 26-27 LY 550 NHL It would bring the contract value up to $103.35 million...which would make the cap hit 6.08million for the duration of the contract. A minor change makes this contract legal and within the rules of the CBA. Then the NHL really has no leg to stand on to reject the deal UNLESS they can prove kovalchuk, his agent or the people they have dealt with at the Devils ever made the implication that he would retire before the end of the contract." So perhaps this is just all a tempest in a teapot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 There's a huge difference between a possibility and knowing that they would reject it. Don't take biased ESPN "reporters" seriously. And lol,what "source"? The reports are that Lou had been told by league representatives that the deal would be nixed. Obviously healthy skepticism is warranted, but the consequences are so dire in my mind, that it's not something I can give the back of the hand to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I've read on other sites that it's just the last few years and that the player's salary can't drop more than 50% from one year to the next. The people on "other sites" are WRONG. This is a misreading of the rule. Making this big... hopefully people will actually read it. http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm#100pct "NOTE: this does not mean "change in salary is limited to 50% of the prior year's salary" - it's 50 percent of the lower of the first 2 years of an SPC." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njskaguy33 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Speaking of Fargo... BETTMAN – Mr. Lamoriello? LOU - Yah, real good. How you doin'? BETTMAN - Pretty good, Mr. Lamoriello. You're damned hard to get on the phone. LOU - Yah, it's pretty darned busy here, but that's the way we like it. BETTMAN - That's for sure. Now, I just need, on this Kovalchuk contract you sent us, the actual number of years the contract is for...you see, I can't read the salary breakdown or the years on here, so I - LOU - But I already got the, it's okay, Kovy is already here, I already got the, the what, the - BETTMAN - Yeah, the services of Ilya Kolalchuck for the next decade, you had the press conference earlier today. LOU - Yah, so we're all set. BETTMAN - Yeah, but on the contract you submitted, I just can't read the salary breakdown. Maybe if you could just read them to me - LOU - But the deal's already done, I already got the player - BETTMAN - Yeah, but we have a CBA here, I just have to know that this contract isn’t trying to circumvent the salary cap and is technically legal. LOU - Yah, well, it’s legal all right. BETTMAN - I'm sure it is - ha ha! But I can't read the salary breakdown here. So if you could read me - LOU - Well, but see, I don't have 'em in front a me - why don't I just fax you over a copy - BETTMAN - No, fax is no good, that's what I have and I can't read the darn thing - LOU - Yah, okay, I'll have my girl send you over a copy, then. BETTMAN - Okay, because if I can't correlate this breakdown with the number of years you’re offering, then I gotta call back that contract - LOU - Yah, how much money was that? BETTMAN – One hundred and two thousand dollars. See, I gotta correlate that money with the number of years it's being paid on. LOU - Yah, no problem, I'll just fax that over to ya, then. BETTMAN - No, no, fax is - LOU - I mean send it over. I'll shoot it right over to ya. BETTMAN - Okay. LOU - Okay, real good, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Damn bullet, that was funny. I've seen that movie so many times I could actually hear their voices reading those lines. Great job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Speaking of Fargo... BETTMAN – Mr. Lamoriello? LOU - Yah, real good. How you doin'? BETTMAN - Pretty good, Mr. Lamoriello. You're damned hard to get on the phone. LOU - Yah, it's pretty darned busy here, but that's the way we like it. BETTMAN - That's for sure. Now, I just need, on this Kovalchuk contract you sent us, the actual number of years the contract is for...you see, I can't read the salary breakdown or the years on here, so I - LOU - But I already got the, it's okay, Kovy is already here, I already got the, the what, the - BETTMAN - Yeah, the services of Ilya Kolalchuck for the next decade, you had the press conference earlier today. LOU - Yah, so we're all set. BETTMAN - Yeah, but on the contract you submitted, I just can't read the salary breakdown. Maybe if you could just read them to me - LOU - But the deal's already done, I already got the player - BETTMAN - Yeah, but we have a CBA here, I just have to know that this contract isn’t trying to circumvent the salary cap and is technically legal. LOU - Yah, well, it’s legal all right. BETTMAN - I'm sure it is - ha ha! But I can't read the salary breakdown here. So if you could read me - LOU - Well, but see, I don't have 'em in front a me - why don't I just fax you over a copy - BETTMAN - No, fax is no good, that's what I have and I can't read the darn thing - LOU - Yah, okay, I'll have my girl send you over a copy, then. BETTMAN - Okay, because if I can't correlate this breakdown with the number of years you’re offering, then I gotta call back that contract - LOU - Yah, how much money was that? BETTMAN – One hundred and two thousand dollars. See, I gotta correlate that money with the number of years it's being paid on. LOU - Yah, no problem, I'll just fax that over to ya, then. BETTMAN - No, no, fax is - LOU - I mean send it over. I'll shoot it right over to ya. BETTMAN - Okay. LOU - Okay, real good, then. All this talk I need a some place where I can get a steak and a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) give the back of your hand to? What the heck kind of idiom is that? you can know it like the back of your hand , you can give a back-handed compliment... show you the back of my hand -- like hit you... anyhow... this isn't much fun. There can be no rumors of merit - this is a legal case now... like Tri said, I didn't sign up for a bad courtroom drama. This is downright unpleasant. It's just not amusing. Speculation is unpleasant on all counts - Lou being a big dick or Lou getting royally dicked over. I feel disillusioned at the moment and there will be no rectifying that until I hear the full resolved story. so... Edited July 21, 2010 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I've read on other sites that it's just the last few years and that the player's salary can't drop more than 50% from one year to the next. Should be an easy fix. This was posted at devilsrule.com: "Altering the final 6 years would look like this: 21-22 = $1.75million 22-23 900 NHL 23-24 550 NHL 24-25 550 NHL 25-26 550 NHL 26-27 LY 550 NHL It would bring the contract value up to $103.35 million...which would make the cap hit 6.08million for the duration of the contract. A minor change makes this contract legal and within the rules of the CBA. Then the NHL really has no leg to stand on to reject the deal UNLESS they can prove kovalchuk, his agent or the people they have dealt with at the Devils ever made the implication that he would retire before the end of the contract." So perhaps this is just all a tempest in a teapot. If it was a simple math issue based on rules that are clearly laid out in the CBA, this would be done by now, and the NHL would have said so. The league has made it clear that it is relying on the catchall provision in the CBA that prohibits "circumvention." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blown01NJ Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From TG The Devils believe the NHL was wrong to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. “We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk,” Devils GM Lou Lamoriello said in a statement released by the team. “The contract complies with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 and nice job Bulletproof... that was a sad movie but also I was really depressed by that too.... I just thought ti wasn't funny - with the woodchipper and stuff... but it was funny all the same... also... I talk like that... formative speaking years and all in Bismarck and St Paul... I might not... just -- sometimes I do. This sucks. :evilcry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmajeski06 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From TG The Devils believe the NHL was wrong to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. “We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk,” Devils GM Lou Lamoriello said in a statement released by the team. “The contract complies with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete.” Lock and load Lou!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CADevilsFan Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From TG The Devils believe the NHL was wrong to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. “We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk,” Devils GM Lou Lamoriello said in a statement released by the team. “The contract complies with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete.” So I guess restructuring the deal is off the table now? Seems like he wants his contract and Kovy will try to get the Union to fight for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 And now...we wait. I'm so sick of waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubanjd305 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From TG The Devils believe the NHL was wrong to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. “We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk,” Devils GM Lou Lamoriello said in a statement released by the team. “The contract complies with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete.” Seems Lou won't be restructuring $hit!! Hang on boys....we're going to court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From TG The Devils believe the NHL was wrong to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk. “We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk,” Devils GM Lou Lamoriello said in a statement released by the team. “The contract complies with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We will have no further comment until the process outlined in the CBA is complete.” Sounds like Lou will be bringing the heat. Get 'er done Lou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CADevilsFan Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Seems Lou won't be restructuring $hit!! Hang on boys....we're going to court Well, the Devils won't. First, it's more like Hold on Boys, Kovy is going to Arbitration. BUt that doesn't sound quite as good, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Seems Lou won't be restructuring $hit!! Hang on boys....we're going to court I wouldn't read too much into it. Restructuring is part of the process laid out in the CBA. Plus, he'd be a fool to take restructuring off the table completely since it isn't up to him whether this goes to arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 wow, this is going to turn even uglier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubanjd305 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Well, the Devils won't. First, it's more like Hold on Boys, Kovy is going to Arbitration. BUt that doesn't sound quite as good, Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 No retroactivity. Those deals are not going anywhere save a new CBA. Indeed Daniel. The NHL has no legal standing to "all of a sudden" start rejecting these longs ass contracts. Just like a contract between a team and a player, they cannot by law (CBA) be restructured. Bettman and his shills have no legal standing. If Lou takes this to court, Bettman loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CADevilsFan Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Indeed Daniel. The NHL has no legal standing to "all of a sudden" start rejecting these longs ass contracts. Just like a contract between a team and a player, they cannot by law (CBA) be restructured. Bettman and his shills have no legal standing. If Lou takes this to court, Bettman loses. Their standing is where the differences are between the already existing contracts and this one. Do any of the others front load this much? If so, how many? Do any of the other contracts have the player making the league minimum? If so, how many and how long are they making the league minimum? While I fully expect it to go Kovy's way, there are always methods and arguments to be made on why they would have standing to reject the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 and nice job Bulletproof... that was a sad movie but also I was really depressed by that too.... I just thought ti wasn't funny - with the woodchipper and stuff... but it was funny all the same... also... I talk like that... formative speaking years and all in Bismarck and St Paul... I might not... just -- sometimes I do. This sucks. :evilcry: This is America so please speak English....I don't speak Jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 just out of curiosity, who does everyone agree on is a credible source for hockey rumors and news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Indeed Daniel. The NHL has no legal standing to "all of a sudden" start rejecting these longs ass contracts. Just like a contract between a team and a player, they cannot by law (CBA) be restructured. Bettman and his shills have no legal standing. If Lou takes this to court, Bettman loses. I think you're confusing two different things. There are the specific contracts that have already been approved (Hossa, Pronger, etc) and then there is Kovlachuk's. Obviouslythe NHL cannot "unapprove" contracts they approved more than a year ago. They can, and have, disapproved Kovalchuk's deal. Lou can try to take this to court, but he'll lose, and badly at that. Unless the deal is restructured, it's in the arbitrator's hands (of course, assuming the NHLPA, and not Lou, files a grievance). It is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible in this case, to convince a court to overturn the arbitrator's decision. And to be clear, if I were Vegas, unless the vig was enormous, I would not accept bets on how the arbitrator will rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 i don't trust anything 100% til it happens. everyone seems to have their "sources" but they hardly reveal them - i.e. Єklund (2.3% accurate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts