New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[Daniel]

should the owners fire themselves after that?

My guess is that only vanderbeek would have been in the loop. He does not have a majority interest so other limited partners should have the ability to band together and vote or go to court and demand vanderbeek be stripped of management duties if he doesn't fire lou. Again, if it's true, and I invested a good chunk of change in a team that lou because of his ego let crash and burn, I would go to court to get him out of there if necessary.

[TheMazz]

I'm confused by all of this...does this mean Kovy could be swiped by the Kings since the contract was rejected or is that part over with?

[FightingMongoose]

If Kovy's camp was not informed prior to the press conference then it would be seriously damaging to the organization. How will players/agents trust our management in the future? It will affect everything we do contract-wise while Lou remains at the helm. I hope we hear very soon that ALL parties were informed of the rejection (or possible rejection, which story turns out is true).

[Triumph]

My guess is that only vanderbeek would have been in the loop. He does not have a majority interest so other limited partners should have the ability to band together and vote or go to court and demand vanderbeek be stripped of management duties if he doesn't fire lou. Again, if it's true, and I invested a good chunk of change in a team that lou because of his ego let crash and burn, I would go to court to get him out of there if necessary.

i agree that a prolonged court battle that ends with vanderbeek being stripped of management duties and lou being fired would make the organization look a lot better.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Triumph

[Pepperkorn]

My guess is that only vanderbeek would have been in the loop. He does not have a majority interest so other limited partners should have the ability to band together and vote or go to court and demand vanderbeek be stripped of management duties if he doesn't fire lou. Again, if it's true, and I invested a good chunk of change in a team that lou because of his ego let crash and burn, I would go to court to get him out of there if necessary.

Spoken like a true moron I'm not refuting that's what you'd do -- nor what your typical investor non-hockey fan would do

[dejaentendu2101]

Was this posted:

NHLPA source: "To get arbitrator in place for Kovalchuk case could take months. "The NHL n Devils/Kovalchuk need to do this on their own."

[Pepperkorn]

i agree that a prolonged court battle that ends with vanderbeek being stripped of management duties and lou being fired would make the organization look a lot better.

[Amberite]

Reports are stating that should the NHLPA file a grievance, it might take months to find an arbiter that both sides agree on. If it goes longer than the start of the regular season, what happens?

Edited July 21, 2010 by Amberite

[Neutral Zone Trap]

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.

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.

[Triumph]

Reports are stating that should the NHLPA file a grievance, it might take months to find an arbiter that both sides agree on. If it goes longer than the start of the regular season, what happens?

he's not eligible to play until it is resolved.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

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.

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.

To the bolded, that is why the NHL will fail. You can't move the goalposts mid CBA.

[Amberite]

he's not eligible to play until it is resolved.

So what would happen with monetary issues? If the contract is found to be valid, I'm sure Kovalchuk will expect to be paid for those weeks / months, and I'm sure the Devils will refuse to pay it. Would the league be liable to pay his lost salary?

[Pepperkorn]

So what would happen with monetary issues? If the contract is found to be valid, I'm sure Kovalchuk will expect to be paid for those weeks / months, and I'm sure the Devils will refuse to pay it. Would the league be liable to pay his lost salary?

it would be part of the final judgement more than likely.

EDIT: well... if courts were involved. with an Arbitrator I'm not sure.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Pepperkorn

[HOLLYWOOD]

I'm confused by all of this...does this mean Kovy could be swiped by the Kings since the contract was rejected or is that part over with?

Not for a awhile... The NHLPA files a grievance, but there's no arbitrator iin the position at this time, so both the NHL and NHLPA have to find one they agree upon. This could be weeks before anything happens.

Frankly this has to be one of the biggest Publicity stunt in sports history. The NHL now has news/sports media and internet traffic as high as LeBron James decision activity.

Highest ratings in NHL history.

[Devils731]

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.

"Reasonable Man" is a very normal concept used in court. It's a very specific wording meaning the judge gets to decide what he thinks a "reasonable man" would think. It's one reason why you can never be 100% sure when you go to court, because the judge gets to take leeway in cases where his judgment is going to come into play. I didn't choose the "Reasonable Man" concept, it's been around for almost 200 years.

For example, I was just involved with a bankruptcy that was for way more than the Kovy contract as a whole, the judge through out all precedent and common law and decided his own way. Both the bankrupt company and the lawyers for the creditors thought the creditors argument was a slam dunk, precedent said it was a slam dunk, the judge went his own way and overturned all of it.

To the bolded, that is why the NHL will fail. You can't move the goalposts mid CBA.

They don't seem to be trying to move the goalposts, the league is saying the goalpost is 42 years old, it looks like to me. The league might be wrong, but I don't think they're necessarily changing their boundaries here.

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.

I'm not sure if it was a comic book or baseball card, but these circumstance really did happen. I set it up very specifically by having the expert be asked the price of the card by the seller first. It's a civil case, not a criminal, so the burden of proof is a lot different. A reasonable person knowing that card or book was worth huge money wouldn't have sold it for 100 bucks, so the transaction was rescinded since the card dealer had purposefully withheld the expertise he was supposed to be providing so the seller would make an unreasonable transaction.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Devils731

[theamazingtiny]

Like taken a big bite of a turd sandwich.

[Daniel]

Spoken like a true moron I'm not refuting that's what you'd do -- nor what your typical investor non-hockey fan would do

Let me explain this nice and slowly...

Lou knows on Monday night the league will void the contract. He knows this, doesn't tell Grossman or Kovalchuk, but instead goes ahead and has this press conference where Kovalchuk says things like "this is where I want to be", "I'm committed to winning, this is a great organization", and so forth. After those statements, Lou, with knowledge ahead of time with how the NHL is going to come down, says, for all intents and purposes, that the CBA is a joke, and I'm going to exploit its loopholes like everyone else does. Any half-way intelligent person knows that these remarks will be used against you before the arbitrator. At this point there is a significant risk that the arbitrator will affirm the league's decision and Kovalchuk is left again in the same process where he began, only at the disadvantage that if he wants to go somewhere else (and who wouldn't after he's been double crossed by the man he was gushing over at a press conference) every fan is going to look at him like a jackass, and every owner knows his bargaining power is severely weakened.

Under this scenario, it is foregone conclusion that Grossman will make it known, very loudly, that none of his clients will ever play for a Lamoriello run team. You can also probably write off ever signing another unrestricted free agent again, since they know they'll be working for a guy who's been known to stab players in the back and has negotiated in bad faith. In essence, you better hope that Tedenby and Josefson turn out to be Crosby and Malkin, because as soon as the opportunity arrives, Parise, Zajac, Greene, Clarkson are on their way out.

Again, if Grossman/Kovalchuk agreed to do the press conference knowing that the deal was going to be rejected, Lou did nothing wrong, except perhaps making a dumb comment or two. But if Lou hid the information he had, it would seriously, and perhaps irrevocably, destroy whatever good will the organization has had with the hockey community, and the team's bottom line will absolutely suffer.

Yes, there would be upheaval, but the finances are going to be worse in the long run when no one is going to games because you can't attract any talent or keep the home grown talent.

Now, a coherent response is welcome. I don't know how to respond to smiley faces and name calling.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Based on what I'm reading here, it sounds like the NHLPA/Devils/Kovalchuk have a much simpler case.

The NHL's case involves speculation as to intent when writing and signing a contract; speculation as to whether someone currently 27-years-old can/will still be working when he's 44; "Reasonable Man" and baseball card scenarios; the jaywalker who got caught doesn't deserve not to be punished simply because other jaywalkers weren't caught; etc.

The NHLPA/Devils/Kovalchuk's case is: Look at these contracts that were approved. Now look at this contract that wasn't. Same things.

Simpler may not necessarily mean better, but reading the NHL's point of view makes my brain hurt. Of course, I'm a relative idiot, so that may explain it.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Let me explain this nice and slowly...

Lou knows on Monday night the league will void the contract.

Stop right there ... did you see TG's latest Tweet? It sounds like Lou got the same heads-up that the Blackhawks, Canucks, Flyers, Bruins, etc. all got right before their contracts were all approved anyway.

[Pepperkorn]

Let me explain this nice and slowly...

Now, a coherent response is welcome. I don't know how to respond to smiley faces and name calling.

[lilgriffey84]

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)

The devils cap guy is the one who wrote the cba

[Devil Dan 56]

Let me explain this nice and slowly...

Lou knows on Monday night the league will void the contract. He knows this, doesn't tell Grossman or Kovalchuk, but instead goes ahead and has this press conference where Kovalchuk says things like "this is where I want to be", "I'm committed to winning, this is a great organization", and so forth. After those statements, Lou, with knowledge ahead of time with how the NHL is going to come down, says, for all intents and purposes, that the CBA is a joke, and I'm going to exploit its loopholes like everyone else does. Any half-way intelligent person knows that these remarks will be used against you before the arbitrator. At this point there is a significant risk that the arbitrator will affirm the league's decision and Kovalchuk is left again in the same process where he began, only at the disadvantage that if he wants to go somewhere else (and who wouldn't after he's been double crossed by the man he was gushing over at a press conference) every fan is going to look at him like a jackass, and every owner knows his bargaining power is severely weakened.

Under this scenario, it is foregone conclusion that Grossman will make it known, very loudly, that none of his clients will ever play for a Lamoriello run team. You can also probably write off ever signing another unrestricted free agent again, since they know they'll be working for a guy who's been known to stab players in the back and has negotiated in bad faith. In essence, you better hope that Tedenby and Josefson turn out to be Crosby and Malkin, because as soon as the opportunity arrives, Parise, Zajac, Greene, Clarkson are on their way out.

Again, if Grossman/Kovalchuk agreed to do the press conference knowing that the deal was going to be rejected, Lou did nothing wrong, except perhaps making a dumb comment or two. But if Lou hid the information he had, it would seriously, and perhaps irrevocably, destroy whatever good will the organization has had with the hockey community, and the team's bottom line will absolutely suffer.

Yes, there would be upheaval, but the finances are going to be worse in the long run when no one is going to games because you can't attract any talent or keep the home grown talent.

Now, a coherent response is welcome. I don't know how to respond to smiley faces and name calling.

You don't think you are overreacting a little bit here? According to TG, Lou was warned that it may be rejected. He was not told that it would definitely be rejected.

[maxpower]

looks like a picked a good week to go on vacation.

the contract is valid. still, the Devils did this in a way that brings the agitation level to ridiculous hights.

most notably:

1) having a press conference for a player who didn't have a valid contract

2) having the GM bash the contract during said press conference.

I don't understand of it. Kudos for Lou if he pulls this insanely cap cheap contract off, but I got a feeling we've got our Archduke moment for 2012 (or sooner), even if it goes through on review.

it seems much easier to lop 2 years off the deal, make it to 42 (which seems to be the outer limit for these), absorb a slightly bigger cap hit, and just move on.

and also, this is 100% JMHO... but, things like this are why the GM is the GM and the owner is the owner. this really doesn't seem to have Lou's fingerprints on it.

[maxpower]

my god, Daniel, that's the dumbest post I've ever read here. you're aware that the Hossa contract almost died on the table too, right? and they're not excommunicated from the hockey world...

everyone knew what they were doing here. including the Kings, whose offer would have been possibly even MORE offensive to the league than what the Devils put out there. $5.3M cap?

[lilgriffey84]

my god, Daniel, that's the dumbest post I've ever read here. you're aware that the Hossa contract almost died on the table too, right? and they're not excommunicated from the hockey world...

everyone knew what they were doing here. including the Kings, whose offer would have been possibly even MORE offensive to the league than what the Devils put out there. $5.3M cap?

the difference is the kings deal would have been approved