iamtheprodigy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I'm sick of this drama. For a day or two there, I was pumped and couldn't wait for the season to start. Now I'm back to being worried and uncertain. I know that the odds are this will be cleared up one way or another and we'll all move on, but I'm sick of this waiting. I want everything to be settled already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 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) i agree with you 100%. i never trust anyone until its finally revealed. it make me think about the 2000 presidential elections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FightingMongoose Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Does anybody know where all this "Lou Knew" controversy crap is coming from? I'm only seeing it on ESPN per Scott Burnside. A less than reliable source but this is what they're playing on their ticker and programming. Did anyone see this before Burnside reported? Any ideas on possible source or is it safe to assume this is Burnside being his usual self? If he's making this up, this crosses the damn line, that's a very serious accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Does anybody know where all this "Lou Knew" controversy crap is coming from? I'm only seeing it on ESPN per Scott Burnside. A less than reliable source but this is what they're playing on their ticker and programming. Did anyone see this before Burnside reported? Any ideas on possible source or is it safe to assume this is Burnside being his usual self? If he's making this up, this crosses the damn line, that's a very serious accusation. EJ Hradek appears to also claim to have his own source, or at the very least, "verified" Burnside's source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Does anybody know where all this "Lou Knew" controversy crap is coming from? I'm only seeing it on ESPN per Scott Burnside. A less than reliable source but this is what they're playing on their ticker and programming. Did anyone see this before Burnside reported? Any ideas on possible source or is it safe to assume this is Burnside being his usual self? If he's making this up, this crosses the damn line, that's a very serious accusation. Maybe we can get Burnside fired like the Republicans got Dan Rather fired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) 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. I see where your coming from, but here:- The Devils have not done anything illegal as far as the contract and CBA are concerned, therefore, the NHL has no legal grounds to reject it. As far as "spirit" is concerned, that's just like an "unwritten rule" in the game itself. "Spirit" bears no legal standing. Lou will win on the premise that no law (CBA) was broken. Edited July 21, 2010 by Neutral Zone Trap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I'm only on page 315, but here's a couple comments for up to then... Since neither of those two conditions have happened yet, Kovalchuk is still signed and under contract. Douchebag, learn to get your facts straight." Great job! And great use of the Douchebag. However, the argument shouldn't even be tossed around that Kovalchuk could be playing at 44, because he won't be. Why not? With his NTC at that stage still there, but his NMC gone, the Devils organization could state they paln to use him to mentor younguns and be a call up if his depth/experience are needed for the seasons and playoffs in those years where he is in his 40's. I think it is reasonable for the Devils organization to plan to employ Ilya as an awesome asset to use in this way. And the payroll would be proper for the amount of time he gets on the NHL ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I see where your coming from, but here:- The Devils have not done anything illegal as far as the contract and CBA are concerned, therefore, the NHL has no legal grounds to reject it. As far as "spirit" is concerned, that's just like an "unwritten rule" in the game itself. "Spirit" bears no legal standing. Lou will win on the premise that no law (CBA) was broken. That is certainly an argument the NHLPA will make to an arbitrator if it gets that far. The NHL will counter that they have violated the catchall provision of the CBA that says you can't structure a deal in such a way as to circumvent the cap. The NHLPA will respond that virtually identical deals have been approved in the past. NHL will respond that this one is different for reasons, x, y and z. NHLPA says those are all distinctions without differences. Who the arbitration sides with is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 As far as "spirit" is concerned, that's just like an "unwritten rule" in the game itself. "Spirit" bears no legal standing. Lou will win on the premise that no law (CBA) was broken. In this case it's written that the league can void contracts based on intent. So in this case "spirit" will very much have legal standing as both sides argue which future is more likely, the one where Ilya plays at 44 and the one where he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoArmySports Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Well they pretty much just made fun of all of us over ESPN on Sportsnation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Well they pretty much just made fun of all of us over ESPN on Sportsnation.... What happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyrsuck26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This whole situation has me and This sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 In this case it's written that the league can void contracts based on intent. So in this case "spirit" will very much have legal standing as both sides argue which future is more likely, the one where Ilya plays at 44 and the one where he doesn't. Prove it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Prove it...... Prove what? It's in the clause, it's been posted like 5 or 6 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 That is certainly an argument the NHLPA will make to an arbitrator if it gets that far. The NHL will counter that they have violated the catchall provision of the CBA that says you can't structure a deal in such a way as to circumvent the cap. The NHLPA will respond that virtually identical deals have been approved in the past. NHL will respond that this one is different for reasons, x, y and z. NHLPA says those are all distinctions without differences. Who the arbitration sides with is anyone's guess. From a legal standpoint, the Devils have not transgressed the rules. Therefore, by law (CBA) the NHL's rejection of the contract is in itself a breach of contract (CBA) Bettman and the NHL will lose, and will be susceptible to a counter suit from NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 From a legal standpoint, the Devils have not transgressed the rules. Therefore, by law (CBA) the NHL's rejection of the contract is in itself a breach of contract (CBA) Bettman and the NHL will lose, and will be susceptible to a counter suit from NJ. According to the NHL they have violated the rules because the intent of this contract is not to have Kovy play until he is 44. The NHLPA will argue he will, the NHL will argue he won't. All Devils fans thought he wouldn't before this came down so I believe the NHL would have a stronger case and win. A "reasonable man" would not believe Kovy was going to play out this contract until 44 and that is the normal standard used in an argument like this, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Prove what? It's in the clause, it's been posted like 5 or 6 times. Rules and regulations like high sticking or hooking are concrete. "Spirit" is subjective and has absolutely no relevance when it comes down to written law. Prove it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 What happened? someone set up us the bomb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 According to the NHL they have violated the rules because the intent of this contract is not to have Kovy play until he is 44. The NHLPA will argue he will, the NHL will argue he won't. All Devils fans thought he wouldn't before this came down so I believe the NHL would have a stronger case and win. A "reasonable man" would not believe Kovy was going to play out this contract until 44 and that is the normal standard used in an argument like this, IMO. Indeed, but until Kovy is 44 we'll never know. And that sir is the kicker, the NHL has no grounds and they CAN'T prove Kovy won't play when he's 44. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Rules and regulations like high sticking or hooking are concrete. "Spirit" is subjective and has absolutely no relevance when it comes down to written law. Prove it... 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. Indeed, but until Kovy is 44 we'll never know. And that sir is the kicker, the NHL has no grounds and they CAN'T prove Kovy won't play when he's 44. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
American_Psycho Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Per TGfireandice: I can confirm, via a source, that Devs knew as early as Mon. night that NHL would reject Kovy deal -- as ESPN's EJ Hradek reported earlier. Devils went on with Tuesday news conference announcing signing anyway. Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Per TGfireandice: I can confirm, via a source, that Devs knew as early as Mon. night that NHL would reject Kovy deal -- as ESPN's EJ Hradek reported earlier. Devils went on with Tuesday news conference announcing signing anyway. Hmm... Holy crap this IS a soap opera. & dont tell me TG is getting super secret sources now as well. Edited July 21, 2010 by Elias26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Per TGfireandice: I can confirm, via a source, that Devs knew as early as Mon. night that NHL would reject Kovy deal -- as ESPN's EJ Hradek reported earlier. Devils went on with Tuesday news conference announcing signing anyway. Hmm... Ya, I think both sides, Kovy and the Devils, know Kovy is staying a Devil, it's just if something will have to change through the challenge or not. So this becomes a bit of a power move where the league looks like a jerk and gets the initial support behind the NHLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyrsuck26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Per TGfireandice: I can confirm, via a source, that Devs knew as early as Mon. night that NHL would reject Kovy deal -- as ESPN's EJ Hradek reported earlier. Devils went on with Tuesday news conference announcing signing anyway. Hmm... The question is if Kovalchuk and Grossman knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts