Devils731 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? Impossible to know without a thorough look into the exact situation. Depends on things like lump sum payout size, annuity size and length, assumed return over time, assumed risk over time, assumed inflation, current vs expected future tax rates, how much "present value" I'd be willing to give up just to get it all now, etc...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Given the typical averages today you should take the lump sum.. Finance 201 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice dog 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. i was thinking the same thing! lou during an arbitration hearing should be a pay per view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 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. Bzzz, wrong try again. I can't find any source that says the NHL rejected a Palffy deal. Here's a link of all NY Times articles about the Palffy trade, and only that the league would look into it, and that the issue that was holding it up was television rights. But the proof is, is that the league did not reject loads of other deals that did the exact same thing, when the teams making the deals were the Flyers, Red Wings, and Blackhawks. And whatever the league allowed the Devils to do about shedding salaries is a nice little red herring. As I said, it wasn't about animus against the Devils (of course you ignore that), but the very fact that deals to artificially lower cap hits by signing players past their sold before date were approved when more tv friendly teams were involved, shows there is a double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Kovalchuk after he retires at age 40.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMsSIjQXxo&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion15 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 lol! 5 months free or most premium televisions package? I jump in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 i was thinking the same thing! lou during an arbitration hearing should be a pay per view... thats why Bettman didnt show today, he was afraid his head would explode like in 'Scanners' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 (edited) Bzzz, wrong try again. I can't find any source that says the NHL rejected a Palffy deal. Here's a link of all NY Times articles about the Palffy trade, and only that the league would look into it, and that the issue that was holding it up was television rights. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/14/sports/stanley-cup-finals-rangers-final-offer-for-palffy-sways-isles.html so why wasn't palffy a ranger? sure sounds like everything was hunky dory there. as i recall, and remember that this event is largely pre-internet saturation, was that the deal was announced (perhaps not officially) and then rejected because of the amount of money involved. But the proof is, is that the league did not reject loads of other deals that did the exact same thing, when the teams making the deals were the Flyers, Red Wings, and Blackhawks. And whatever the league allowed the Devils to do about shedding salaries is a nice little red herring. As I said, it wasn't about animus against the Devils (of course you ignore that), but the very fact that deals to artificially lower cap hits by signing players past their sold before date were approved when more tv friendly teams were involved, shows there is a double standard. this is such a load of post hoc nonsense that i won't even address it. if the kovalchuk deal went until kovalchuk was 42 and had a salary of 1 million in the final year, i'd agree, but it doesn't. the league isn't trying to put kovalchuk on a more tv-friendly team - it's not going to happen anyway, either kovalchuk goes to russia (which is a loss for the league without question), or he's a devil. the league rejected the deal for reasons that should be patently obvious and would be obvious around here had kovalchuk signed with another team with the same contract. Edited August 5, 2010 by Triumph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 do you think there would be transcripts available of the hearings in Boston or is that like a private matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 do you think there would be transcripts available of the hearings in Boston or is that like a private matter probably not until after the case is finished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 do you think there would be transcripts available of the hearings in Boston or is that like a private matter no. the best we can hope for is the entire text of the arbitrator's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Seriously the way this Kovy sh!t has gone down since the offseason began did anyone really think the decision would be made any time soon? LOL I wouldnt be surprise if they dont announce something sometime next week or later! LOL We only have to wait until monday. Part of me is actually hoping the arbitrator rules for the NHL because i dont want to see a work-stoppage in a cpl years, and i dont wanna hear ppl complain that the Devils have an unfair advantage and all that garbage talk. Im sure at this stage Lou and Kovy can re-work the contract to something reasonable. What makes you think that if the contract gets rejected there's less of a chance of a work stoppage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 no. the best we can hope for is the entire text of the arbitrator's decision. i am surprised the NHL network doesnt put a camera there and show it live... similar to what CSPAN does with the House and Senate hearings.. it might be boring but I bet most devils fans would watch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 why do you find it funny? the contract is different, and if i were in the league's shoes, i'd go after it too. Yes the league had to do this but it's not really correct to call the contract "different". Sure the years are increased and the money is less but it's the same idea (Lower the cap hit, still pay the player big) and the numbers aren't crazy. The contract takes Kovy to 44 compared to similar contracts taking players to 40-42. The league had to do this because the league realized the flurry of long-term contracts over the past few years manipulated the cap. They couldn't let an even longer contract by unless they wanted to show the owners and GM's that that cap is not as "Hard" as everyone thought. Bettman knows he's gonna lose this but he also knows that he had to make some noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 i am surprised the NHL network doesnt put a camera there and show it live... similar to what CSPAN does with the House and Senate hearings.. it might be boring but I bet most devils fans would watch it You don't want the arbitrator, league and team to have to worry about backlash from the public for what they do in the courtroom. This way all sides feel no pressure to hold back any argument and the arbitrator feels no pressure to feed the public with his decision because we don't know what went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked Fan Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 If i didn't fear you'd want me to prove it, I'd use the wub smilie in response. Yeah, for that, I'd be taking you to Missouri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/14/sports/stanley-cup-finals-rangers-final-offer-for-palffy-sways-isles.html so why wasn't palffy a ranger? sure sounds like everything was hunky dory there. as i recall, and remember that this event is largely pre-internet saturation, was that the deal was announced (perhaps not officially) and then rejected because of the amount of money involved. this is such a load of post hoc nonsense that i won't even address it. if the kovalchuk deal went until kovalchuk was 42 and had a salary of 1 million in the final year, i'd agree, but it doesn't. the league isn't trying to put kovalchuk on a more tv-friendly team - it's not going to happen anyway, either kovalchuk goes to russia (which is a loss for the league without question), or he's a devil. the league rejected the deal for reasons that should be patently obvious and would be obvious around here had kovalchuk signed with another team with the same contract. I don't understand how people think this contract is in any way identical to Hossa's. If it was, we wouldn't be here talking about this. the spread between the highest salary and the cap hit is $5.5M. in Hossa's, it's $2.6-7M or something like that. and the back end years are a total farce, where at least the Hawks had the common sense to throw him a million. and as pointed out 900,000 times, it stretches the deal out two years further than anyone has gone. if this was a 15/102 deal, we'd also probably not be sitting here talking about it. bluntly, if the Devils somehow lose Kovalchuk in the process (which I don't think is that likely even if they lose this), they'll have themselves to blame. they could have done this right and not made the waves they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Yes the league had to do this but it's not really correct to call the contract "different". Sure the years are increased and the money is less but it's the same idea (Lower the cap hit, still pay the player big) and the numbers aren't crazy. The contract takes Kovy to 44 compared to similar contracts taking players to 40-42. The league had to do this because the league realized the flurry of long-term contracts over the past few years manipulated the cap. They couldn't let an even longer contract by unless they wanted to show the owners and GM's that that cap is not as "Hard" as everyone thought. Bettman knows he's gonna lose this but he also knows that he had to make some noise. it's not the same. Hossa's deal is a flat deal with low pay at the end. Kovalchuk's is all over the place and has minimum pay for 6 years on it. he has years where he gets paid $11.5M and has a $6M cap hit. all of Hossa's big years are $7.9M with a $5.2whatever cap hit. you really don't see the difference? a player making max or close to max money with a $6M hit? it's extremely ballsy. if the Rangers were doing this, my god, you'd all be going nuts. funny enough I was out for dinner on the weekend and listened to a Rangers fangirl behind me go on and on and on about this for 40 minutes. felt sorry for the people at her table. let. it. go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 i am surprised the NHL network doesnt put a camera there and show it live... similar to what CSPAN does with the House and Senate hearings.. it might be boring but I bet most devils fans would watch it I'd be all over that. Man, that'd be great, it'd be primetime over here too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DH26 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 I'd be all over that. Man, that'd be great, it'd be primetime over here too. I don't have a job, so I could just sit there and watch it all day. It's like what the unemployed people did during the OJ trial. Whenever I wouldn't know what to do, just pop on the arbitration hearing and I'd be good to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CADevilsFan Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 You don't want the arbitrator, league and team to have to worry about backlash from the public for what they do in the courtroom. Not trying to be difficult but arbitration doesn't normally happen in court. Also depending on whether or not they are using new York evidence laws or the federal rules of evidence, what is said in Arbitration is not usually admissible in a subsequent trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 this is such a load of post hoc nonsense that i won't even address it. if the kovalchuk deal went until kovalchuk was 42 and had a salary of 1 million in the final year, i'd agree, but it doesn't. the league isn't trying to put kovalchuk on a more tv-friendly team - it's not going to happen anyway, either kovalchuk goes to russia (which is a loss for the league without question), or he's a devil. the league rejected the deal for reasons that should be patently obvious and would be obvious around here had kovalchuk signed with another team with the same contract. Everyone is complaining about this 44 number, but I honestly think that in 17 years there will be a lot of NHL players that play into their 40s. All of the players that we've seen until now that played into their 40s began their playing / training career in the 80s and 90s. You can bet your ass that Kovalchuk's training and medical treatment today is leagues beyond what players had in the 80s, and will improve even more by 2027. By 2027, I don't think it will be at all uncommon for players to reach 45 and still be around. I'm not saying that every player will want to, but it will definitely be an option to most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 animus post hoc Sorry dude, Tri wins it with a more innate use of pedantry. Engaging in dry irrelevant banter in which you must google facts to keep up IS a good way to learn though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 Everyone is complaining about this 44 number, but I honestly think that in 17 years there will be a lot of NHL players that play into their 40s. All of the players that we've seen until now that played into their 40s began their playing / training career in the 80s and 90s. You can bet your ass that Kovalchuk's training and medical treatment today is leagues beyond what players had in the 80s, and will improve even more by 2027. By 2027, I don't think it will be at all uncommon for players to reach 45 and still be around. I'm not saying that every player will want to, but it will definitely be an option to most. these things will be offset by the fact that younger players, at least for the last 40 or so years, have always been better and more rigorously trained. whatever the case, kovalchuk probably won't be playing at 40, and if he is, he'll be a PP specialist like selanne or recchi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim777 Posted August 5, 2010 Share Posted August 5, 2010 whatever the case, kovalchuk probably won't be playing at 40, and if he is, he'll be a PP specialist like selanne or recchi. and, he'll has opulence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts