New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")

[Devs1965]

Just got off the TSN article about Luongo and the comments by fans are sooooo Funny, Its not fair do it to NJ but we already have Luongo.. etc it is a good laugh!

From anti Jersey to anti NHL.

[Amberite]

I think this comment from Lou speaks volumes:

Asked if he has received any indication that Kovalchuk still wants to be a Devil, “I believe he made that decision, so I can’t see anything different.”

I'm actually surprised Lou said that much. It definitely makes it sound like Kovy has already decided that he is a Devil and isn't thinking about other options.

[Triumph]

I think this comment from Lou speaks volumes:

Asked if he has received any indication that Kovalchuk still wants to be a Devil, “I believe he made that decision, so I can’t see anything different.”

I'm actually surprised Lou said that much. It definitely makes it sound like Kovy has already decided that he is a Devil and isn't thinking about other options.

really? i actually read it the other way, that he's saying something like, 'i can't see why not'. i can't see why not is the kind of thing you say when you're not totally sure, but from your vantage point, there doesn't seem to be a reason it could be otherwise.

[Daniel]

of course it was arbitrary - that's bloch's entire point with his ruling. the league has the right to be arbitrary. i don't see how you can't see that that kovalchuk deal is different in degree than the other deals. if kovalchuk's deal were for 15 years and had a gentler downslope, i'd agree that this ruling is capricious, but it doesn't, so it isn't.

the league likely waited too long to get around to doing this, but now the door is shut, which is what the nhl needed. it had to win this, otherwise we'd see 20 year deals. there was going to be a fiasco with this no matter what - having a fiasco in august is not a large PR hit at all.

Ughh, I hear what you're saying. But again, the standard the league set was "retirement contract". The egregiousness of Kovalchuk's deal relative to others that accompish the same thing should not have been relevant to the league if it were acting in good faith. Yes, the league gets to be arbitrary if it wants to. I'm just saying they're d**ks for being so, and that from a PR view, the whole thing has been counterproductive.

EDIT: I should be more precise and say the league pushed for a "retirement contract" standard, and Bloch accepted it.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Daniel

[Amberite]

really? i actually read it the other way, that he's saying something like, 'i can't see why not'. i can't see why not is the kind of thing you say when you're not totally sure, but from your vantage point, there doesn't seem to be a reason it could be otherwise.

Right, but he precedes it with a comment that Kovy has already made that decision (that he does, in fact, want to be a Devil). If that's the case, and Lou doesn't see anything different, that means that he doesn't know of Kovy talking to any other team / considering any other options. Lou might be withholding something here, but that's an unusually blunt statement from him, and I think it's fair to take it at face value.

For comparison's sake, the normal reply to be expected from Lou for this type of question is "That is Kovalchuk's decision to make. It is certainly his right and I am not going to try and comment about what his thought process is."

Edited August 10, 2010 by Amberite

[Triumph]

Ughh, I hear what you're saying. But again, the standard the league set was "retirement contract". The egregiousness of Kovalchuk's deal relative to others that accompish the same thing should not have been relevant to the league if it were acting in good faith. Yes, the league gets to be arbitrary if it wants to. I'm just saying they're d**ks for being so, and that from a PR view, the whole thing has been counterproductive.

the phrase 'retirement contract' is not found anywhere in the league's position. you're just incorrect that the egregriousness of kovalchuk's deal should not have been relevant, i have no absolutely no clue how you could say that, it's all about scale here; were kovalchuk wearing ranger blue and talking about how he dreamed in russia about playing for the new york rangers, you absolutely wouldn't. thankfully you've already claimed that the league would look the other way were the rangers to sign him to such a faulty deal, but i disagree.

PR-wise, the NHL had no choice. i don't think it wanted to do this, but it's got semin, parise, j. carter, thornton, b. richards, doughty, stamkos, etc. all in line for new contracts and all potentially taking one of these things, each more ridiculous than the last. it's not good for the league, and the more of these there are on the books, the harder it will be to negotiate them out of the next CBA.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Triumph

[mmajeski06]

really? i actually read it the other way, that he's saying something like, 'i can't see why not'. i can't see why not is the kind of thing you say when you're not totally sure, but from your vantage point, there doesn't seem to be a reason it could be otherwise.

I don't know, I kinda use the phrase when I am pretty sure of myself. I mean, it would be pretty crazy for Kovy to turn his back on the Devils now and run to another team, or to go to the KHL.

I think he signs here, and *THEN* the NHL hands down some stupid punishment / fine. Why? Because it's the NHL, it doesn't have to make sense. These are the same guys who argue that putting a hockey team in Arizona makes more financial sense than putting one in Canada.

Edited August 10, 2010 by mmajeski06

[CarpathianForest]

If Kovy gets signed then I hope we boo the sh&t outta Bettman when he hands the cup to Langs next June.

if Kovy doesn't sign then what?

[mmajeski06]

If Kovy gets signed then I hope we boo the sh&t outta Bettman when he hands the cup to Langs next June.

if Kovy doesn't sign then what?

We still boo the sh-t outta Bettman when he hands the cup to Langs next June? :koolaid: :koolaid:

[pattyelias]

If Kovy gets signed then I hope we boo the sh&t outta Bettman when he hands the cup to Langs next June.

if Kovy doesn't sign then what?

This is still a good team and will contend no matter how this turns out.

[devlman]

I'm moving this thread into the Hall of Fame soon... think we get to 300 pages before then?

Haha, remember this?

[Daniel]

the phrase 'retirement contract' is not found anywhere in the league's position. you're just incorrect that the egregriousness of kovalchuk's deal should not have been relevant, i have no absolutely no clue how you could say that, it's all about scale here; were kovalchuk wearing ranger blue and talking about how he dreamed in russia about playing for the new york rangers, you absolutely wouldn't. thankfully you've already claimed that the league would look the other way were the rangers to sign him to such a faulty deal, but i disagree.

PR-wise, the NHL had no choice. i don't think it wanted to do this, but it's got semin, parise, j. carter, thornton, b. richards, doughty, stamkos, etc. all in line for new contracts and all potentially taking one of these things, each more ridiculous than the last. it's not good for the league, and the more of these there are on the books, the harder it will be to negotiate them out of the next CBA.

See my edit.... no the league didn't use the word "retirement contract" but that's obviously in substance what they argued to the arbitrator. And my irrational hatred of the Rangers has nothing to do with it. Whatever the scale of Kovalchuk's deal, there is still no princpled way to distinguish it from other deals that everyone knows accomplish the same thing. You can pull the, "if the Rangers did it" card all you want, it won't change that.

Also guys like Thornton and Brad Richards would not be getting deals like that. They're not good enough and both are too old to get them. And the others, no one would have a problem with, because the whole point is to keep them on the teams that drafted them. Had the league gone after the first one of these retirement deals, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The inconsistency destroys any kind of certainty of what kind of deals would be kosher, and effectively gives the league carte blanche to intervene in the free agent market. That is the sort of thing that destroys credibility even for casual fans.

Really, the whole point of a salary cap is to avoid having a few teams that can buy up every single high profile free agent that comes on the market. Even with the long term deals, that hasn't happened, and wouldn't over the next two years. And yes, the Rangers were certainly wise to the possibility of trying them out, but couldn't pull it off for whatever reason. I don't think Jim Dolan would have any scruples of finding a way to resume buying an all-star team outright if he had the opportunity to do it. He's just really bad at it.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Daniel

[mmajeski06]

Haha, remember this?

I think we're going to make 500 easily.

Edited August 10, 2010 by mmajeski06

[overtime98]

I think we're going to make 500 easily.

I am thinking 550 or 600 might be in range. I dont think a new deal will be any time soon, but who knows. A new deal could be within an hour or a week from now.

[mmajeski06]

I am thinking 550 or 600 might be in range. I dont think a new deal will be any time soon, but who knows. A new deal could be within an hour or a week from now.

Which I guess is exciting. Waiting for the arbitration decision sucked, since we knew when it was going to happen. At least with the announcement of a new contract we can relive some of the excitement of the original announcement.

[Neb00rs]

all of the non-hockey sports fans i talked to about this thought that the 17 year contract length was either a joke or a misprint. the contract shredded the credibility of the NHL.

[mmajeski06]

Is this a jersey foul?

http://cgi.ebay.com/CCM-Devils-BETTMAN-SUCKS-Novelty-Jersey-/180545239219?pt=U_Hockey_Fan_Shop

[Legion15]

i like the comments on the TG fire and ice blog, proposing replacing the "Rangers Suck" chant (I'm not trying to open that controversy) with "Bettman Sucks" - but have that happen league wide, or at least in the towns that he's screwed over the years. Especially if that douche is still around in 2 years and there's another lockout.

[CarpathianForest]

I believe that is the last name of Norman Bettmansucks. He's a little known Devils player that is only utilized if every Devil is unavailable to play.

[Triumph]

See my edit.... no the league didn't use the word "retirement contract" but that's obviously in substance what they argued to the arbitrator. And my irrational hatred of the Rangers has nothing to do with it. Whatever the scale of Kovalchuk's deal, there is still no princpled way to distinguish it from other deals that everyone knows accomplish the same thing. You can pull the, "if the Rangers did it" card all you want, it won't change that.

principled?! that's the whole point! it doesn't have to be principled! but there is a way - the contract goes longer and has more minimum hit years. the arbitrator wasn't allowed to rule on other contracts; he is ruling on this contract.

Also guys like Thornton and Brad Richards would not be getting deals like that. They're not good enough and both are too old to get them.

keep digging. yes, these players are clearly worse than marc savard. thornton absolutely would have gotten one, if he wanted it. and why not with richards? why not a 12 year, 48 million dollar deal for brad richards where he makes 44 million in the first 8 seasons? the only risk there is purely financial - it's barely a cap risk.

And the others, no one would have a problem with, because the whole point is to keep them on the teams that drafted them. Had the league gone after the first one of these retirement deals, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

it probably wouldn't've won, because the red wings weren't foolish enough to tack on 5 minimum salary years.

The inconsistency destroys any kind of certainty of what kind of deals would be kosher, and effectively gives the league carte blanche to intervene in the free agent market. That is the sort of thing that destroys credibility even for casual fans.

utter nonsense. while it does grant the league some frightening capabilities, the casual fan doesn't give a good goddamn about this crap until it affects their team. most of the league's fans are laughing at new jersey, not being like 'oh no'.

Really, the whole point of a salary cap is to avoid having a few teams that can buy up every single high profile free agent that comes on the market.

no it isn't. the salary cap is tied to revenues and gives the league cost certainty. it keeps salaries at a theoretically reasonable level and ensures that salaries do not get out of whack with

Even with the long term deals, that hasn't happened, and wouldn't over the next two years.

that isn't the point, either. they mess with the league's escrow system. they mess with the cap in general. bloch is right on that account - that is the intent of these contracts.

And yes, the Rangers were certainly wise to the possibility of trying them out, but couldn't pull it off for whatever reason. I don't think Jim Dolan would have any scruples of finding a way to resume buying an all-star team outright if he had the opportunity to do it. He's just really bad at it.

i don't see what relevance this has to the point i am making, although i confess i am the one who brought up the rangers.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Triumph

[Amberite]

So now that the league is supposedly ( ) going after the Luongo / Savard, etc contracts, does that mean that even a 15 year contract is not feasible at this point?

[mmajeski06]

So now that the league is supposedly ( ) going after the Luongo / Savard, etc contracts, does that mean that even a 15 year contract is not feasible at this point?

Who knows, but I bet it is making it harder for Lou to iron out a deal.

[PattyElias26]

Is this a jersey foul?

http://cgi.ebay.com/CCM-Devils-BETTMAN-SUCKS-Novelty-Jersey-/180545239219?pt=U_Hockey_Fan_Shop

interesting number choice

[Random Poster]

This is still a good team and will contend no matter how this turns out.

Contend for a playoff spot? Sure. Cup? No. I'm not sure this team is a Cup contender with Kovalchuk. The team has some questions and still no PMD.

If you take Kovalchuk out of the top 6 forwards, it just changes this team's dynamics. They still have 5 talented and reliable forwards with a legit star (Parise), but Kovalchuk just adds something, a dimension that would make that group complete and perhaps formidable (if everyone is healthy and contributes accordingly).

[CarpathianForest]

I know this is an old rehash but the league couldn't go after a 15 year deal could they? Isn't there already a precedent with Hossa?

If the league asked the Devs if this was cap circumvention they could just say no that they really like Kovalchuk. That's as solid as a defense as there ever was.