Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 wat. the marc savard contract unquestionably does this. as does the luongo contract. and those were the only two i looked at. am i missing something? i don't think it's because of that clause. I dunno, I had never head of that rule before, but it'd be an easy fix if the league is going to make an issue of it, just lower highers and bump the first 2 years up to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grcenter47 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 i wonder if this will cause drama similar to the scott stevens/shanahan situation in the early 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 DarrenDreger Kovy's deal was rejected because the NHL doesn't believe either the player or the Devils expected he would be playing near end of deal. Kovy rejection was based on what may be a classis case of an artificial lowering of the AAV. They can refile, or the PA can grieve... If the NHLPA grieves the leagues decision, the contract remains dead until an arbitrator decides otherwise. -------------------- Simpler to just make the contract 15 years than risk the arbiter, I'm guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 What? You didn't know this was going to happen? You're slipping! Sir, you just mowed the lawn with that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Lou is not the sort of person to roll over and agree with the rejection. He will take this to court. And I have no idea how the league can effectively argue their case when it follows all CBA rules and there is already plenty of precedent. Courts take past precedence pretty seriously. If there is a challenge, an arbitrator will decide the matter. You can challenge the arbitrator's decision in court, but it is extremely difficult to win. For something like this it would be a virtual impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickwall30 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 here is the details of Luongo's contracts that he signed at age 31 until age 43 2010-11 -- $10 million 2011-12 -- $6.716 million 2012-13 -- $6.714 million 2013-14 -- $6.714 million 2014-15 -- $6.714 million 2015-16 -- $6.714 million 2016-17 -- $6.714 million 2017-18 -- $6.714 million 2018-19 -- $3.382 million 2019-20 -- $1.618 million 2020-21 -- $1 million 2021-22 -- $1 million the bolded 3 years would violate the apparent 100% rule that was talked about and this was not rejected. I fail to see what we did wrong that they did right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 i would make it 15 years but hope to talk kovalchuk down to 95 million. i'm sure he wanted a 9 figure deal, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Why did Lou tell TG he thought it was a stupid contract? He should throw a jelly jar at himself. I thought he was a moron for saying as much but figured they waited since Saturday so the NHL could approve it. or did Lou WANT this to be rejected? whatever. If that was the case Vanderbeek would be well within his rights to fire Lou immediately without having to pay any money owed him. They can't use that against him, he was just saying he didn't agree with it on principle but it's been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 DarrenDreger Kovy's deal was rejected because the NHL doesn't believe either the player or the Devils expected he would be playing near end of deal. Kovy rejection was based on what may be a classis case of an artificial lowering of the AAV. They can refile, or the PA can grieve... If the NHLPA grieves the leagues decision, the contract remains dead until an arbitrator decides otherwise. -------------------- Simpler to just make the contract 15 years than risk the arbiter, I'm guessing. Get the union after 'em. Would be nice if they fought it and won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 wat. the marc savard contract unquestionably does this. as does the luongo contract. and those were the only two i looked at. am i missing something? i don't think it's because of that clause. That's an incorrect reading of the rule. The increase/decrease is based on the lower of the 1st two years of the contract. You can't decrease more than 50% of the lower of the 1st 2 years. For Kovy's contract that's $3m, and the biggest decrease is 6.5 to 3.5. Contract never violates the 100% rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I fail to see what we did wrong that they did right... We're the New Jersey Devils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 so its okay when any other team does it? fvck the NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevils1214 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This only happened to try and prevent more suicides by LA Kings fans after watching the press conference footage.The NHL realizes they are at fault for putting up the videos on NHL.tv. As soon as they have all the fans on watch, the NHL will announce that the contract is fine and they don't just really hate the Devils and Lou for being just way to awesome. Until then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 the bolded 3 years would violate the apparent 100% rule that was talked about and this was not rejected. I fail to see what we did wrong that they did right... Could be selective enforcement? It doesn't look like that's what the league had a problem with, but it's another tool they have against contracts they decide they don't like, it seems. That's an incorrect reading of the rule. The increase/decrease is based on the lower of the 1st two years of the contract. You can't decrease more than 50% of the lower of the 1st 2 years. For Kovy's contract that's $3m, and the biggest decrease is 6.5 to 3.5. Contract never violates the 100% rule. You could be right, Erat violated the 50% drop rule bet ween 12-13 and 13-14. 1.75 million should have been max drop, not 2 million that happened. Why call it the 100% rule, it's really the 50% rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelastonealive Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 So, uh...who wants to take bets that Gary Bettman thinks Intent To Blow is real? Steve's article from this morning: http://intenttoblow.com/?p=833 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I understand that an arbitrator will decide if it gets disputed, but I don't understand the opinion that the arbitrator will side with the league despite the league showing obvious precedence in the past at allowing these contracts. How can a neutral arbitrator look at the CBA, see that no rules were broken, and then look at past examples, and see that they were all allowed, and then rule against us? It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 TG has the most interesting information being reported on the story than the NHL's Cap Guru is now the Devils VP in charge of the team's cap who crafted this deal. It would seem this guy knows the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEV1LDR1VER Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Lou said himself these contracts should not be allowed in the NHL and should be changed in the new CBA, but now is totally legal. I believe he knows what he is doing and this will all be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSC Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 so its okay when any other team does it? fvck the NHL Seriously, this is major bullsh!t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I understand that an arbitrator will decide if it gets disputed, but I don't understand the opinion that the arbitrator will side with the league despite the league showing obvious precedence in the past at allowing these contracts. How can a neutral arbitrator look at the CBA, see that no rules were broken, and then look at past examples, and see that they were all allowed, and then rule against us? It makes no sense. The arbiter could look at the wording of the clause, see the NHL gets to decide what salary cap circumvention is, and then say, "well the NHL decided this one is, which is their right". The NHL goes, "hey this guy is older than anyone else and we think it's too old and just their to lower cap hit". The Judge goes, "that seems reasonable enough". Arbiter rules for the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias26 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Oh crap I just looked at hockeybuzz and already they have him going to he Rags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickwall30 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 That's an incorrect reading of the rule. The increase/decrease is based on the lower of the 1st two years of the contract. You can't decrease more than 50% of the lower of the 1st 2 years. For Kovy's contract that's $3m, and the biggest decrease is 6.5 to 3.5. Contract never violates the 100% rule. there is two different rules the 50% rule and the 100% rule the 100% rule states that over a 3 year period of the contract (I will use Luongo's for example) the salary can not drop by 3 times the lowest value so for Luongo's he is paid $1 million in the second to last year, but 2 years previous he was paid $3.375 million which is a violation of the 100% rule the 50% rule (which seems to be a more strictly enforced rule) states that the lower of the first 2 seasons salary divided by 2 is the greatest amount the contracts value can drop from one year to the next. In Kovalchuk's case, as has been said a few times, his first two years are $6 million so the value from one year to the next can not be any more than $3 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I hope we win the cup and get to BOOOOOOOOO Bettman like fvcking crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeford Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 This is gonna be such an incredible sh!tshow if Lou and JVB decide this baby is going to court. I cant wait. The fun is just getting started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 TG has the most interesting information being reported on the story than the NHL's Cap Guru is now the Devils VP in charge of the team's cap who crafted this deal. It would seem this guy knows the CBA. The problem is, while not violating the letter of the CBA, it violates the spirit, which the league is equally justified in using to not approve. So the cap guy wouldn't know for sure how the league would look at it, spiritually, since he's not there any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts