New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[Amberite]

What? How many players in the history of the NHL have played until they are 44?

The Devils can argue that players playing into their 40s will become more common as years pass due to better healthcare / training. I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that more players are playing into their late 30s / early 40s than there were 20 years ago.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Amberite

[BlueSkirt]

What? How many players in the history of the NHL have played until they are 44? Out of all the players in the NHL right now how many reasonably will play until they are 44? It is more likely unreasonable to expect a player to play until they are 44 because almost nobody ever does.

.03% of forwards play until 44 or older over the last 93 years of hockey. So is it more reasonable to expect Kovalchuk to fall into the 99.7% of the .03%? If I'm a betting/reasonable man, I'll bet on the 99.7%.

One would not look at a century because so much has changed with life-expectancy doubling in the 20th century.

If you have numbers on the last quarter-century that would be more applicable.

My point is there won't be a ruling that states age 42 is ok, but 24 months longer is not.

Mark Recchi is 43, it would be ultimately judged illegal to preclude him from having signed a contract based solely on age. It's arbitrary regardless of past history, particularly century old history.

Again it all stinks, but them is the rulez

[Devils731]

Mark Recchi is 43, it would be ultimately judged illegal to preclude him from having signed a contract based solely on age. It's arbitrary regardless of past history, particularly century old history.

No it wouldn't. This is being based on what is reasonable. A 43 year old is much better at deciding if he can play in a year or 2, at a time almost nobody does, than a 27 year old does. The former case is much more reasonable than the latter.

[bg.]

You are a realist here - do you think this deal will go through as-is, or be modified? Anyone with any hockey sense knows he will not be a Devil in year 17. The best argeument the NHL has is that the salary in those five years will probably be < NHL min, the contract is (at best) good for 10 years, meaning the last 7 are all but meaningless.

There are several ways the Devils and Kovy can get this agreed to by the NHL without getting into a massive pissing contest - I have to believe that in the interests of getting this behind them that will be the way this goes. That is the real solution. Kovy gets his cash and the Devils. Devils get their player at a cap number they can live with. NHL gets to save some face by not having an insane contract go through.

Cap nonsense aside, from a real money perspective the Devils did not max themselves out with this deal - if they gave him 15 or 20 million in year one I might not feel that way and could argue they might got to the mattresses vs. the NHL on this one because that is the only way they can keep the player, but that is just not so.

There is plenty of room in the first two years make this more appealing for Kovy while at the same time getting the NHL off their back and making this work from a cap perspective.

Edited July 21, 2010 by bg.

[Triumph]

journalists stirring the pot aside, kovalchuk is going to be a devil. a 15 year, 101 million dollar deal would work the same, if they spread the money out a little different. knock off all the .5s at the beginning of the contract and throw them on to the end years, so he's never making less than a million dollars.

gabe desjardins has a nice writeup on why he thinks this was rejected: http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/7/21/1579736/why-ilya-kovalchuks-contract-was

[bg.]

Triumph - I understand that guys logic, but that not exactly the same contract. 101 vs 102 - no difference. 17 yrs vs. 15 years, again, close enough. Issue is 6 vs 6.7 against the cap - that is not the same.

If I am the Devils I move money around, but at the end of the day I still want my cap number closer to 6 than 7. Overall value of the contract will probably go down, but that matters little since the guy will not be collecting the last few years.

[jonnyd91]

WHo is this tool?

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Matthew-Barry/WTF/125/29433

reading this made me really want to reach out and smack him.

[mikeford]

So did Grossman not go on XM this morning?

[dejaentendu2101]

He couldn't go on because of this situation.

Edited July 21, 2010 by dejaentendu2101

[Triumph]

Triumph - I understand that guys logic, but that not exactly the same contract. 101 vs 102 - no difference. 17 yrs vs. 15 years, again, close enough. Issue is 6 vs 6.7 against the cap - that is not the same.

If I am the Devils I move money around, but at the end of the day I still want my cap number closer to 6 than 7. Overall value of the contract will probably go down, but that matters little since the guy will not be collecting the last few years.

obviously new jersey would want to keep the cap hit down, but it's clear that unless they win the grievance (which they very well might, if it gets filed), the difference between 6 and 6.7 isn't that huge. it's big this year, and next year, but beyond that, new jersey is pretty much in the clear. and if they get rid of rolston and salvador they're in the clear anyway.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Triumph

[dejaentendu2101]

So did Grossman not go on XM this morning?

No he didn't. He wasn't allowed to cause of this situation.

[CarpathianForest]

From now on Bettman will officially be known as Buzz Killington.

[BlueSkirt]

if they spread the money out a little different. knock off all the .5s at the beginning of the contract and throw them on to the end years, so he's never making less than a million dollars.

I think this is what would happen "after" the NHLPA loses its grievance. Yet I think grievance will carry the day.

[Devs3cups]

Questions, Do you guys think kovy will still sign with us?

And how long do you think this process will last?

[CarpathianForest]

Everyone knows what this is really about:

Sid and Bettman were lying in bed Monday night and Bettman told Sid that Kovy was signing with the Devils and Sid was like, "I don't like Ilya, he punked me in my rookie year." So Bettman decided then and there to avenge the smiting of his sweetheart. Anyone got a vid of Kovy punking Crybaby BTW?

[dejaentendu2101]

I think this is what would happen "after" the NHLPA loses its grievance. Yet I think grievance will carry the day.

If they file a grievance it will take longer. They should just rework the deal.

[njdevil26]

Guys relax... Bettman was doing this to be nice because we needed ammo to get this thread over 300 pages. Once we hit that mark, the contract will be approved!

[mrthemike]

If they file a grievance it will take longer. They should just rework the deal.

Yea, but reworking the deal means they are basically just giving in to the NHL. I don't see the NHLPA doing that. I would think they would file a grievance just to make a point that they will challenge the decision.

[njdevil26]

You have to dominate the swordfish.... only THEN can you sauté it.

[CarpathianForest]

So seriously speaking does this get fast tracked into the courts or arbitration or whatever?

[BlueSkirt]

No it wouldn't. This is being based on what is reasonable. A 43 year old is much better at deciding if he can play in a year or 2, at a time almost nobody does, than a 27 year old does. The former case is much more reasonable than the latter.

The controversy is all about the dollars in the final years, not the players actual age.

Similarly if the Islanders, trying to reach the cap floor, offering a player aged 44 an 8-million/year deal to inflate their cap-hit, it too would cause controversy.

Common sense tells me that it is possible, perhaps probable that Ilya will not be playing at 44.

Yet sometimes common sense and the limits of rules are at odds with each other.

[Devils Pride 26]

I'm interested in whatever DinLA and Sarge have to say about it. They both have been through law school, iirc. Maybe they have a better insight on what might happen if taken to court.

[Daniel]

I'm interested in whatever DinLA and Sarge have to say about it. They both have been through law school, iirc. Maybe they have a better insight on what might happen if taken to court.

Unless there is some evidence that the arbitrator's decision was the product of corruption (e.g. the league paid him off to rule in its favor or that the arbitrator is Bettman's wife) a court is not going to overrule the arbitrator's decision. And even if it did, it would in all likelihood go back to just another arbitrator.

[Triumph]

the problem is finding an arbitrator. i'd love to use that judge who did the stevens-shanahan thing, if he's still alive. or shayam das, 'cause he has an awesome name, and he's like the ilya kovalchuk of sports arbitrator.

[BlueSkirt]

Remember when the NHL suspended Schoenfield without a hearing & Lou then won an injunction in Federal Court because the suspension violated the due process rights of the NHL/NHLPA contract.