Jump to content

Photo

Kovalchuk/NHL Opinions


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

Poll: The Kovalchuk Saga (95 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you believe that the exact contract Ilya Kovalchuk signed should be allowed in the NHL?

  1. Yes (60 votes [63.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.16%

  2. No (35 votes [36.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.84%

Do you believe the NHL was justified in rejecting the Kovalchuk deal

  1. Yes (6 votes [6.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.32%

  2. No (73 votes [76.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 76.84%

  3. No - But I can admit it is only because it involves the Devils. Reject it if it was any other team (16 votes [16.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.84%

If #2 (No), why?

  1. Legal in the CBA (32 votes [33.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.68%

  2. NHL has already set the precedent with past deals (56 votes [58.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.95%

  3. Other (7 votes [7.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.37%

Do you believe Ilya Kovalchuk had any intention of playing out all 17 years in the contract?

  1. Yes (24 votes [25.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.26%

  2. No (71 votes [74.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 74.74%

What do you believe is the most suspicious aspect of this deal to the NHL?

  1. Length - 17 years (13 votes [13.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.68%

  2. Age at the end of the deal - 44 years old (31 votes [32.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.63%

  3. Final 5 years at $550,000 (51 votes [53.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.68%

What should the maximum length of a contract be?

  1. 7 (2 votes [2.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.11%

  2. 10 (19 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  3. 12 (8 votes [8.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.42%

  4. 15 (21 votes [22.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.11%

  5. Unlimited (33 votes [34.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.74%

  6. Other - Please Specify (12 votes [12.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.63%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 devilsrule33

devilsrule33

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,969 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:14 AM

Just a bunch of questions to see where the board stands on everything that has went down. Please feel free to reply with further explanations.

Edited by devilsrule33, 22 July 2010 - 12:36 AM.

  • 0

logokx.jpg

"The Stanley Cup has fallen from the Stars. The new millennium has its first Stanley Cup Champion, and it's the New Jersey Devils." Mike Miller calling the Devils winning the Stanley Cup.

"It goes to the captain and then there are handoffs during a skate around the ice" Mike Emrick as Scott Stevens is being presented the Stanley Cup.


#2 ice dog

ice dog

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 01:27 AM

yes, i believe the contract signed should be allowed since it is legal and there has been precedents set with other contracts. if the league is not happy with the CBA that should be addressed in a couple years when it is up!
  • 0
"Wendy...I'm home."
-Jack Torrance
Sherry Ross ‏@SherryDarlingNJ
"Little did we know the C on Parise's jersey stood for "C-ya, suckers!" Yes, I was fooled. And it is the collusion vibe that taints it."

#3 threestars

threestars

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,466 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:07 AM

I chose "Other" on the last question. I don't think a contract signed prior to age 35 should be allowed to extend beyond age 40. Doing that really is just trying to lower the cap number. I mean, c'mon, there is 5 years there you can write off if necessary!

Now I don't agree with all these LONG heavily front loaded contracts to start with, I do think that extending them with league minimum pay in the last few years is a severe loop-hole in the CBA, which to be fair, GMs are rightly exploiting.

NHL: lesson learnt...having a cap number is fine, but you have to limit the range the actual salary can be about this number.
  • 0

Posted Image

Official NJDevs.com Keeper of Lowell Devils' Goalies: Frank Doyle and (co-keeper) Jordan Parise; Keeper of former Ottawa Senator Dean McAmmond; co-Keeper of David Clarkson; Keeper of the first goal at The Rock (thank you Meszaros/Neil) and the first EN goal at The Rock (thanks Alfie); and co-Keeper of NJDevs.com Keepers.

Proud recipient of the 2008 NJDevs.com Joe Nieuwendyk Award for Best Non-Devils Fan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

GO SENS GO!!!Posted ImageGO SENSGO!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I curse you Noah Webster for your defamation of the English language. I spit on you.

#4 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:12 AM

I chose "Other" on the last question. I don't think a contract signed prior to age 35 should be allowed to extend beyond age 40. Doing that really is just trying to lower the cap number. I mean, c'mon, there is 5 years there you can write off if necessary!

Now I don't agree with all these LONG heavily front loaded contracts to start with, I do think that extending them with league minimum pay in the last few years is a severe loop-hole in the CBA, which to be fair, GMs are rightly exploiting.

NHL: lesson learnt...having a cap number is fine, but you have to limit the range the actual salary can be about this number.


the problem is that they had to stop these the first time and didn't. and there's plenty of them, including lesser knowns such as Duncan Keith's (albeit not as severe)

if you allow one and don't allow another one, it's kind of thorny. the Devils did them a favor by making the contract unique, though.

