Devil Dan 56 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 It's one reason why I found the penalty pretty outrageous. The spirit of the cap circumvention penalty in the prior CBA was to punish under the table salary, like we'll secretly be putting an extra $2 million in a Swiss bank account, or we'll give your wife a $2 million per year front office job. The CBA specifically defined that sort of thing as cap circumvention. On the other hand, everything about the first Kovy deal was permitted, at least by the letter of the CBA. I could understand that a line had to be drawn, but it's hard to justify such a draconian penalty when there was no clear rule that was violated. I think the reason that the Devils got hit so hard is that they held the press conference and everything after the league said they weren't going to approve the contract. Lou or Vanderbeek basically tried to call the NHL's bluff, and the league came down hard. The "spirit of the cap" is a load of bull. The Devils tried to make fools of them and the other ridiculous contracts, so the league hit back. If the league really cared about the "spirit of the cap", Chicago wouldn't have been allowed to "loan" Huet to some team in Switzerland, the Rangers wouldn't be allowed to bury tens of millions of dollars of bad contracts in the minors, the Islanders wouldn't be able to trade for Tim Thomas in a season where he already said he wasn't playing, etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) HF Boards is mad. lol http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1618731&page=2 I'm actually surprised by the amount of level-headed posters there too from around the league. For every idiot who's angry, there's another guy who gets it. I actually see a lot more sympathy for our situation that I would have expected Same haha Edited March 6, 2014 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think the reason that the Devils got hit so hard is that they held the press conference and everything after the league said they weren't going to approve the contract. Lou or Vanderbeek basically tried to call the NHL's bluff, and the league came down hard. The "spirit of the cap" is a load of bull. The Devils tried to make fools of them and the other ridiculous contracts, so the league hit back. If the league really cared about the "spirit of the cap", Chicago wouldn't have been allowed to "loan" Huet to some team in Switzerland, the Rangers wouldn't be allowed to bury tens of millions of dollars of bad contracts in the minors, the Islanders wouldn't be able to trade for Tim Thomas in a season where he already said he wasn't playing, etc etc. I also think the NHL knew they let the Devils off the hook from cap jail with the Mogilny and Malahkov circumvention. Regardless what anyone thinks of the Kovy stuff, that was pretty offside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The way I see it, the league has to approve all contracts anyways right? So, why was the first contract even approved or considered if it was cap circumvention? Why didn't the league just say "nah, nah, nah...this isn't a valid contract...go back to the table and do it again until its right..." Rather, now they penalize intent...I don't get it Actually, they did exactly that, AND still handed out this ridiculous punishment for a contract that they never let go into effect in the first place. I'm glad they lessened the punishment, but I still can't find justification for there to be any punishment in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I also think the NHL knew they let the Devils off the hook from cap jail with the Mogilny and Malahkov circumvention. Regardless what anyone thinks of the Kovy stuff, that was pretty offside. Oh yeah, that sneaky Malahkov trade for Korolyuk right? Haha, yeah that was pretty bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggie B Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Celebrate good times, CMON! That having been said, would it have been wiser to simply forfeit our 29th pick after we went to the Finals and draft normally this year? Hmm..... Edited March 6, 2014 by Biggie B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglejelly Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 this was interesting in the hockey news The other strange part of this is it puts into question whether Devils GM Lou Lamoriello knew all along that he would get the first round pick back. When Lamoriello kept the 29th overall pick in 2012 to take Stefan Matteau instead of forfeiting it, the decision was curious. Today’s decision sheds new light on that call, though, and makes you question the NHL’s motives in overturning the penalty. Lou has the fifth sense Most of us have a fifth sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 well we won't have to look at possible positions in the standings and all til the end for a favorable draft pick and who we could get lol 30th pick is set and god knows who would still be there. Pretty weak draft this year too apparently but damn we'll take it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Actually, they did exactly that, AND still handed out this ridiculous punishment for a contract that they never let go into effect in the first place. I'm glad they lessened the punishment, but I still can't find justification for there to be any punishment in the first place. No, Lou and the Devils were warned by the league not to try to push the original 17-year deal through or there would be consequences. Lou basically gave the league the finger and had a press conference to announce the deal. It was a stupid move on his part...there was no reason to test the league on that one. What was there to be gained? They worked with the league on the second deal (the 15-year version), but Lou should've just done that from the start. Most of us have a fifth sense It's like some people know what's coming before it happens...they have ESPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 No, Lou and the Devils were warned by the league not to try to push the original 17-year deal through or there would be consequences. Lou basically gave the league the finger and had a press conference to announce the deal. It was a stupid move on his part...there was no reason to test the league on that one. What was there to be gained? They worked with the league on the second deal (the 15-year version), but Lou should've just done that from the start. It's like some people know what's coming before it happens...they have ESPN. I could see Lou expressing to the league that that was Vanderbeek forcing his hand, and perhaps the league had a bit of sympathy for him and took their boot of the Devils throat now that Vanderbeek is pretty much out of the picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 No, Lou and the Devils were warned by the league not to try to push the original 17-year deal through or there would be consequences. Lou basically gave the league the finger and had a press conference to announce the deal. It was a stupid move on his part...there was no reason to test the league on that one. What was there to be gained? They worked with the league on the second deal (the 15-year version), but Lou should've just done that from the start. It's like some people know what's coming before it happens...they have ESPN. So the punishment was for holding the press conference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) I think the reason that the Devils got hit so hard is that they held the press conference and everything after the league said they weren't going to approve the contract. Lou or Vanderbeek basically tried to call the NHL's bluff, and the league came down hard. The "spirit of the cap" is a load of bull. The Devils tried to make fools of them and the other ridiculous contracts, so the league hit back. If the league really cared about the "spirit of the cap", Chicago wouldn't have been allowed to "loan" Huet to some team in Switzerland, the Rangers wouldn't be allowed to bury tens of millions of dollars of bad contracts in the minors, the Islanders wouldn't be able to trade for Tim Thomas in a season where he already said he wasn't playing, etc etc. You cut off my quote. I said "spirit of the cap penalty" provision, not the "spirit of the cap". As I recall, the old CBA speaks at length as to what "cap circumvention" actually was, which consisted of instances where teams attempt to conceal actual salary. Later, the CBA just said that the commissioner could impose penalties for cap circumvention. So the much more reasonable interpretation of the CBA is that the penalty could be imposed for what the CBA actually defined as cap circumvention. In fact, it wasn't even a sure thing that the league was going to win the arbitration, and it certainly had no principled basis to accept the Hossa contract, but not the Kovalchuks. Again, I understand that the league had to challenge those types of contracts at some point, but the penalty was clearly draconian, and not justified by a much more fair reading of the CBA. Edited March 6, 2014 by Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 @DarrenDreger: Needless to say, NHL teams are not happy with the leagues decision to let the Devils off the hook. Haha, the other 29 teams can eat a dick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Celebrate good times, CMON! That having been said, would it have been wiser to simply forfeit our 29th pick after we went to the Finals and draft normally this year? Hmm..... I will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) @DarrenDreger: Needless to say, NHL teams are not happy with the leagues decision to let the Devils off the hook. Haha, the other 29 teams can eat a dick. How are the Devils being taken off the hook? We're not getting "our" pick back. This is more like a compensation pick more than anything. Edited March 6, 2014 by Mike Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So the punishment was for holding the press conference? Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 @DarrenDreger: Needless to say, NHL teams are not happy with the leagues decision to let the Devils off the hook. Haha, the other 29 teams can eat a dick. Maybe the other NHL teams should have their cap circumventing contracts evaluated and penalized accordingly, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So the punishment was for holding the press conference? For the most part. The league warned the Devils that they had to review the contract and told the Devils to hold off on an announcement. The Devils pulled that big press conference I'm guessing to force the league's hand, and the NHL decided to take a stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Celebrate good times, CMON! That having been said, would it have been wiser to simply forfeit our 29th pick after we went to the Finals and draft normally this year? Hmm..... Isn't hind site wonderful? We did get a guy with the 29th pick that seems to be working out positively in the AHL. Drafting is such a gamble especially within the Devils organization of late.. Maybe the other NHL teams should have their cap circumventing contracts evaluated and penalized accordingly, then. You know that's not happening, the NHL just closed this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Oh yeah, that sneaky Malahkov trade for Korolyuk right? Haha, yeah that was pretty bad. They gave up a 1st round pick to make that happen. I don't really see a problem with it and think that a similar trade would go through today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Celebrate good times, CMON! That having been said, would it have been wiser to simply forfeit our 29th pick after we went to the Finals and draft normally this year? Hmm..... We won't know until we see what Matteau and the 2014 30th overall end up looking like. If you get 2 solid contributing NHLers out of it, and nothing amazing comes out of the area the Devils would have picked in this year, I guess it's for the best. Lou also may have been hoping that the reduced penalty would be that we keep out 1st rounder and give up another 3rd or something. Probably some sort of calculated risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 For the most part. The league warned the Devils that they had to review the contract and told the Devils to hold off on an announcement. The Devils pulled that big press conference I'm guessing to force the league's hand, and the NHL decided to take a stand. Yeah, the gun was loaded, the warning shot was fired, the message wasn't heard or disregarded, it happens every time, BOOM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) They gave up a 1st round pick to make that happen. I don't really see a problem with it and think that a similar trade would go through today. The trade itself was questionable on its own, but it was getting Malahkov off the cap that season which raised flags too. Leave of absense, retirement, suspension, scare tactics? I don't think we ever found out exactly what happened, but it was convenient. I didn't even mention a healthy Matvichuk hanging out on LTIR the next season. Edited March 6, 2014 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Forfeit Pick @TStivali The Devils got more from the league today than the Islanders got for Vanek Lmfao!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 For the most part. The league warned the Devils that they had to review the contract and told the Devils to hold off on an announcement. The Devils pulled that big press conference I'm guessing to force the league's hand, and the NHL decided to take a stand. Even if the punishment was for holding the press conference, I still don't see why it wouldn't have been enough for the league to just reject the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.