Jump to content

Photo

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")


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

#10501 lucifer91

lucifer91

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:48 PM

which doesn't mean flat either. I would say a contract that length has to dive down somewhat. I dont want to pay a player who is 42 yrs 5 mil a year
  • 0
Posted Image

#10502 msweet

msweet

    The Voice of Reason

  • Admin
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:50 PM

Lou was probably trying to bring the deal down as slowly as possible to keep the cap hit as manageable as possible. Instead of jumping straight to the 13-year/$91M deal spoken of so much around here, it probably went something like this:

Lou: How about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: We already rejected that.
Lou: OK, how about $101.5M over 17 years.
Daly: Come on, man.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16.5 years.
Daly: You can't have half-years in contracts.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You're breakin' my balls, Lou.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You just said that!
Lou: OK, how about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: You're going in the wrong direction there, chief.
Lou: OK, how about $100.5M over 16 years.
Daly: Only Luongo can play til he's 43.
Lou: OK, How about ... hey, that's B.S.!
Daly: Suck it.
Lou: You suck it.
Daly: Do you wanna sign this Kovalchuk guy or what?
Lou: OK, how about $100M over 15 years.
Daly: I don't hate that.
Lou: Suck it.


I should make this the POD...lmfao
  • 0
Follow me on Twitter @MSweetwood

"Quite frankly, all the players are getting paid too much and all the contracts are too long," general manager Lou Lamoriello said. "But if you want to compete in this market and you want to win, there are some things you have to do."


#10503 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,471 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:52 PM

read the ruling all the way through. they basically had a problem with every feature of the contract.

I don't see how 15/100 (if real) solves any of those. it would smack of a panic attack by the owner/agent and a last ditch, destined to fail, but if you don't try, you fail anyway.

it doesn't mean the deal is 15/100, but if it is... wow. it's not going to work. not with what you already know. it could work (or come close) if he had alot of 7's and 8's in there, but you know that's not going to be the case.


It wasn't that they had a problem every feature of the contract, it's that they had a problem with how all the features interacted together. If you take out or reduce 1 or 2 of the features, it read to me, that Bloch would have had a much more difficult time deciding the contract was circumvention in design.
  • 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

#10504 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,327 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:53 PM

i'm glad I've been away all day and have missed this latest installment of the circus.
  • 0

Winner of the 2009-10 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster
Winner of the 2011-2012 RD Avatar Award
believe2.jpg

www.numerartovertag.wordpress.com - An NHL Blog (in Swedish)


#10505 thelastonealive

thelastonealive

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,900 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:53 PM

Lou was probably trying to bring the deal down as slowly as possible to keep the cap hit as manageable as possible. Instead of jumping straight to the 13-year/$91M deal spoken of so much around here, it probably went something like this:

Lou: How about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: We already rejected that.
Lou: OK, how about $101.5M over 17 years.
Daly: Come on, man.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16.5 years.
Daly: You can't have half-years in contracts.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You're breakin' my balls, Lou.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You just said that!
Lou: OK, how about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: You're going in the wrong direction there, chief.
Lou: OK, how about $100.5M over 16 years.
Daly: Only Luongo can play til he's 43.
Lou: OK, How about ... hey, that's B.S.!
Daly: Suck it.
Lou: You suck it.
Daly: Do you wanna sign this Kovalchuk guy or what?
Lou: OK, how about $100M over 15 years.
Daly: I don't hate that.
Lou: Suck it.


:clap2:
  • 0

Proud recipient of the 2011-'12 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster, the  2007-'08, 2008-'09, and 2009-'10 Lady Byng Award for Nicest Poster, 

the 2008-'09 Bobby Holik Award for Funniest Poster, and the 2009-'10 NJDevs.com Stanley Cup for Best Overall Poster.
2009 NJDevs.com Survival League Football Champion


#10506 RizzMB30

RizzMB30

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:56 PM

wow, I feel like I blew a load then had my mom walk into the room... :noclue:

Rofl! Same here :rofl:
  • 0

This fan will never forget Scott Stevens.

 believe-ll.jpgbelieve-devs.jpg

 


#10507 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:56 PM

It wasn't that they had a problem every feature of the contract, it's that they had a problem with how all the features interacted together. If you take out or reduce 1 or 2 of the features, it read to me, that Bloch would have had a much more difficult time deciding the contract was circumvention in design.


do you think 10/90 that is designed to look like 10/67 is getting through? I don't. that's pretty easy "cap circumvention" to define given their broad new mandate, no?

it has to be something different or, well, yeah... well... :lol:
  • 0

#10508 pattyelias

pattyelias

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,893 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:02 PM

do you think 10/90 that is designed to look like 10/67 is getting through? I don't. that's pretty easy "cap circumvention" to define given their broad new mandate, no?

it has to be something different or, well, yeah... well... :lol:


True with the numbers but if there is a NMC throughout the deal it will be tough to clear the space by trading or demoting Kovy. That cures a lot of the circumvention IMO.
  • 0

#10509 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:03 PM

Lou was probably trying to bring the deal down as slowly as possible to keep the cap hit as manageable as possible. Instead of jumping straight to the 13-year/$91M deal spoken of so much around here, it probably went something like this:

Lou: How about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: We already rejected that.
Lou: OK, how about $101.5M over 17 years.
Daly: Come on, man.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16.5 years.
Daly: You can't have half-years in contracts.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You're breakin' my balls, Lou.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You just said that!
Lou: OK, how about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: You're going in the wrong direction there, chief.
Lou: OK, how about $100.5M over 16 years.
Daly: Only Luongo can play til he's 43.
Lou: OK, How about ... hey, that's B.S.!
Daly: Suck it.
Lou: You suck it.
Daly: Do you wanna sign this Kovalchuk guy or what?
Lou: OK, how about $100M over 15 years.
Daly: I don't hate that.
Lou: Suck it.

That one blew me away DiG. :o :lol:
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#10510 Amberite

Amberite

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:05 PM

do you think 10/90 that is designed to look like 10/67 is getting through? I don't. that's pretty easy "cap circumvention" to define given their broad new mandate, no?

it has to be something different or, well, yeah... well... :lol:


Sorry, but what you're saying isn't right. Bloch (and the NHL) had a problem that the deal was a retirement contract and that he doesn't see Kovalchuk playing out the length of his contract. Not because he will be 44 and CAN'T, but because the money in the end is so insignificant that he would have no REASON to. If the money at the end is significant enough that it would cause a real dent in Kovalchuk's financials if he retired early, then it's a different story and there would be no reason to believe that Kovalchuk does not plan to play out the contract.
  • 0

#10511 Colin226

Colin226

    Hall of Famer

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,181 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:06 PM

Remember, we don't need the NHL to like this deal we just need Bloch to like it
  • 0
Posted Image
Season Ticket Holder since '08 - '09
Section 226 - Row 2 - Seats 15 and 16

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#10512 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,471 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:06 PM

do you think 10/90 that is designed to look like 10/67 is getting through? I don't. that's pretty easy "cap circumvention" to define given their broad new mandate, no?

it has to be something different or, well, yeah... well... :lol:


Every step back away from the last contract makes it that much harder for an arbitrator to say it's circumvention. I'm not sure, based on how Bloch wrote his opinion, that a 15 year deal chopping the last 2 years off of the last deal wouldn't have been ok by Bloch. It seemed to me he was saying all the "legs" needed to be blatantly obvious for him to believe bad intent was proven by design, so any lessening could be enough to take the "leg" away and I think Bloch needed all those "legs" to rule as he did.
  • 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

#10513 RizzMB30

RizzMB30

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:10 PM

Lou was probably trying to bring the deal down as slowly as possible to keep the cap hit as manageable as possible. Instead of jumping straight to the 13-year/$91M deal spoken of so much around here, it probably went something like this:

Lou: How about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: We already rejected that.
Lou: OK, how about $101.5M over 17 years.
Daly: Come on, man.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16.5 years.
Daly: You can't have half-years in contracts.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You're breakin' my balls, Lou.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You just said that!
Lou: OK, how about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: You're going in the wrong direction there, chief.
Lou: OK, how about $100.5M over 16 years.
Daly: Only Luongo can play til he's 43.
Lou: OK, How about ... hey, that's B.S.!
Daly: Suck it.
Lou: You suck it.
Daly: Do you wanna sign this Kovalchuk guy or what?
Lou: OK, how about $100M over 15 years.
Daly: I don't hate that.
Lou: Suck it.

Best thing EVER, these boards are the funniest. :rofl:
  • 0

This fan will never forget Scott Stevens.

 believe-ll.jpgbelieve-devs.jpg

 


#10514 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:15 PM

True with the numbers but if there is a NMC throughout the deal it will be tough to clear the space by trading or demoting Kovy. That cures a lot of the circumvention IMO.


it doesn't matter, because he's not going to stay to make that pittance at the end, whatever it is. the last deal really had no carrot past 10 years. it didn't need a NMC. he'd just "retire" ala Jagr or Naslund.
  • 0

#10515 pattyelias

pattyelias

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,893 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:17 PM

it doesn't matter, because he's not going to stay to make that pittance at the end, whatever it is. the last deal really had no carrot past 10 years. it didn't need a NMC. he'd just "retire" ala Jagr or Naslund.


Agreed. I'm assuming the last 3-4 years in this deal have some money in them equalling or exceeding the Hossa deal.
  • 0

#10516 RizzMB30

RizzMB30

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:20 PM

Agreed. I'm assuming the last 3-4 years in this deal have some money in them equalling or exceeding the Hossa deal.

Assuming that we take on how much of a cap hit after he retires???
  • 0

This fan will never forget Scott Stevens.

 believe-ll.jpgbelieve-devs.jpg

 


#10517 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:23 PM

Assuming that we take on how much of a cap hit after he retires???


we don't take ANY cap hit after he retires. so, you design a deal where he goes away after 10 (alright, maybe 11 on the first one) years. that's what I mean by a 10/95 deal that looks like a 10/60 deal. no incentive for him to stay. it just has another sh!tty contract welded to it to bring down the cap hit.
  • 0

#10518 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:23 PM

Agreed. I'm assuming the last 3-4 years in this deal have some money in them equalling or exceeding the Hossa deal.


i would hope well exceeding the hossa deal. 3M per would be nice. so okay assuming 15/100:

6 6 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 3

i think the NHL would have a hard time rejecting that contract and having it stick.
  • 0

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


#10519 mmajeski06

mmajeski06

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,997 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:23 PM

Lou was probably trying to bring the deal down as slowly as possible to keep the cap hit as manageable as possible. Instead of jumping straight to the 13-year/$91M deal spoken of so much around here, it probably went something like this:

Lou: How about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: We already rejected that.
Lou: OK, how about $101.5M over 17 years.
Daly: Come on, man.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16.5 years.
Daly: You can't have half-years in contracts.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You're breakin' my balls, Lou.
Lou: OK, how about $101M over 16 years.
Daly: You just said that!
Lou: OK, how about $102M over 17 years.
Daly: You're going in the wrong direction there, chief.
Lou: OK, how about $100.5M over 16 years.
Daly: Only Luongo can play til he's 43.
Lou: OK, How about ... hey, that's B.S.!
Daly: Suck it.
Lou: You suck it.
Daly: Do you wanna sign this Kovalchuk guy or what?
Lou: OK, how about $100M over 15 years.
Daly: I don't hate that.
Lou: Suck it.


One of my favorite posts in this entire thread.
  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image

#10520 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:24 PM

i would hope well exceeding the hossa deal. 3M per would be nice. so okay assuming 15/100:

6 6 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 3

i think the NHL would have a hard time rejecting that contract and having it stick.


if he takes 10/78, I will be floored, but that's around where he has to be. I'd even kick in more money to graze the cap hit up.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users