IMO, Luongo's is the most ridiculous because of his playing style. it's possible he might break down and not make it halfway through at anything resembling what he is now
  • 0

#5 MartysGlove

MartysGlove

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 274 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:21 AM

Regarding one of the questions:

It should not matter what the salary of the last few seasons are.

If the NHL thinks that this contract was made to circumvent the cap, it doesn't matter if the last 5 years are 1 mill, 2 mill, or pennies. As long as the last 5 years bring down the entire cap hit, it qualifies (to the NHL) as cap circumvention.

If the Devils add 2 mill to the deal and make the last few years 1 mill each, the NHL *should* reject it as well on the same basis as this one.

It has to be the age/length of the deal, but again, unless the NHL has evidence that Kovy plans to retire at age 42 and *both* parties were aware of that fact (as in, it is not enough if the NHL proves that only the Devils intended for Kovy to retire at age 42), they have no case and this is just a calculated risk that the NHL took.

No systems arbitrator means that all parties involved will want to get this resolved without filing a grievance. Thus, the NHL successfully accomplishes what it sought out to do, it drew the line in the sand. Had there been a systems arbitrator in place, this would have gone the distance. So another failure on the NHLPA's part, thankfully it should only cost the Devils .8 in salary cap space.
  • 0

#6 brickwall30

brickwall30

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 02:48 AM

1) no they shouldn't be allowed. They clearly undermine a salary cap

BUT

2) no, they are not justified in this rejection because the CBA clearly states that this is legal as far as all rules previously agreed upon in the 2005 CBA other than the "I don't care that we didn't agree on this, I can decide I don't like this then void the contract and there is nothing you can do about it" clause where they determine if it circumvents the cap.

3 & 4) I don't think he INTENDS to play out this contract, but he may decide later that he still wants to play so it's an irrelevant point really, and I think the most suspicious part of the deal that would indicate his intent is that the last 5 years are far below what even the worst NHL rookies would make. This, however, is not a sure thing considering chelios just played for about that much last season and was playing on an AHL contract the year before so no one can arbitrarily make the determination that because it's almost no money he won't be playing.

5) I think that in the next CBA they can finish these contracts off forever by disallowing all multiyear contracts that extend beyond age 40. once you turn 40 you are required to sign 1 year contracts every season. Problem solved
  • 0

#7 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 08:05 AM

the problem is that they had to stop these the first time and didn't. and there's plenty of them, including lesser knowns such as Duncan Keith's (albeit not as severe)

if you allow one and don't allow another one, it's kind of thorny. the Devils did them a favor by making the contract unique, though.

IMO, Luongo's is the most ridiculous because of his playing style. it's possible he might break down and not make it halfway through at anything resembling what he is now


this is more of a problem for vancouver, no? his salary doesn't go down to 3.8 million until luongo is 39.
  • 0

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


#8 point

point

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 09:22 AM

The length of the contract should be dependent on the player's age at signing. If a player is 38, the chances of him playing past age 40 are higher than a 27 year old.
  • 0
2 C6H12O6 > 2 C2H5OH + 2CO2

#9 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,251 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 09:30 AM

the current CBA allows for it - that's it.

now, the new CBA should close this loophole a bit.

personally, i would not allow a multi year deal to be signed that takes a player past his 40th birthday season.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#10 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,511 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 09:50 AM

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.
  • 0

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


#11 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,251 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 10:17 AM

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.


for people looking w/ Devils glasses - yes. but i really don't have a problem with it per se. but there is risk involved for sure. what if kovalchuk turns into a 25-30 goal guy in 3 years and essentially floats? the devils will still owe him $60MM for the next 7 years.

and players signing these deals will insist on NMC's so there's no threat of the minors to make them retire. you could argue it's an advantage to richer clubs, but they should have some advantage - they're the ones that pumps money back into the league.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#12 RolandNJD

RolandNJD

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 10:20 AM

I said no to Kovy's intentions of playing out the entire contract. But I also don't think Hossa/ Pronger/ Luongo have any intention either...
  • 0
Go Devils.

#13 Scott O

Scott O

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:33 AM

The length of the contract should be dependent on the player's age at signing. If a player is 38, the chances of him playing past age 40 are higher than a 27 year old.


I agree 100%
  • 0


#14 devilsrule33

devilsrule33

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,969 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:39 AM

i do find this 40 to 4 vote split hilarious. if the rangers signed kovalchuk to this contract, the votes would go pretty much the opposite.


It really is (although now it is worse at 53-4). I thought more than 9 people would admit it is only because it was a Devils deal getting rejected. I took that poll basically right off ESPN. The results are that 69% believe that the NHL was justified to 31% with over 33,000 votes. No surprise there that the state of New Jersey is the only state that disagrees.

And this has been my point about any debate. No one would have the same opinion if it was there team so almost every argument is pointless. The same Penguins fans who are happy the NHL rejected the deal would be furious if it stopped them from signing say Malkin long-term. And the same Devils fans here 2ho are upset would be the ones laughing now.

On this board, most posters are asking for Campbell to throw the book at player who injures a player badly or gives a cheapshot. Yet when Janssen hit Kaberle a few years ago, fans were dissecting that video like it was the Zapruder Film to show it wasn't dirty. They were pretty pissed when Cam got 3 games.

Very few die hard sports fans can truly take the blinders off.
  • 0

logokx.jpg

"The Stanley Cup has fallen from the Stars. The new millennium has its first Stanley Cup Champion, and it's the New Jersey Devils." Mike Miller calling the Devils winning the Stanley Cup.

"It goes to the captain and then there are handoffs during a skate around the ice" Mike Emrick as Scott Stevens is being presented the Stanley Cup.


#15 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:49 AM

I'm not sure I see what the problem is with deals the way they are. All I've seen is that other GMs are upset, but I haven't really heard reasons. I'm not sure why they're so upset, though, since so many of them have handed out contracts like this at one point or another.

It makes the players happy because they can get their big paydays. It makes the teams happy because it allows them to have a manageable cap hit. It makes fans happy because they can buy a player's jersey and know he'll be around to keep it relevant for more than a year or two.

I guess the ones making the biggest stinks would be the smaller markets who can't financially afford the big paydays at the start of these contracts, thus defeating the "spirit of the cap", aka parity. And I guess they'd have a point. Looks like I answered my own question.

Maybe the true solution doesn't lie in changing the way contracts are structured, but instead lies in more meaningful revenue sharing. But then the case could be made that some teams could hover about the cap floor, picking up big cap contracts that pay little (think Kovalchuk when he's 42) while raking in the revenue-sharing bucks ... the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NHL, so to speak.

Perhaps the only possible solution is coming to a realization that no matter what system is put in place, loopholes will be found and exploited.
  • 0
Posted Image

"I don't like those Rangers fans from New Jersey." - Jim Dowd

#16 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,251 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 11:56 AM

DIG - lower salaried players also have a beef because these contract hand out more salary than the cap - thus increasing expenses for the league - thus keeping more of the players' escrow. guys making under $1.5MM take a huge bite when the escrow gets held. i don't want this to turn into an argument over guys getting paid millions to play a game - we're past that and it's really a sh!tty argument to use in sports. its idealistic and just untrue. we love it - it's theater but it's still a job for these guys and earning potential in this career is VERY limited.

Regarding solutions - many here could write a completely new CBA that makes sense and would be a fair compromise for each side - providing a way for big markets and small markets to have a relatively level playing field while still giving an advantage to clubs in higher revenue markets because they're the ones that are making the most money for the league in the first place. that's for another time though.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#17 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,982 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:00 PM

Regardless, hopefully this brings back the 'Us (the devils) against the world' attitude that it seemed like we used to use to our advantage.
  • 0

#18 DevilNurn

DevilNurn

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,129 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:03 PM

I don't think his contract SHOULD be allowed but I don't think the NHL was justified in denying it, because it follows precedents and the CBA.
  • 0

#19 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,777 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:04 PM

No these types of deals shouldn't be allowed.

No they are not justified in rejecting it because of precedent.

No he will not play when he's 44.

The $550K for the last four years is the most suspicious part of it.

And I don't think there should be a maximum amount of years in a contract, but there should be a rule put in place to get rid of these types of deals. Maybe make it so the amount of money has to be the same each year or something.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#20 DaneykoIsGod

DaneykoIsGod

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,187 posts

Posted 22 July 2010 - 12:26 PM

DIG - lower salaried players also have a beef because these contract hand out more salary than the cap - thus increasing expenses for the league - thus keeping more of the players' escrow. guys making under $1.5MM take a huge bite when the escrow gets held. i don't want this to turn into an argument over guys getting paid millions to play a game - we're past that and it's really a sh!tty argument to use in sports. its idealistic and just untrue. we love it - it's theater but it's still a job for these guys and earning potential in this career is VERY limited.


Ah, escrow. That sounds familiar now that you mention it. Thanks for pointing that aspect out.
  • 0
Posted Image

"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