New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[Legion15]

Edited July 22, 2010 by Legion15

[DaneykoIsGod]

Since the Hossa and Pronger deals keep coming up, I thought it would be relevant to post some other info on that saga.

Hossa signed his contract on July 1 and Pronger signed his on July 7. I've read someone else post that the NHL has something in the neighborhood of five days to approve or disapprove of a contract. The NHL launched its investigation into these contracts on July 31, 30 days after Hossa and 24 days after Pronger put ink to paper.

It makes me wonder. Were both contracts already approved? Did they launch this investigation and find them to be up to snuff? Or did they find that they shouldn't have approved them, but it was too late to do anything about it so they decided they wouldn't allow the next one that came along?

Found this article from a year ago by a Blackhawks beat writer:

The NHL has absolutely no right to be angry about this now. If it were such a big deal, why on Earth did the league allow these contracts to be signed? Did they not review the contracts before they approved them? Did they review them, deem them fit, and are now succumbing to pressure imposed by other GM’s to do something about the sudden “epidemic” of long-term front loaded deals?

In any case, since the league waited nearly a month to raise any sort of a stink about this, and that time frame alone should be enough to get the Flyers and Blackhawks off the hook. These contracts go through loopholes that have been exploited ever since the new CBA came into effect, and the fact that the league is only now cracking down is a joke.

In addition, the NHL’s notion of a “spirit of the salary cap” being something that they need to protect is as vague as the idea that MLB commissioner Bud Selig can act unilaterally “in the best interests of baseball”. This kind of business idealism has no place in any profession, and certainly not in one as large as the NHL.

If you were to bring a lawsuit into court that a vendor violated a “spirit of competition” by lowering their prices to make you look bad, you would be laughed out of the courtroom. This is essentially the argument that the league is using in this situation, and the idea that they think they’re right is ludicrous.

The nature of the argument the NHL is using is similar to the one that one of my good friends used while discussing Manny Ramirez’s 50-game suspension from baseball for using a banned substance. His argument was that the rule SHOULD be that he shouldn’t be allowed to start his rehab assignment until his 50-game suspension was over, and many people agreed with his thinking.

The issue of what a rule SHOULD be, however, is irrelevant to what the rule actually IS. If there is no hard and fast rule against the type of contracts that these two players signed, then the NHL needs to pack it in and move on.

In reality, this whole situation reeks of appeasing the other GM’s of the league. if you don’t believe that statement, this quote by a league executive sums it up pretty well:

“The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end……..they are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won’t just go away. Lots of other GM’s are supporting the league here.”

To put this situation in a nutshell, the NHL is seeking out the Blackhawks, to make an “example” of them, for not reasons of competitive fairness, but because they are being pressured to by other GM’s, and they are kow-towing to their demands.

I guess the NHL failed in its attempt to appease GMs and make an example of the Blackhawks and Flyers, a point driven home by the fact that the Devils are even attempting to put forth a contract that exploits the exact same loopholes. Now, instead of approving it first and investigating later, they're rejecting it outright in the first place.

We'll see how it plays out this time.

[Daniel]

my god, Daniel, that's the dumbest post I've ever read here. you're aware that the Hossa contract almost died on the table too, right? and they're not excommunicated from the hockey world...

everyone knew what they were doing here. including the Kings, whose offer would have been possibly even MORE offensive to the league than what the Devils put out there. $5.3M cap?

I'm not as familiar with the Hossa situation, except that it was a similar contract and was ultimately approved, and I'll take your word for it that Hossa/Chicago got warnings from the league. What I don't recall ever happening was Chicago hiding specific warnings from Hossa and his agent that the deal would be challenged BEFORE you have a press conference where remarks are made that can seriously damage the player's reputation and compromise ability to negotiate another deal if the rejection is upheld.

Again, if Kovalchuk/Grossman went into the press conference eyes wide open as to what was going to happen next, than Lou did nothing wrong, and it's all a moot point. Given how bizarre the whole situation has been though, I'm not discounting any possibility that isn't thrown out there by Єklund (2.3% accurate).

And the offer the Kings supposedly had on the table is irrelevant to what I'm afraid of. It's the way the situation I stress might have been handled AFTER an agreement was reached which concerns me.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Daniel

[David Puddy]

The NHL now has news/sports media and internet traffic as high as LeBron James decision activity.

Not quite.... http://www.google.com/trends?q=kovalchuk%2C+lebron&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=1

[Devils731]

Not quite.... http://www.google.com/trends?q=kovalchuk%2C+lebron&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=1

That graph doesn't include the last 2 days though. Although I suspect Lebron would still be a larger bump.

[TheMazz]

Like taken a big bite of a turd sandwich.

It is...the most interesting sandwich it the world.

[maxpower]

the difference is the kings deal would have been approved

nope. no way. the cap hit is $5.33M, and out at 42. and since Kovalchuk demanded this $10M per (or highest player in the league pay), it would be structured the same way or worse.

this whole situation has been a speed trap they were waiting for. they have to put up a fight because their poorly written CBA is about to be blown to pieces.

not that the CBA is working properly, but that's another story for another day. that this whole Kovalchuk situation worked out the way it did, tells you this CBA is DOA. it's getting harder and harder for teams to get into the market, and every year, someone has to come out of the market. who's going to be left in 2 years, even with these cartoon contracts?

I don't see how they can win the fight, though, because there's nothing in the language of the CBA that says this is illegal. other than that vague "circumvention" rule. except almost everything that happens these days is cap circumvention.

[Daniel]

nope. no way. the cap hit is $5.33M, and out at 42. and since Kovalchuk demanded this $10M per (or highest player in the league pay), it would be structured the same way or worse.

this whole situation has been a speed trap they were waiting for. they have to put up a fight because their poorly written CBA is about to be blown to pieces.

not that the CBA is working properly, but that's another story for another day. that this whole Kovalchuk situation worked out the way it did, tells you this CBA is DOA. it's getting harder and harder for teams to get into the market, and every year, someone has to come out of the market. who's going to be left in 2 years, even with these cartoon contracts?

I don't see how they can win the fight, though, because there's nothing in the language of the CBA that says this is illegal. other than that vague "circumvention" rule. except almost everything that happens these days is cap circumvention.

I generally haven't bought into the league having a vendetta against the Devils, but I think the league would have looked the other way if it were the LA deal, not because the deal was any different in any meaningful sense, but because the league would be happy having a marquee player in a big market.

[Daniel]

You don't think you are overreacting a little bit here? According to TG, Lou was warned that it may be rejected. He was not told that it would definitely be rejected.

Whether it was merely a "warning" is irrelevant. Lou should not have proceeded as he did without full disclosure to Kovy/Grossman.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Lou needs to bust out the Chewbacca/Pronger/Luongo/Hossa/etc. defense.

[Daniel]

Lou needs to bust out the Chewbacca/Pronger/Luongo/Hossa/etc. defense.

This is perhaps one of most awesome things I've ever seen. Bravo!

[maxpower]

I generally haven't bought into the league having a vendetta against the Devils, but I think the league would have looked the other way if it were the LA deal, not because the deal was any different in any meaningful sense, but because the league would be happy having a marquee player in a big market.

they can't. they were caught with their pants down on the Hossa contract and the "next one" was going to be a fight. technically, Pronger should have been the next one, but Holmgren is an idiot and gave himself a cap penalty without the league doing anything.

when I saw this (well, after I got scared sh!tless by the $150M ESPN reported), I knew this was going to be a problem. they reached a little too far to just get by on precedent and were going to have to fight for this one.

I would just take 2 years off, a million or two (money he's never seeing anyway) off, and kick it back to them. at least give them cover as all of these bad deals go to 42. this one goes to 44.

there's no way that Grossman, at least, didn't know about this, because Kovalchuk's demands versus the inefficent cap market (where most teams are either capped out or unwilling to spend, even to make the floor), there was no way it was going to work without things getting real "cute".... unless a team was suicidal. well, when you get out until the 19th or whenever it was that he signed, no one is very suicidal.

this CBA is dead. bizarrely enough, the Devils are playing the role of spendaholic madman this time. maybe Sather will play the "woe is me" character.

either way, it's dead. if the contract goes through, someone will be signed to a 900 year contract, if it doesn't, no top-tier players will be able to sign without taking drastic yearly pay cuts, unless they're taking the spot of another top-tier player, who then won't be able to sign without taking a drastic yearly pay cut. kinda like a game of musical chairs.

[Legion15]

if chewbacca doesn't make sense, you must acquit!

[DaneykoIsGod]

This is perhaps one of most awesome things I've ever seen. Bravo!

Wish I could take credit for it. A buddy posted it on my Facebook. I'm guessing he got it from HF.

[mugsywwiii]

Reports are stating that should the NHLPA file a grievance, it might take months to find an arbiter that both sides agree on. If it goes longer than the start of the regular season, what happens?

Devils get a judge to issue an injunction to force the NHL to let Kovalchuk play, NHL refuses to officiate Devils games, bring in replacement officials.

Edited July 22, 2010 by mugsywwiii

[Legion15]

Sporting news article within the last hour

[Daniel]

I don't see how they can win the fight, though, because there's nothing in the language of the CBA that says this is illegal. other than that vague "circumvention" rule. except almost everything that happens these days is cap circumvention.

Arbitrators, who don't have to answer to an appellate court, can do strange things. The decision can basically read,

"After reading the parties' submissions, and having considered the rest of the record, it is clear to me that neither Mr. Kovalchuk nor the Franchise have any real expectation that Mr. Kovalchuk will play through the life of the contract. As such, the contract 'circumvents' the dictates of the CBA, as that word is ordinarily used. Even accepting petitioner's argument that the contract does not materially differ from other contracts the league has approved, my decision would be the same. As petitioner admits, no other arbitrator or other authority with proper jurisdiction has considered the provision of the CBA at issue. Thus, I am writing on a clean slate, and I write that the decision of the respondent to declare the contract null and avoid is affirmed".

That, and maybe an extra paragraph or two, would not be overturned by any court. It's a totally plausible result.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Daniel

[Pepperkorn]

Daniel -- how old are you dude? Take a business writing course please. and don't practice here. It's EXCRUCIATING to slog through. Get a copy of Strunk and White pleeeeease!

or if you prefer:

Edited July 22, 2010 by Pepperkorn

[Daniel]

Daniel -- how old are you dude? Take a business writing course please. and don't practice here. It's EXCRUCIATING to slog through. Get a copy of Strunk and White pleeeeease!

or if you prefer:

The more you yap, the less I care.

[maxpower]

Arbitrators, who don't have to answer to an appellate court, can do strange things. The decision can basically read,

"After reading the parties' submissions, and having considered the rest of the record, it is clear to me that neither Mr. Kovalchuk nor the Franchise have any real expectation that Mr. Kovalchuk will play through the life of the contract. As such, the contract 'circumvents' the dictates of the CBA, as that word is ordinarily used. Even accepting petitioner's argument that the contract does not materially differ from other contracts the league has approved, my decision would be the same. As petitioner admits, no other arbitrator or other authority with proper jurisdiction has considered the provision of the CBA at issue. Thus, I am writing on a clean slate, and I write that the decision of the respondent to declare the contract null and avoid is affirmed".

That, and maybe an extra paragraph or two, would not be overturned by any court. It's a totally plausible result.

there's nothing in the CBA to base a decision off of. that's the problem, and old man Tselios has established players can play to a billion. this is just 100% flailing, a last stand and proof of a total failure of leadership to address the issue the first time (with Hossa and the fishy Wings deals).

let's put it this way, if the Devils came back with 15/$100-102M, how can the league reject that contract? if they accept "well, Luongo could play until he's 42 because goalies play a long time" (ignoring that butterflies are normally made out of plastic by that age).... you see the problem?

the Devils just got too aggressive and the NHL decided to make their last stand. I don't know what their rationale is other than panic. maybe they think Kovalchuk will run away to Russia and they can get by for another year and maybe scare

people off from doing this. I don't know. but when the Devils are employing a CBA guy to make their CBA-cap decisions in contracts, I don't like the league's chances of winning.

it's just a perfect storm of ineptitude. first shot in a work stoppage. casting calls are out there for the "Kevin Lowe"

character that whines "won't anyone please think of the children?"

[David Puddy]

IT'S ON!

Star Ledger/Chere: Devils GM Lou Lamoriello: It's in hands of Ilya Kovalchuk and union

"We just have to wait for the process right now with the way the CBA reads," Lamoriello said. "Right now it's in the player's hands and the union's hands. We just have to wait."

So, is the NHLPA filing a grievance on behalf of Kovalchuk in an effort to keep the current deal?

"I have not spoken to them. Not that I will," Lamoriello answered. "Right now we just have to wait and let the process take care of itself. It's with the player and the union right now."

I asked Lamoriello if he was considering reworking the contract.

"I don't want to go any further because I'm going to get off track," the GM said. "Like I said in my statement, we've done nothing wrong."

Edited July 22, 2010 by David Puddy

[Daniel]

there's nothing in the CBA to base a decision off of. that's the problem, and old man Tselios has established players can play to a billion. this is just 100% flailing, a last stand and proof of a total failure of leadership to address the issue the first time (with Hossa and the fishy Wings deals).

let's put it this way, if the Devils came back with 15/$100-102M, how can the league reject that contract? if they accept "well, Luongo could play until he's 42 because goalies play a long time" (ignoring that butterflies are normally made out of plastic by that age).... you see the problem?

the Devils just got too aggressive and the NHL decided to make their last stand. I don't know what their rationale is other than panic. maybe they think Kovalchuk will run away to Russia and they can get by for another year and maybe scare

people off from doing this. I don't know. but when the Devils are employing a CBA guy to make their CBA-cap decisions in contracts, I don't like the league's chances of winning.

it's just a perfect storm of ineptitude. first shot in a work stoppage. casting calls are out there for the "Kevin Lowe"

character that whines "won't anyone please think of the children?"

I hear what you're saying, and those are all arguments the NHLPA will make (though perhaps not as colorfully). And nine out of ten judges might agree. Arbitrators, however, play by a different set of rules. The arbitrator can base his decision, albeit not explicitly, on what he thinks is "fair." So long as whatever the decision passes the straight-face test, which is not particularly difficult either way it comes out, the decision will stand.

[Amberite]

Ugh what a mess. Looks like this is heading to arbitration. I really hope Lou can still proceed with the moves necessary to clear up the cap space, etc. If he waits until the final decision, it could be too late.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be

[Legion15]