Jump to content

Photo

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12374 replies to this topic

#6121 gogonjdevil

gogonjdevil

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 07:57 AM

I would say the odds of that are all but zero. He will be a Devil, but the structure of his current deal will change. When this was signed, I woudl bet any amount of money both the Devils and Kovy's agent knew this was a possiblity and had contingency plans.

If you look at this contract w/o the kool-aid, you see that it was for 8, 9, or 10 years. To think that Kovy would be playing in year 11 for 3.5 is a stretch, and you can even make the arguement that he would not be playing in year 10 for 6.5.

You re-do the deal with more money up front thus making the PV and cap hit similar. Personally I would suspect that is why the first two years at at 6 - giving them room to do this.


If that is true and Lou always suspected that Bettman would veto this, then that's genius (Not that LL isn't genius). I hope it is true, because I really want Lou to slap Bettman in the face with a new contract that's almost identical to the other ones that were approved and be like "reject this one BITCH!"
  • 0


believe-mb30.jpg
gallery_47_36_882.png of ALL Devil's Fans' Hatred and Animosity toward Bettman!
I HOPE YOU GET A DISFIGURING DISEASE AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH LIFE LOOKING LIKE A TROLL, BETTMAN. Oh...TOO LATE!!


#6122 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 07:59 AM

There is no way any judge/arbiter is going to rule that age 44 is legally unreasonable. Not when there are other players currently active in their 40s.


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%.
  • 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

#6123 BlueSkirt

BlueSkirt

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,776 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:05 AM

Blueskirt - if I am understanding you correctly your main premise is that if 90% or so of the contract is paid in 58% of the term, all is good. Number are approx...so lets say Chicago signed Towes (age 22) to the following deal...

30 years 140 million (4.7 per)
128 mil (91%) paid in the years 1-17.

This would be ok and not an attempt to get around the salary cap?


I don't have a dog in this fight, I merely posted comparative numbers to show that the front-loading of this contract is more than the others, but still comparable to other accepted deals.


I think the Cap rules have lots of problems, but still it's not correct to limit contracts to 5, 10, 15, 20 years because many players have had such careers.
I think a 25, or 30 year limit is reasonable.
Heck Gretzky signed a 20 year deal when he joined the WHA.


So understand my point. The contract is currently allowed based on age or term. the final year's salaries is what is unrealistic.
The next CBA needs a max-contract term rule, as well as, salary ratios that cover the length of the deal.

Kovalchuk was slated to earn $95 million over the first 10 years (quite reasonable) and then just $7 million over the last seven seasons ( probably unreasonable because it is in years 2020-2027).
1 million a year in 2015 is reasonable but in 2025 it is not.
  • 0

#6124 Chimaira_Devil_#9

Chimaira_Devil_#9

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,049 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:05 AM

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%.



Shhhhhhhh!!!!!

Stop providing the NHL with evidence.
  • 0

OFFICIAL KEEPER OF:Dainius Zubrus......Andy Greene.......Vladimir Zharkov and Alexander Vasyunov

Posted Image

Winner of the 07/08 ,08/09 & 10/11 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster


#6125 Amberite

Amberite

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:07 AM

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 by Amberite, 21 July 2010 - 08:14 AM.

  • 0

#6126 BlueSkirt

BlueSkirt

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,776 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:12 AM

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
  • 0

#6127 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:14 AM

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.
  • 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

#6128 bg.

bg.

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:19 AM

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 by bg., 21 July 2010 - 08:28 AM.

  • 0

#6129 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,885 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:28 AM

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.behindthe...ks-contract-was
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#6130 bg.

bg.

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:37 AM

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.
  • 0

#6131 jonnyd91

jonnyd91

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:42 AM

WHo is this tool?
http://www.hockeybuz...y/WTF/125/29433

reading this made me really want to reach out and smack him.
  • 0

#6132 mikeford

mikeford

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:45 AM

So did Grossman not go on XM this morning?
  • 0

#6133 dejaentendu2101

dejaentendu2101

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:46 AM

He couldn't go on because of this situation.


Edited by dejaentendu2101, 21 July 2010 - 08:47 AM.

  • 0

#6134 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,885 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:52 AM

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 by Triumph, 21 July 2010 - 08:52 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#6135 dejaentendu2101

dejaentendu2101

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 08:52 AM

So did Grossman not go on XM this morning?


No he didn't. He wasn't allowed to cause of this situation.
  • 0

#6136 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,661 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:00 AM

From now on Bettman will officially be known as Buzz Killington.
  • 0

screenshot-sml-40.jpg
 


#6137 BlueSkirt

BlueSkirt

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,776 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:09 AM

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.
  • 0

#6138 Devs3cups

Devs3cups

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,555 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:09 AM

Questions, Do you guys think kovy will still sign with us?
And how long do you think this process will last?
  • 0

n2eg.jpg 

"BELIEVE in our team. We've had difficult momments as a fanbase, but we will get out of it"


#6139 CarpathianForest

CarpathianForest

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,661 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:14 AM

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?
  • 0

screenshot-sml-40.jpg
 


#6140 dejaentendu2101

dejaentendu2101

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 July 2010 - 09:14 AM

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.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users