Jump to content

Photo

Rumor: Devils plan to/have challenge(d) Kovy penalty


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 RowdyFan42

RowdyFan42

    A Legend

  • Tech Support
  • 12,613 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:35 PM

I think arguing the penalty was excessive and arbitrary has 2 problems.  1)  Was the penalty excessive and arbitrary?  That's a judgement call, the league will argue no and the Devils will argue yes and so it becomes he said. she said type thing. 2)  Is there any language to prevent the league from being excessive and arbitrary?  I don't think there really is, the league is really given almost carte blanche in deciding punishment.  You can argue rules were not broken but I find it very hard to rule the league isn't allowed to lay out any penalty it wants.
 
Basically the Devils are part of the NHL which is governed by the CBA, the NHLPA, the BOG, and the Commisioner.  There really isn't a "that's not fair" argument that you can make to an arbitrator because the person who defines fairness is also the person who gave the penalty.  You would need the league admitting to the arbitrator that the ruling was unfair to get an arbitrator to rule in your favor, IMO.

The penalty isn't excessive and arbitrary based on the actual terms (although I wouldn't oppose someone making that argument). The problem with the penalty is that the Devils were the only team to be hit. The league turned a blind eye to other, similar cap circumventions and randomly decided enough was enough when the Devils did it; while they're within their rights to put a stop to those contracts, it is inconsistent to punish only one of many guilty parties.

I could ask the rhetorical question "what's different about the Kovalchuk contract that caused it to be blocked while other, similar contracts were allowed?", but someone would be pedantic enough to answer it. The point is that the CBA was vague enough in this particular area that there was no clear "letter of the law", with the closest you can come to it being "commissioner's discretion", and I have a hard time accepting an argument that violations of the "spirit of the law" are punishable by BOTH a stiff fine AND the forfeiture of multiple draft picks.
  • 0
Posted Image of the Devils' mascot, NJ Devil, and Posted Image of all mascots far and wide.

IT IS VERY HARD TO WIN ONE STANLEY CUP, FORGET ABOUT THREE... and maybe it's high time some of you actually APPRECIATED THAT instead of treating it like it's some flipping birthright because for some random reason you rooted for the damn Devils!!!!! Posted Image


AHLFans.net - American Hockey League fan forums

#42 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,481 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:20 PM

It doesn't really matter if the punishment was arbitrary or fair, you have to explain why the league doesn't have the right to punish teams as they feel fit.  The CBA gives the league that authority so an arbitrator isn't going to decide the CBA shouldn't be followed and he'll go with his gut.


  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#43 RowdyFan42

RowdyFan42

    A Legend

  • Tech Support
  • 12,613 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:14 PM

Why should the league get to see fit to punish only the Devils and no one else?
  • 0
Posted Image of the Devils' mascot, NJ Devil, and Posted Image of all mascots far and wide.

IT IS VERY HARD TO WIN ONE STANLEY CUP, FORGET ABOUT THREE... and maybe it's high time some of you actually APPRECIATED THAT instead of treating it like it's some flipping birthright because for some random reason you rooted for the damn Devils!!!!! Posted Image


AHLFans.net - American Hockey League fan forums

#44 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,481 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:17 PM

Why should the league get to see fit to punish only the Devils and no one else?


The league gets to decide the appropriate punishment on everyone and that's what they did.

The Devils need a better argument than "it wasn't fair" since the league gets to decide on fairness.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#45 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 10:26 PM

Technically they did end up punishing everyone after signing off that they wouldn't.   Of course that was another labor negotiation, that for many of the cases, is subject to another labor negotiation in the future.

 

It is what it is, they were the ones caught in the cookie jar.   Inventing their own minimum salary 10+ years out into the future probably didn't help the cause, either.


  • 0

#46 RowdyFan42

RowdyFan42

    A Legend

  • Tech Support
  • 12,613 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:52 PM

The league gets to decide the appropriate punishment on everyone and that's what they did.

The Devils need a better argument than "it wasn't fair" since the league gets to decide on fairness.


Yes, I'll admit that you could distill the argument down to "it's not fair", especially if you're doing so to discredit it. But that's the thing: DOES the league get to decide on fairness? Do they get to single out the Devils because, as maxpower said, the Devs were the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar? The league knew that other teams had been in the cookie jar too, but only the Devils got punished for it. Is that something they're allowed to do?

Maybe that won't be the argument (assuming, of course, that these rumors are true). Maybe -- instead of fairness, equitability, what have you -- they'll go with the severity of the punishment, specifically the severity of losing a first-round draft pick. That is, does the punishment fit the crime, or is it more evidence that the league went overboard to make an example of the Devils?
  • 0
Posted Image of the Devils' mascot, NJ Devil, and Posted Image of all mascots far and wide.

IT IS VERY HARD TO WIN ONE STANLEY CUP, FORGET ABOUT THREE... and maybe it's high time some of you actually APPRECIATED THAT instead of treating it like it's some flipping birthright because for some random reason you rooted for the damn Devils!!!!! Posted Image


AHLFans.net - American Hockey League fan forums

#47 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,481 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:03 AM

The league gets to decide fairness and severity, that's what the CBA says.  If you have a problem with the fairness or severity there is an appeals process so the arbitrator needs a reason for you saying the language of the CBA isn't applicable here and I don't see any reason why that is so.

 

The league knew that other teams had been in the cookie jar too, but only the Devils got punished for it. Is that something they're allowed to do?

 

 

In short, yes, the league gets to decide punishments, just like the league gets to decide suspension lengths for players where Player A does the same thing as Player B but Player A gets no punishment and Player B gets severe punishment for no discernible difference.  There is an appeals process for both so it's unlikely an arbitrator could be brought in.  Then, even if you get it to an arbitrator somehow, you need a reason why the process that was agreed upon wasn't followed properly.


  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#48 lucifer91

lucifer91

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 878 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:32 AM

Technically they did end up punishing everyone after signing off that they wouldn't.   Of course that was another labor negotiation, that for many of the cases, is subject to another labor negotiation in the future.

 

It is what it is, they were the ones caught in the cookie jar.   Inventing their own minimum salary 10+ years out into the future probably didn't help the cause, either.

 

Isn't it then basically penalizing the devils twice?  I though legally you can get penalized twice for the same crime, so to say.  Anyway, they might not see the cap recapture as a penalty, just an adjustment to the CBA.


  • 0
Posted Image

#49 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:49 AM

Why should the league get to see fit to punish only the Devils and no one else?

 

The NHL's only response to this has been, and will continue to be, that the arbitrator ruled the initial Kovy contract circumvented the cap.  No other team was found to have done that with 1 of their player contracts and for this reason, and this reason, alone, the Devils were the only team punished. 

 

The obvious problem with the NHL's position is that they never challenged any of the other cap circumvention contracts (DiPietro, Luongo, Pronger, Zetterberg, etc.), so nobody knows how an arbitrator would have ruled on those deals.  


  • 0
Posted Image

#50 Chuck the Duck

Chuck the Duck

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 08:57 AM

Isn't it then basically penalizing the devils twice?  I though legally you can get penalized twice for the same crime, so to say.  Anyway, they might not see the cap recapture as a penalty, just an adjustment to the CBA.

 

In the criminal world, you can't be penalized for the same crime twice (it's called double jeopardy).  HOwever, the NHL operates by its own set of rules and standards which are not goverened the same way as our justice system.  That's why we can be penalized twice, seemingly at the whim of the great Dictator himself, Gary Bettman.

 

bettman-rat.jpg


  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users