New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[Triumph]

well, that doesn't mean alot. KHL rules don't apply to the team that the "commish" runs. That Max signing seems like some kind of "squeeze play" just in case. alot like when we signed Hedburg for no reason with a NTC.

it doesn't feel that way at all to me. it's a 5 year deal, and afinogenov would become one of the top players in the league.

daniel: grandfathering in cap hits would become extraordinarily complicated. that said, you are right that that doesn't fix very much. the NHL is just going to have to institute contract length limits.

[Daniel]

daniel: grandfathering in cap hits would become extraordinarily complicated.

Maybe if there are a lot of other fundamental changes in the next CBA. But all things being equal, I don't see how it's so complicated. If you signed a deal before the next CBA, a player has the same cap hit throughout the life of the deal. The hit for all deals signed after are subject to the rules of the new CBA.

[lilgriffey84]

If kovys contract gets passed do you assume the limit for the lenght of contracts would be set at 17 in the next round of negotiations?

[Daniel]

If kovys contract gets passed do you assume the limit for the lenght of contracts would be set at 17 in the next round of negotiations?

Both sides can agree to set it at whatever length they want, if that's the route they go down. I doubt the league would agree to that, since, to be fair to the league, would defeat the purpose of having a maximum contract length.

[lilgriffey84]

Both sides can agree to set it at whatever length they want, if that's the route they go down. I doubt the league would agree to that, since, to be fair to the league, would defeat the purpose of having a maximum contract length.

I think a simple solution to the problem could be a scenario like this.

Say they both agree to something along the lines of If a player signs a contract that is equal to or greater than 12 years in lenghts and takes him to his 35th birthday it would then transform the contract to a 35 plus contract and the team would be on the hook for the last remaining years of the contract. It would be a deterance for teams to sign players to long drawn out contracts but it would also allow the player to sign a "lifetime" deal. I know there could be flaws with this. I just brought it up as a possible solution

[sundstrom]

regarding term limits - i think simply saying that no multi-year deal can be signed that takes a player past his year 40 season would accomplish everything for everyone. it accomplishes the same intention of the 35+ rule which was to not sign vets to multi-year deals they never had any intention of honoring so you could'nt pay them a ton early and lessen the cap hit.

[lilgriffey84]

regarding term limits - i think simply saying that no multi-year deal can be signed that takes a player past his year 40 season would accomplish everything for everyone. it accomplishes the same intention of the 35+ rule which was to not sign vets to multi-year deals they never had any intention of honoring so you could'nt pay them a ton early and lessen the cap hit.

What if a player retires before the contract expires prior to his 40 birthday? The team would be off the hook. I think the league would want some worth of minor penalty for signing such deals.I think that a multi year contract that takes the player to his 35th birthday would make the league happy because the team would still be on the hook until the contract expires. I also see your point both are very good solutions

[nyrsuck26]

I think a simple solution to the problem could be a scenario like this.

Say they both agree to something along the lines of If a player signs a contract that is equal to or greater than 12 years in lenghts and takes him to his 35th birthday it would then transform the contract to a 35 plus contract and the team would be on the hook for the last remaining years of the contract. It would be a deterance for teams to sign players to long drawn out contracts but it would also allow the player to sign a "lifetime" deal. I know there could be flaws with this. I just brought it up as a possible solution

+1

I find this is a very reasonable solution.

[David Puddy]

I think a simple solution to the problem could be a scenario like this.

Say they both agree to something along the lines of If a player signs a contract that is equal to or greater than 12 years in lenghts and takes him to his 35th birthday it would then transform the contract to a 35 plus contract and the team would be on the hook for the last remaining years of the contract. It would be a deterance for teams to sign players to long drawn out contracts but it would also allow the player to sign a "lifetime" deal. I know there could be flaws with this. I just brought it up as a possible solution

The NHLPA wouldn't go for this because it's such a strong deterrent to giving players long-term contracts. The best solution is to put stricter limitations on the salary range so the smallest yearly salary can only be x% of the largest yearly salary.

[USC09]

I really hope the arbitrator approves the Kovalchuk Contract, but I do agree that the NHL needs term limits on contracts. I think it should be no more than 8-10 years per contract and that the complete 1st year salary should be the number counting against the cap. After the 1st year of the contract is up, then the average salary should be the cap hit. So lets say a player signs a 10 year/$60 million dollar contract at an average of $6 mil per year, but makes $8 million in year one, then $8 mil should count against the cap. After that its ($52mil/9 which is $5.8 million) that counts against the cap. This would be the appropriate way to avoid what the NHL calls cap circumvention.

[Neb00rs]

it doesn't feel that way at all to me. it's a 5 year deal, and afinogenov would become one of the top players in the league.

daniel: grandfathering in cap hits would become extraordinarily complicated. that said, you are right that that doesn't fix very much. the NHL is just going to have to institute contract length limits.

There is going to be some sort of limits implemented in the new CBA. I think it is going to be a rule that states that a player younger than 30 can't sign a contract till when he's older than 40...and other age specifics like that. I don't think it's going to be as simple as limiting the max number of years.

the devils are not going to lose kovalchuk over this. not with the news that SKA signed afinogenov, that was the only other place he could realistically end up. if the NHLPA loses this case, the devils will sign kovalchuk to a different contract.

Yea, all this Kovy maybe "signing elsewhere" talk is such a waste of energy. He has made his choice, there is not much more to worry about.

[Marshall]

So, how will this be announced? Press conference? Dick pops a text to Buttman? Twitter?

[lilgriffey84]

The NHLPA wouldn't go for this because it's such a strong deterrent to giving players long-term contracts. The best solution is to put stricter limitations on the salary range so the smallest yearly salary can only be x% of the largest yearly salary.

it would be a deterent but if the player plans on playing his whole contract it would cancel out the deterent...Lets be honest kovy really doesnt plan on playing until he is 44.I mean i know what you point is. The point in my arguement would be preventing teams not to tack on throw away years towards the end of the contract. This would simply be done by the 35 plus rule with the 12 plus year contract

[Devil Dan 56]

I really hope the arbitrator approves the Kovalchuk Contract, but I do agree that the NHL needs term limits on contracts. I think it should be no more than 8-10 years per contract and that the complete 1st year salary should be the number counting against the cap. After the 1st year of the contract is up, then the average salary should be the cap hit. So lets say a player signs a 10 year/$60 million dollar contract at an average of $6 mil per year, but makes $8 million in year one, then $8 mil should count against the cap. After that its ($52mil/9 which is $5.8 million) that counts against the cap. This would be the appropriate way to avoid what the NHL calls cap circumvention.

Only problem I see is you may have teams do the reverse... signing a contract where the first year is real low but then there is a payoff in the remaining years. I really think the way to go is to say there can only be x% difference between the lowest and highest year.

[chrisg19]

Only problem I see is you may have teams do the reverse... signing a contract where the first year is real low but then there is a payoff in the remaining years. I really think the way to go is to say there can only be x% difference between the lowest and highest year.

Yeah if you specify the year in number than they will just structure the deal around those years. They would need to take the average of the three hisghest years as cap hit or something like that. So you take the three highest payout years of a ten year contract, no matter which years they are, and the average of those three years is the cap hit. That would be my suggestion to limit loopholes.

Edited August 7, 2010 by chrisg19

[Devs4LIFE]

first post in the thread, did I miss anything?

[Joonas #6]

Why don't you go through those 385 pages? It's not THAT much

[CADevilsFan]

first post in the thread, did I miss anything?

I think DiG would have write a parody of "We Didn't Start the Fire" caliber to catch you up

[Prucenterrules]

Is it monday yet? ugh I just want to know the decision already. Atleast i'm on vacation for hockey in Baltimore till tomorrow so that helps time fly.

[Masked Fan]

I think DiG would have write a parody of "We Didn't Start the Fire" caliber to catch you up

THAT would be awesome!

[Neb00rs]

Yeah if you specify the year in number than they will just structure the deal around those years. They would need to take the average of the three hisghest years as cap hit or something like that. So you take the three highest payout years of a ten year contract, no matter which years they are, and the average of those three years is the cap hit. That would be my suggestion to limit loopholes.

Ummmm no. That would be unfair to teams and the cap hit wouldn't be a true representation of the players contract. Unless every team just gave their players flat contracts. Your idea makes little to no sense.

[MartysGlove]

Ummmm no. That would be unfair to teams and the cap hit wouldn't be a true representation of the players contract. Unless every team just gave their players flat contracts. Your idea makes little to no sense.

Would be more unfair to players since teams would no longer give out front loaded contracts..

Better idea is to have the cap hit represented by the average of the year in question, the year preceding it and the year after it.

So a

8 6 6 4 2 deal would have a cap hit of:

7 6.6 5.3 4 3

worked better before the example.. oh well.

[Neb00rs]

Would be more unfair to players since teams would no longer give out front loaded contracts..

Better idea is to have the cap hit represented by the average of the year in question, the year preceding it and the year after it.

So a

8 6 6 4 2 deal would have a cap hit of:

7 6.6 5.3 4 3

worked better before the example.. oh well.

Yes, it would be more unfair for players in theory. But straightaway it would be unfair to teams. That will result in it being unfair to players. Whatever though, it's a silly idea anyways.

[grcenter47]

i wonder if they are going to do another press conference on monday

[CADevilsFan]

THAT would be awesome!

I have a long flight tomorrow, perhaps I'll give it a go...