I think pride is a factor basically the nhl is putting its foot down on the devils when they had the oppurtunity to do it with the other contracts. Also how can you allow the stanley cup champions blackhawks and the Phailures who were the runner up get there contracts passed. This is an uneven playing field in my mind. if the hawks and phailures along with numerous other clubs were allowed to make the same deals who is the nhl to say that the devils cantThat's what I thought too, that a new deal could be created to avoid the arbitration...in fact the rule I posted seems to suggest it. But I agree with you, that since I haven't heard any sportswriters mention the clause I posted it doesn't apply for some reason.
New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")
#6581
Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:37 AM
Of the Kovalchuk Saga & Kovalchuk fan hostage crisis
#6582
Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:51 AM
this is basically a combination of all of these whacky deals stretched out to maximum length.
#6583
Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:54 AM
kovy wants to play until he is 44it's not really the same contract though. the Devils had a chance to put the same contract out there, but they dragged it out 2 years longer for some unknown reason.
this is basically a combination of all of these whacky deals stretched out to maximum length.
Of the Kovalchuk Saga & Kovalchuk fan hostage crisis
#6584
Posted 22 July 2010 - 05:52 AM
I still say this is all the greatest publicity stunt in NHL history. The media is running with it full speed.
http://www.latimes.c...0,4820847.story
Kings would be interested in resuming pursuit of Ilya Kovalchuk
The Kings could again try to sign the forward if his 17-year, $102-million contract with New Jersey is invalidated on the grounds that it circumvents the league's salary cap.
#6585
Posted 22 July 2010 - 06:52 AM
http://www.montrealg...7473/story.html
Making a deal with the Devils
The Devils acquired Kovalchuk in a mid-season trade with the Atlanta Thrashers last season and along with the Los Angeles Kings have courted him since free agency began July 1. Kings general manager Dean Lombardi told the team's website his club would still be interested in signing Kovalchuk if the deal with the Devils falls through.
#6586
Posted 22 July 2010 - 06:54 AM
I have full confidence that #17 will be here for quite some time.
#6587
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:13 AM
All is well. The NHL simply fired a salvo across the bow of the GMs fully knowing they will not win in arbitration. On the longshot the NHL does win, the contract would be tweaked such that the NHL could not reject it again.
I have full confidence that #17 will be here for quite some time.
Here's hoping.
I thought maybe this was a blessing... I mean talk to us in 10 years and we might not even want any part of Kovalchuk. But I'm all for it now, and I don't understand why the NHL would take it out on New Jersey, and not start at the Hossa contract.
#6588
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:22 AM
LA Kings looking to make a deal. Montreal Gazette reports...
http://www.montrealg...7473/story.html
Making a deal with the Devils
Oh no.
#6589
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:34 AM
Sole
of Emmy Rossum
#6590
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:36 AM
of each of Toronto's 6 shots on goal in Game 6
Deviling the Details - A feeble attempt at being a hockey writer.
#6591
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:51 AM
Edited by Amberite, 22 July 2010 - 07:53 AM.
#6592
Posted 22 July 2010 - 07:55 AM
Great article
Nhl may have picked the wrong fight
Yeah makes you think -- will the NHL reject any Islanders contract for circumventing the floor?
Yeah - until the next moron comes along -- next off-season probably. Only Devils fans will feel that way long term.I'm confident he returns even if the contract gets voided in arbitration. His comments tuesday at the press conference alone locked him in here. If he goes elsewhere at this point, it would create not only a fan backlash, but it would be a PR nightmare for him for the rest of his career. Every game, every mistake, every detail of his play would come into question and he would also could be looked upon as a fraud for saying so many things that made him seem dedicated to one team, and then for him to turn around and bolt just because the original contract was rejected by some fat midget who cant see over the steering wheel of his own car.
Edited by Pepperkorn, 22 July 2010 - 07:56 AM.
I'm here for the party

Just say no to Moe
#6593
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:05 AM
If I were representing the Devils organization, I wouldn't even think of suggesting a new deal to Kovalchuk. It's his job to come back and say - Look, can we re-structure this thing and see what happens?That's what I thought too, that a new deal could be created to avoid the arbitration...in fact the rule I posted seems to suggest it. But I agree with you, that since I haven't heard any sportswriters mention the clause I posted it doesn't apply for some reason.
Even if I'd want to give the NHL the big fvck you and fight to the death, it's all about what Kovalchuk wants, not the organization, THAT is what good faith negotiating is about. The whole claim is that the Devils were NOT negotiating in good faith. They were though - it's always been in Kovalchuk's court. That's one of the reason I like that he is on record as saying he wanted 17 years because it's his number - his dad died on the 17th. It has genuine significance to him. Even if it's a line it was HIS call not the organizations therefore NOT a bad-faith request on NJ's part.
Basically bottom line: If the Devils look to do anything other than follow Kovalchuk's lead it's proof positive of bad faith negotiation - if not before the rejection then it most certainly would be after the fact, And that is NOT the Devils way.
Edited by Pepperkorn, 22 July 2010 - 08:05 AM.
I'm here for the party

Just say no to Moe
#6594
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:18 AM
If I were representing the Devils organization, I wouldn't even think of suggesting a new deal to Kovalchuk. It's his job to come back and say - Look, can we re-structure this thing and see what happens?
Even if I'd want to give the NHL the big fvck you and fight to the death, it's all about what Kovalchuk wants, not the organization, THAT is what good faith negotiating is about. The whole claim is that the Devils were NOT negotiating in good faith. They were though - it's always been in Kovalchuk's court. That's one of the reason I like that he is on record as saying he wanted 17 years because it's his number - his dad died on the 17th. It has genuine significance to him. Even if it's a line it was HIS call not the organizations therefore NOT a bad-faith request on NJ's part.
Basically bottom line: If the Devils look to do anything other than follow Kovalchuk's lead it's proof positive of bad faith negotiation - if not before the rejection then it most certainly would be after the fact, And that is NOT the Devils way.
I agree with this completely. Well said, PK.
Newark: The City of New Jersey
#6595
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:24 AM
Yes yes -- all the pieces are just falling perfectly into place for me. I'm massively pissed I didn't get this right off the bat - we could have helped TG get the message straight. PuckDaddy could have spun it all out correctly from the start. But I ... I dont know if even I can get it all out properly now - what's so clear -- generally though, once I get it, the whole world has too so.... now it's re-spinning, rewinding and putting it all back the way Lou intended... (of course I knwo it's just the way I see things but I love to think I see them the Devils way
TRAUMA!
Edited by Pepperkorn, 22 July 2010 - 08:26 AM.
I'm here for the party

Just say no to Moe
#6596
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:28 AM
If I were representing the Devils organization, I wouldn't even think of suggesting a new deal to Kovalchuk. It's his job to come back and say - Look, can we re-structure this thing and see what happens?
Even if I'd want to give the NHL the big fvck you and fight to the death, it's all about what Kovalchuk wants, not the organization, THAT is what good faith negotiating is about. The whole claim is that the Devils were NOT negotiating in good faith. They were though - it's always been in Kovalchuk's court. That's one of the reason I like that he is on record as saying he wanted 17 years because it's his number - his dad died on the 17th. It has genuine significance to him. Even if it's a line it was HIS call not the organizations therefore NOT a bad-faith request on NJ's part.
Basically bottom line: If the Devils look to do anything other than follow Kovalchuk's lead it's proof positive of bad faith negotiation - if not before the rejection then it most certainly would be after the fact, And that is NOT the Devils way.
i didn't think of it like this, but you're absolutely right. it has to be kind of terrifying for lou and company to be in such a position, but their move should be no move at all.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
#6597
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:32 AM

#6598
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:40 AM
If it turns out the way I'm thinking it will... having the press conference knowing the contract was going to get rejected was GENIUS.
Now it's up to Kovy to live by his word. He said he wanted to be here and he said it's not about the money.
So he's got two options. He can either go to Lou and say "We can change this deal and make it acceptable to the leauge." Or he can agree to fight the hell out of his contract to make sure it's accepted by the arbitrator.
Lou's done a great job so far.
#6599
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:41 AM
Proud recipient of the 2011-'12 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster.
Proud recipient of the 2007-'08, 2008-'09, and 2009-'10 Lady Byng Award for Nicest Poster.
Proud recipient of the 2008-'09 Bobby Holik Award for Funniest Poster.
Proud recipient of the 2009-'10 NJDevs.com Stanley Cup for Best Overall Poster.
2009 NJDevs.com Survival League Football Champion
This Is Team. - Ilya Kovalchuk, 7/20/10
#6600
Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:42 AM
If I were representing the Devils organization, I wouldn't even think of suggesting a new deal to Kovalchuk. It's his job to come back and say - Look, can we re-structure this thing and see what happens?
Even if I'd want to give the NHL the big fvck you and fight to the death, it's all about what Kovalchuk wants, not the organization, THAT is what good faith negotiating is about. The whole claim is that the Devils were NOT negotiating in good faith. They were though - it's always been in Kovalchuk's court. That's one of the reason I like that he is on record as saying he wanted 17 years because it's his number - his dad died on the 17th. It has genuine significance to him. Even if it's a line it was HIS call not the organizations therefore NOT a bad-faith request on NJ's part.
Basically bottom line: If the Devils look to do anything other than follow Kovalchuk's lead it's proof positive of bad faith negotiation - if not before the rejection then it most certainly would be after the fact, And that is NOT the Devils way.
+1
Er ... I mean
We're all so used to the concept that Lou is always in control, but in a process like this, how much is the GM really the one in control? How much does the player and agent dictate? Is it really such a stretch to say Kovalchuk was the one insisting on 17 years (for all the reasons 17 is important to him) and $102M ($1M more than the Thrashers offered)? Is it really unfathomable that Kovy/Grossman put those numbers on the table and Vanderbeek told Lou to make it work, and Lou used the framework of previously approved contracts to construct something that technically abided by the CBA even though it made him roll his eyes?
I don't know ... I feel like this scenario, however unlikely it may be, fits Lou's quotes from the other day better than any other conspiracy theory floating around.

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




This topic is locked






