Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The question is if Kovalchuk and Grossman knew. You would have to think yet. The league would reach out to both sides of a voided deal, not just one. It wouldn't make sense to just reach out to one, so unless I hear different I'll believe both sides knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This is all just...so pointless. I'm super glad the NHL chose the devils as the team to try to make an example of. Christ almighty, it sure as Sh!t isn't the first time this has happened. NZT Trapezoid Nashville And it won't be the last.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So the Devils knew on Monday that the contract is rejected, yet proceeded on and were all smiles in the press conference. This means one of two things: 1) The Devils knew about the rejection, but didn't inform Kovy in the hopes that by doing the press conference, he would be more or less "tied" to our organization and any re-negotiations on the contract will be easier. (This is very bad news as it can backfire with Kovy getting pissed off and leaving) 2) The Devils AND Grossman / Kovalchuk knew about the rejection, but had no reservations with going through with it because they were confident the rejection would be thrown out in arbitration. (This is good news because for some reason I trust Lou's legal / CBA expertise over the league's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So the Devils knew on Monday that the contract is rejected, yet proceeded on and were all smiles in the press conference. This means one of two things: 1) The Devils knew about the rejection, but didn't inform Kovy in the hopes that by doing the press conference, he would be more or less "tied" to our organization and any re-negotiations on the contract will be easier. (This is very bad news as it can backfire with Kovy getting pissed off and leaving) 2) The Devils AND Grossman / Kovalchuk knew about the rejection, but had no reservations with going through with it because they were confident the rejection would be thrown out in arbitration. (This is good news because for some reason I trust Lou's legal / CBA expertise over the league's) "2)" That's why Kovy was so sure to make the "I am keeping myself in shape to play to 44" comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So the Devils knew on Monday that the contract is rejected, yet proceeded on and were all smiles in the press conference. This means one of two things: 1) The Devils knew about the rejection, but didn't inform Kovy in the hopes that by doing the press conference, he would be more or less "tied" to our organization and any re-negotiations on the contract will be easier. (This is very bad news as it can backfire with Kovy getting pissed off and leaving) 2) The Devils AND Grossman / Kovalchuk knew about the rejection, but had no reservations with going through with it because they were confident the rejection would be thrown out in arbitration. (This is good news because for some reason I trust Lou's legal / CBA expertise over the league's) 3) Regardless of the outcome of arbitration both sides knew Kovalchuk would stay with the Devils with the original or modified contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 3) Regardless of the outcome of arbitration both sides knew Kovalchuk would stay with the Devils with the original or modified contract. This seems the least likely to me, unless the Devils and Kovalchuk already have a modified "Plan B" contract ready to go. I don't see Kovalchuk agreeing to go to a press conference with a "tentative" agreement to amend the contract should arbitration fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLLYWOOD Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Wow, Did anyone just catch EJ Hradek on ESPN with Linda Cohn? This couldn't of been written better out of HOLLYWOOD. The Drama unfolds EJHradek_ESPN I'll be talking about the Ilya Kovalchuk contract situation on ESPNews at approximately 6:20 pm EDT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Prove what? You're not telling me what I need to prove. You're completely incorrect that the "spirit" of things doesn't come into play. "Reasonable" is all about the spirit of a thing. The league gets to rule on intent of a contract and the NHLPA is going to challenge the leagues ruling in this. An arbiter will decide who is right, but it certainly won't be based on the fact that Kovalchuk will be playing at 44, since nobody can know that either way. It will be based on if the arbiter believes the NHLPA can show that it is likely he does play or that the NHL can show that it is unlikely he would be playing then and that the contract was designed in a way with the likelihood Kovy isn't playing in mind. The NHL doesn't have to prove it. They only have to show that it is very unlikely and that the contract was designed with this unlikelihood in mind. I think they can do that, since we all believe that to be true. What the arbiter will decide who knows. Incorrect. If the Devils are going for the throat, the argument will be geared towards prior precedent and the guidelines of the CBA as written first and foremost. If the NHL wants to argue he won't be playing until he is 44, they are submitting an argument where there is no way they can predict that Kovalchuk can play to "X" age, and that includes even to age 40. The NHL will NOT win an age battle considering the ages of prior contracts singed by players who will be used as a basis of comparison. A court of law does not rule on the "spirit" of a law. If that was the case, i can name 10 things i did today that violated a "spirit" of a law or rule and so can anyone here. 731, let me ask you. Not for nothing, but is there anything you are ever incorrect about or don't have an opinion on? You seem to fancy yourself as a bit of an expert on everything and come off as extremely contradicting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This seems the least likely to me, unless the Devils and Kovalchuk already have a modified "Plan B" contract ready to go. I don't see Kovalchuk agreeing to go to a press conference with a "tentative" agreement to amend the contract should arbitration fail. Why not? It seems more likely he feels he can trust in an arbiter who could make any decision he feels like or that he might know he will be able to modify the Devils deal in a way the league will find acceptable? I've seen some arbitration cases where the arbiter makes crazy decisions that go completely against precedent, you don't want to trust an arbiter to make the right decision in anything because you just never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Why not? It seems more likely he feels he can trust in an arbiter who could make any decision he feels like or that he might know he will be able to modify the Devils deal in a way the league will find acceptable? I've seen some arbitration cases where the arbiter makes crazy decisions that go completely against precedent, you don't want to trust an arbiter to make the right decision in anything because you just never know. case in point - the stevens: shanahan fiasco. which was a legitimate fiasco and would've had me apoplectic were i a blues fan circa 1991. it just seems surprising that kovalchuk would sign off on this process, although i guess it would cost him at least $2 million if he loses, probably more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Incorrect. If the Devils are going for the throat, the argument will be geared towards prior precedent and the guidelines of the CBA as written first and foremost. If the NHL wants to argue he won't be playing until he is 44, they are submitting an argument where there is no way they can predict that Kovalchuk can play to "X" age, and that includes even to age 40. The NHL will NOT win an age battle considering the ages of prior contracts singed by players who will be used as a basis of comparison. A court of law does not rule on the "spirit" of a law. If that was the case, i can name 10 things i did today that violated a "spirit" of a law or rule and so can anyone here. 731, let me ask you. Not for nothing, but is there anything you are ever incorrect about or don't have an opinion on? You seem to fancy yourself as a bit of an expert on everything and come off as extremely contradicting. Please tell me where "reasonable man" is so vastly different than the "spirit" you guys are talking about? A contract can be completely valid but if it violates the "reasonable man" concept the court can go ahead of void it. For example, you offer me 100 bucks for a baseball card and I sell it to you and you pay me. Legal contract. You know the card is worth a million dollars and I had come to you for your expertise in card value and the same deal happens, no valid contract, a reasonable man would not have made that deal if they had known it was worth a million bucks. A contract can meet all the legal definitions of a contract and still be overturned, in this case the NHL is arguing the intent to play until 44 isn't there and it will take an arbiter to decide who is more correct. The arbiter won't just say, "We can't see the future, NHLPA wins!" Why would the NHL definitely lose an age comparison with the NHLPA using a 42 year old and the league saying a 44 year old is different? The difference is so big it really makes the comparison fairly weak, IMO. I'm not saying I'm an expert, I'm sharing the knowledge I do have, as you're trying to do with yours. Is discussing something such a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 "2)" That's why Kovy was so sure to make the "I am keeping myself in shape to play to 44" comment You know -- I loved how he deadpanned that. When I read it people said there was laughter... and there was in the crowd - but NONE from Kovalchuk. and I also believed him. I think it also helped that he DID joke about Lou convincing Marty to sign on for a few more years. It's annoying because I really do believe this. I feel like Kovalchuk would love to play to 44. i think any guy would - but that start stinking so bad and then there is a pride issue. This is very real actually and takes care of any pride issues at that. You know he's playing out his contract and it's so cheap because you know - it was designed that way -- he's not GROVELING or anything. You can get a TON of guys to testify they'd be playing if anyone would have them in a non-humiliating way - starting with Shannahan! But I also believed the DePietro one too and Millbury and Rick were laughing their asses off about it after the fact -- I was actually confused thinking... well -- doesn't he want to play out the full 12 years... I'm such a naive dope sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 "2)" That's why Kovy was so sure to make the "I am keeping myself in shape to play to 44" comment But why does Lou then make the "eye rolling" and "these contracts shouldn't be allowed" comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLLYWOOD Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Lou, "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." Linda Cohn: "Nobody is coming through with further comments." What is stranger the deal, 17 years, or that the fact Devils GM LL knew all about it, that about the NHL was going to reject this before the press conference." EJ Hradek: "Yeah, yesterday seems like all but a dream. It seems LL knew as early as Monday night that the league would reject this deal. In fact, a couple of different sources told me, that when the league got rumblings of the Devils were thinking/dealing in a 15 and 17 year contract, the league reached out and stated they were going to scrutinize and probably reject it. Yet the Devils went forward with this unusual circumstance now." EJ goes into NHLPA protest... "NHLPA Paul Kelly is gone and this grievance, but there's no arbitrator in place right now. So the league and NHLPA need to agree on one... and this could be several weeks of murky water." EJ Hradek: "I don't see anything in the CBA that would violate this deal so favor goes to NJ/Kovy." Edited July 21, 2010 by HOLLYWOOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegame346 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Sounds like Lou will be bringing the heat. Get 'er done Lou. Sounds like to me Lou knows the NHLPA will file a grievance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 It better be right that Lou informed Grossman before the press conference about what he knew. If he didn't do that, I would ask for his resignation immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Found this tweet, which points to my earlier post about them knowing it will get rejected vs the possibility: TGfireandice To clarify, Devs were aware deal would probably be rejected Mon night. NHL did not send official rejection letter until Tues. night half a minute ago via web Edited July 21, 2010 by Marv4Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Of course the NHLPA will file a grievance. It's a huge case and they won't just bow down to the NHL...how would that look? At least i think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theamazingtiny Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 If we knew it was going to be rejected then why have the press conference? Kinda embarrassing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 It better be right that Lou informed Grossman before the press conference about what he knew. If he didn't do that, I would ask for his resignation immediately. should the owners fire themselves after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 If we knew it was going to be rejected then why have the press conference? Kinda embarrassing... TG said they knew it was a possibility, not definite. There's a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 TG said they knew it was a possibility, not definite. There's a big difference. He only just clarified that now, a half hour after he was reporting the same thing ESPN is. I don't get these journalists, there's a big difference between could reject the deal and would reject the deal. Hundreds of internet posters here and elsewhere could do a better job than most of these hacks in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 It better be right that Lou informed Grossman before the press conference about what he knew. If he didn't do that, I would ask for his resignation immediately. Wait...why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Please tell me where "reasonable man" is so vastly different than the "spirit" you guys are talking about? A contract can be completely valid but if it violates the "reasonable man" concept the court can go ahead of void it. For example, you offer me 100 bucks for a baseball card and I sell it to you and you pay me. Legal contract. You know the card is worth a million dollars and I had come to you for your expertise in card value and the same deal happens, no valid contract, a reasonable man would not have made that deal if they had known it was worth a million bucks. Because you are trying to use the basis of a "reasonable man" when reason and logic is different among men and you are using your own judgement on who is or is not. A "reasonable man" is like trying to find the "perfect woman" or the "well behaved kid" in your own eyes. How do you judge reason, anyway? Reason is measured in many variables outside of right or wrong. I was a card dealer for 10 years, bought and sold thousands upon thousands of dollars in cards. You can take a card to 5 dealers and 5 can give you a different price based on actual "value" in his opinion or his buying to resell to make a profit. Price guides are not bibles. Undervaluing a baseball card to a seller can be a court battle/crime if the seller claims duress, of not sound mind or body, threatened or if a minor is involved. Normally, if anything, it's a real bad case of business ethics. If you're trying to prove it as a crime in a court of law, you're going to find it's alot different then screaming "he only gave me $100, knowing it was a million! I want justice!" Baseball card dealers or memorabilia dealers are not held to a legal code of bylaws, rules and jurisdiction within themselves as a business. A contract can meet all the legal definitions of a contract and still be overturned, in this case the NHL is arguing the intent to play until 44 isn't there and it will take an arbiter to decide who is more correct. The arbiter won't just say, "We can't see the future, NHLPA wins!"Why would the NHL definitely lose an age comparison with the NHLPA using a 42 year old and the league saying a 44 year old is different? The difference is so big it really makes the comparison fairly weak, IMO. I'm not saying I'm an expert, I'm sharing the knowledge I do have, as you're trying to do with yours. Is discussing something such a problem? For a legal contract to be overturned because one party thinks the other is acting in a way that is not "reasonable" or violates a "spirit" of a contract takes alot to prove and i would not bet on the side that's bring about those claims. However, the problem is the NHL has made a huge mistake in forming a precedent by allowing contracts such as Pronger, Hossa, Luongo for starters. Now, they are trying to set another precedent to offset their own mistakes by using Kovalchuk's contract as a last straw until 2012. The league is trying to save itself when it should have fought the prior contracts instead. It's another example of total mismanagement and judgement by the NHL and why it's still a garage league that continues to trip over itself on and off the ice. Edited July 21, 2010 by SJP20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 He only just clarified that now, a half hour after he was reporting the same thing ESPN is. I don't get these journalists, there's a big difference between could reject the deal and would reject the deal. Hundreds of internet posters here and elsewhere could do a better job than most of these hacks in the media. It's ESPN, don't be shocked. 5th graders could do a better job than these clowns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts