grcenter47 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 of course it is. the league doesn't like the idea of a team being in nj, because it's "market" is overshadowed by the ranjerks and flyers who have been around longer. its harder to market the devils without taking away from either team. The league never seems to legitimize us, and they seem to want to hinder any chance that we become a household name. Even though there are a lot of people unfamiliar with either team, I guess it's kind of like Anaheim stealing from the Kings. lets keeping winning stanley cups then and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 lets keeping winning stanley cups then and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 If the league really had a personal vendetta against your team, they wouldn't have allowed Lamoriello to basically write the CBA. He knew all the ins and outs. Tri's right about Mogilny. That whole thing was a joke and nobody said jack just as this witch hunt over Kovalchuk is. It's Bettman trying to cover his ass. How ironic that he didn't even attend the hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeCups Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) it is different by a lot. pronger and savard have 2 seasons at the NHL minimum. zetterberg, franzen, luongo, keith and hossa have none - the lowest any of their contracts get is $1 million. kovalchuk, by contrast, has 5 years at $550,000. $550,000 or 1 mill is not that big of a difference in terms of dollars....we all know that all of the players are not going to play out the contracts, it was a loophole and teams exposed it... Edited August 4, 2010 by ThreeCups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 i have been waiting to use this saying in a sentence for a while now "stick it in everyone's craw" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 it is different by a lot. pronger and savard have 2 seasons at the NHL minimum. zetterberg, franzen, luongo, keith and hossa have none - the lowest any of their contracts get is $1 million. kovalchuk, by contrast, has 5 years at $550,000. If the contract eventually gets approved, then I'll give the league a 'pass', as I'll view this more as a warning than the league actually trying to stop it. A slap on the wrist, if you will. Contracts like this are definitely approaching the limit obviously. They definitely should be stopped. Even if this didn't involve the devils I'd still be against the league, because it's just not that different imo. If kovy were older, or there were more years/less money attached I'd be singing a different tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 $550,000 or 1 mill is not that big of a difference in terms of dollars....we all know that all of the players are not going to play out the contracts, it was a loophole and teams exposed it... 500k or twice as much, are both pretty large amounts. Over 5 years that works out to 2.5 million dollars, no drop in the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 today from Bleacher Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 If the contract eventually gets approved, then I'll give the league a 'pass', as I'll view this more as a warning than the league actually trying to stop it. A slap on the wrist, if you will. Contracts like this are definitely approaching the limit obviously. They definitely should be stopped. Even if this didn't involve the devils I'd still be against the league, because it's just not that different imo. If kovy were older, or there were more years/less money attached I'd be singing a different tune. Wouldn't a contract taking a player to 46 and having 6 or 7 years at league minimum then be ok because it wasn't that different from this one? Assuming this one gains approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs1965 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 lets keeping winning stanley cups then and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy Absolutly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) $550,000 or 1 mill is not that big of a difference in terms of dollars....we all know that all of the players are not going to play out the contracts, it was a loophole and teams exposed it... it's a big difference when you consider what money players play for at that age. how much do you think mike modano signed for? brendan shanahan signed for $800,000 when he signed with NJ the first time, and his second contract was $1 million. mark recchi is signed for $1 million in base salary and $950,000 in bonuses. i don't think that zetterberg, hossa, etc. will finish out their contracts either, but it looks more plausible that they would - their final years, they're being paid around what players of their age are paid when they are playing. Edited August 4, 2010 by Triumph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 .... kovalchuk, by contrast, has 5 years at $550,000. You see, he will only be doing 550k worth of work those years. That's what makes it ok. He will not be getting the icetime in his 40's that he will get in his 30's which will drop from his 20's ice time too. simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I don't know that is true; I am sure most fans feel the league is against their team. Maybe the league is going after the ocntract because of the blatant attempt to circumvent the cap... why this contract as opposed to some of the others I don't know, but I don't believe there is a conspiracy to bone the Devils No, but I can guarantee you if the Kings, Penguins, Blackhawks, Rangers, Detroit, or some other team the league likes seeing on NBC every weekend had done the same exact deal, it would not have been rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 He will not be getting the icetime in his 40's that he will get in his 30's I don't think you get any ice time after you retire, so it'll definitely be a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Wouldn't a contract taking a player to 46 and having 6 or 7 years at league minimum then be ok because it wasn't that different from this one? Assuming this one gains approval. Fair enough, that's a good point. I guess the underlying question is where exactly does this 'line' lay. In my opinion, Kovy's is just below it. Although, I think the fact that the league fought this particular contract does put a sort of taboo on trying to pass an even more lengthy/expensive contract in the future. They made a big fuss about this one, and none of the previous ones. And, if this turns out to actually be the case, I guess it's a mission accomplished by the league, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) No, but I can guarantee you if the Kings, Penguins, Blackhawks, Rangers, Detroit, or some other team the league likes seeing on NBC every weekend had done the same exact deal, it would not have been rejected. of course. the league hates the devils. just like they forced new jersey to eat malakhov and mogilny's contracts. or didn't really look into the fact that richard matvichuk just happened to come back from his back injury until the last game of the season. (lol @ putting the kings on this list - yeah national television loves the LA kings) Edited August 4, 2010 by Triumph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeCups Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 500k or twice as much, are both pretty large amounts. Over 5 years that works out to 2.5 million dollars, no drop in the bucket. In the grand scheme of these massive $80-$100 mill contracts, 2.5 mill IS a drop in the bucket.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 i have been waiting to use this saying in a sentence for a while now "stick it in everyone's craw" And I'm glad you finally found a conversation to insert that epic phrase into Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 yep, it's totally a marketing machine. That's why they're so upset Kovy signed with us. They don't want to put an unfamiliar team on national television, unless they suck and get pounded by an original six, or someone else just as "good" all about ratings. They have to work harder to capitalize on Kovy being in Jersey. it's not a given, and they don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Because the other contracts were very similar. As someone posted earlier in one of the many lengthy Kovy threads, it is like a police officer watching someone go by doing 74 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and then pulling over the guy going 76 MPH in that same zone...yes the Kovy contract was a little different, but not by much.... Just to give due credit, it was SI's Michael Farber who said it: Like a lenient parent, the NHL's previous tolerance for cap manipulation has moved, in a perfectly logical and possibly legal direction, to the Kovalchuk deal. The league had a chance to take a stand against Roberto Luongo's contract with the Canucks. (His 12-year extension, which expires in 2021-22, pays him $1 million each in the final two seasons, when he is 41 and 42. He makes $10 million this season.) The league could have bridled at Pronger's deal with the Flyers, which drops to $525,000 the final two years before he qualifies for unrestricted free agency in 2017-18, just prior to his 43rd birthday. Marian Hossa's deal in Chicago, $7.9 million now but $750,000 the last two years when theoretically he retires after the 2020-21 season at age 42, was even more of a stretch given the position he plays, but the NHL considered these deals merely pushing the envelope but not quite overstuffing it. The other teams were doing 74 in a 65 mile-per-hour zone, but when the Devils did 76, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly turned on his siren and flashed his red light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 In the grand scheme of these massive $80-$100 mill contracts, 2.5 mill IS a drop in the bucket.... It's still 2.5 million dollars. A reasonable person isn't going to look at 2.5 million dollars and say it's no big deal, especially when the crux of this issue is splitting hairs. If I have 100 million dollars and go and gamble away 2.5 million of it, I'm PO'ed, I believe. 2.5% extra return on my stock portfolio is a big deal too. I get what you're saying, that it's not big relative to the rest of the contract, but I just think the absolute terms of 2.5% or 2.5 million dollars are a big deal to a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeCups Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Just to give due credit, it was SI's Michael Farber who said it: Thanks for the clarification. I knew I saw it somewhere. I agree completely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Just to give due credit, it was SI's Michael Farber who said it: It was a really bad analogy for his point actually, IMO. In his scenario he is saying all the teams broke the law and the Devils are the ones caught and going to be punished for it because they broke it the worst....but the whole rest of the article suggests he believes since everyone may have been breaking the rules the Devils aren't going to be punished either, which doesn't fit this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeCups Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) It's still 2.5 million dollars. A reasonable person isn't going to look at 2.5 million dollars and say it's no big deal, especially when the crux of this issue is splitting hairs. If I have 100 million dollars and go and gamble away 2.5 million of it, I'm PO'ed, I believe. 2.5% extra return on my stock portfolio is a big deal too. I get what you're saying, that it's not big relative to the rest of the contract, but I just think the absolute terms of 2.5% or 2.5 million dollars are a big deal to a contract. How mad could you REALLY be if you gambled away 2.5 mill and only had 97.5 mill remaining.... It was a really bad analogy for his point actually, IMO. In his scenario he is saying all the teams broke the law and the Devils are the ones caught and going to be punished for it because they broke it the worst....but the whole rest of the article suggests he believes since everyone may have been breaking the rules the Devils aren't going to be punished either, which doesn't fit this scenario. I thought the analogy was good, you can't take it literally. Yes in the speeding scenario a law is being broken, however it appears that the Devils were just smart about what they did, and no "law" was broken.... Edited August 4, 2010 by ThreeCups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 How mad could you REALLY be if you gambled away 2.5 mill and only had 97.5 mill remaining.... I can only hope to some day find out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts