Daniel Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 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) It's not animus against the Devils, so much as looking the other way when it comes to teams that are more marketable. LA is a big market team. And yes, the reported $85 million 15 year deal, that accomplishes the same thing as the Devils deal, would not have been rejected, because the league would have liked to see a big name player in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 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.... Really F'ing mad. That's a crapload of money, regardless of how much other money I have left. If you have 50k in the bank, it'd be like blowing 1,250 down at AC, but worse, because your absolute dollar amount lost is so much greater. To relate to situations I'm more familiar with. I've seen people tank a 1 million dollar mortgage over a 100 dollar fee they didn't realize they'd have to pay themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) How mad could you REALLY be if you gambled away 2.5 mill and only had 97.5 mill remaining.... quite, actually. if i have $100,000 and gamble away $2500, that's going to be a pretty rotten day. i understand that the magnitude is different, but 2.5 million dollars is still 2.5 million dollars. It's not animus against the Devils, so much as looking the other way when it comes to teams that are more marketable. LA is a big market team. And yes, the reported $85 million 15 year deal, that accomplishes the same thing as the Devils deal, would not have been rejected, because the league would have liked to see a big name player in LA. yeah remember when ziggy palffy was traded to the rangers, except the league nixed the deal? sometimes your posts come from a different planet, and this one above is one of them. saying such a thing with certainty is patently absurd. again, the league let the devils get away with absolute murder in 2006 and 2007. 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 Really F'ing mad. That's a crapload of money, regardless of how much other money I have left. If you have 50k in the bank, it'd be like blowing 1,250 down at AC, but worse, because your absolute dollar amount lost is so much greater. To relate to situations I'm more familiar with. I've seen people tank a 1 million dollar mortgage over a 100 dollar fee they didn't realize they'd have to pay themselves. I think the absolute dollar amount being larger makes it sting less. 97.5 mill is such a large sum of money that 2.5 really does not matter. The 50k/$1,250 example would be more damaging IMO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Now I know it's been talked about, but say Bloch does reject the contract under terms that it circumvents the cap. Do the Devils get to exclusiely re-negotiate with Ilya (as if this were pre July 1st), or would the floodgates open for LA to jump right back in? If it's voided it's like the contract never happened, Kovy is open market again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaneykoIsGod Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 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. The analogy doesn't have an ending yet since the arbitrator hasn't made his decision yet. The ticket has been written, but now it's being challened in court on the grounds that they were just keeping up with traffic. (It still isn't 100% perfect, but how many analogies are?) We'll hopefully know by Friday whether the judge buys it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 The analogy doesn't have an ending yet since the arbitrator hasn't made his decision yet. The ticket has been written, but now it's being challened in court on the grounds that they were just keeping up with traffic. (It still isn't 100% perfect, but how many analogies are?) We'll hopefully know by Friday whether the judge buys it. I just don't like it. The SI guy is saying the Devils knew they were breaking the law going over 65 but should be ok since others broke the law too. The NHLPA isn't arguing that, the NHLPA is going to argue the contract broke no law, or in this analogy, were going 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) The speeding analogy needs to be moved to Montana. The old Daytime speedlimit "Safe for driving conditions" but <100mph The other contracts were doing 85 mph Ilya comes by clocking 95 No laws broken, but interpretation of "safe driving conditions" by the coppers (Buttman) comes into play. EDIT: Just went and looked, It actually says "Reasonable and Prudent" No mention of any number speed limit during the daytime. Just clarification for all you board lawyers out there. (I also know that was ten years ago) Edited August 4, 2010 by Masked Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt 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 550,000 between 2023 and 2027. that is what is significant. since money's purchasing power typically gets cut in half every 20 years, that 550,000 of today will be worth a lot less in 17 years. I've written this several times before. The 17 year deal is not the most significant part. The age 44 is slightly more significant, but I think the biggest issue is that effectively Kovalchuk will be playing for about $300,000 of today's money in year 2027. That is what I see the biggest point. If those last 5 years were 1 million each (a realistic league-minimum salary between 2023 - 2027) , the NHL would have accepted the contract. The 17 years would not have mattered, nor would the age 44 have mattered. The NHL would have held it's nose and not rejected the deal. Edited August 4, 2010 by BlueSkirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeCups Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 it's 550,000 between 2023 and 2027. that is what is significant. since money's purchasing power typically gets cut in half every 20 years, that 550,000 of today will be worth a lot less in 17 years. I've written this several times before. The 17 year deal is not the most significant part. The age 44 is slightly more significant, but I think the biggest issue is that effectively Kovalchuk will be playing for about $300,000 of today's money in year 2027. That is what I see the biggest point. If those last 5 years were 1 million each (a realistic league-minimum salary between 2023 - 2027) , the NHL would have accepted the contract. The 17 years would not have mattered, nor would the age 44 have mattered. The NHL would have held it's nose and not rejected the deal. So you think the NHL rejected the deal just to cost Kovy $2.25 mill? (an extra $450,000 for the last 5 years, bringing them to $1 mill/per) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 no, I just think the future value of $550,000 was too blatant to be a realistic league minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 no, I just think the future value of $550,000 was too blatant to be a realistic league minimum. I believe any contract that has a value under league minimum for that season gets bumped up to the new league minimum, maybe it was Tri who pointed that out? I think it'd be interesting if the NHLPA argues that Kovy would have accepted a flat contract of 6 million every year but wanted the contract super front loaded because of the time value of money, and not because he could retire early with all his money. Any grain of sand the NHLPA can add to their side could be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I was going nuts trying to find this too. Finally got it. On the main Hell page with the list of threads, there are columns for Thread Title, Started By, Last Post, etc. Click on the number of replies under Stats. Then do the Happy Dance. Cool, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 let's start winning stanley cups again and stick it in everyone's craw. screw the league. we are jersey's team not bettman's chew toy Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 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 Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie McKraut Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 diminishing marginal utility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 If the back end of the contract has to get bumped to whatever league minimum is at the time that would change the cap hit. Not a lot but it would change. Assuming the contract is approved, how would the league go about calculating cap hit in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Really F'ing mad. That's a crapload of money, regardless of how much other money I have left. If you have 50k in the bank, it'd be like blowing 1,250 down at AC, but worse, because your absolute dollar amount lost is so much greater. To relate to situations I'm more familiar with. I've seen people tank a 1 million dollar mortgage over a 100 dollar fee they didn't realize they'd have to pay themselves. So if you won the lottery you'd take the annuity rather than the lump sum so the government wouldn't get a bigger cut of your total winnings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 The speeding analogy needs to be moved to Montana. The old Daytime speedlimit "Safe for driving conditions" but <100mph The other contracts were doing 85 mph Ilya comes by clocking 95 No laws broken, but interpretation of "safe driving conditions" by the coppers (Buttman) comes into play. EDIT: Just went and looked, It actually says "Reasonable and Prudent" No mention of any number speed limit during the daytime. Just clarification for all you board lawyers out there. (I also know that was ten years ago) If i didn't fear you'd want me to prove it, I'd use the wub smilie in response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (edited) (and hence our current viewership of a whopping 33!) Edited August 4, 2010 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 So if you won the lottery you'd take the annuity rather than the lump sum so the government wouldn't get a bigger cut of your total winnings? I would, bigger payoff in the long run, it would just take longer. But more of it would be mine, not the government's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 (and hence our current viewership of a whopping 33!) Haha yeah I just figured at this point I'm going to use this baby to raise my post count cause I'm bored and it's hot outside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 If the back end of the contract has to get bumped to whatever league minimum is at the time that would change the cap hit. Not a lot but it would change. Assuming the contract is approved, how would the league go about calculating cap hit in that case? wouldn't change it at all since such a thing is impossible to anticipate. people played for less than league minimum last year. i'm not sure what the procedure is there, but they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I wonder how many gazes of death Lou has given the NHL peeps at the arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts