Jump to content

New Kovy Update ("As the Kovy Turns")


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/devils/nhl_gives_players_assn_ultimatum_UEbYgwfB6I4E4y7xGbE1OP

YOWZERS!

That's a fvcking hell of an ultimatum. If the NHLPA had any teeth, you'd be hearing talk of a strike. That's balsy as all hell of the league to talk about killing Hossa and Luongo. Why the Wings and Savard get a pass I don't know.

The thing is, I have NO problem with the proposal the league is making for future contracts. I think this loophole sucks and these are sensible solutions. The problem is, you're not going to get the NHLPA to be able to agree to it in 48 hours and that's what's total bullsh!t. The NHLPA will rightfully want something in return for this giveback and that's something to negotiate. Meanwhile, Kovalchuk and the Devils sit and stew.

Furthermore, if the league tries to pull this sh!t with the other two contracts, you'll see not only grievance/arbitration. You'll undoubtedly see lawsuits. I'm amazed the NHL was able to put this on the table because I'd think there would be at least 1/2 a dozen clubs that wouldn't want this rule in place.

Could you find a more amateurish lot? I'm speechless, absolutely speechless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a coup that would be for the Devils if an agreement is made. They get Kovy at a sweetheart deal and there will only be a handful of these deals allowed across the whole league.

disagree - they very much wanted one of these for parise too. now parise's cap number is in the $8MM range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone whined the league was singling out the Devils. now that that's been proven wrong, now people are whining that they might punish someone. me, I find it funny.

Luongo.... YOU'RE FIRRRRRRREDDDDDD!

I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong on that point if the league starts voiding deals.

I still stand by my belief though that Kovy could have signed the same deal with the Penguins, Caps or Rangers and the deal would be approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

disagree - they very much wanted one of these for parise too. now parise's cap number is in the $8MM range.

You weren't going to get it either way, the league would have rejected Parise signing a deal like that too.

This way the Devils end up with 1, when there are probably less than 10 in the whole NHL, and they have maybe the most extreme. The other way the Devils would of had none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone whined the league was singling out the Devils. now that that's been proven wrong, now people are whining that they might punish someone. me, I find it funny.

Luongo.... YOU'RE FIRRRRRRREDDDDDD!

The league shouldn't have a right to punish ANY team in this situation. Do these loop hole deals suck? Yeah but they're pretty much necessary with the joke of a CBA they have in place. Whatever the case these types of deals should have been squashed from the very first one if they are so detrimental. You can't open up Pandora's box and now say you're going to void deals or else. This is fvcking amateur hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The league shouldn't have a right to punish ANY team in this situation. Do these loop hole deals suck? Yeah but they're pretty much necessary with the joke of a CBA they have in place. Whatever the case these types of deals should have been squashed from the very first one if they are so detrimental. You can't open up Pandora's box and now say you're going to void deals or else. This is fvcking amateur hour.

I don't think the league felt they could squash the very first one, although they would have loved to, I bet. The first ones would have gone to arbitration and the NHL would have had a very tough time winning, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The league shouldn't have a right to punish ANY team in this situation. Do these loop hole deals suck? Yeah but they're pretty much necessary with the joke of a CBA they have in place. Whatever the case these types of deals should have been squashed from the very first one if they are so detrimental. You can't open up Pandora's box and now say you're going to void deals or else. This is fvcking amateur hour.

so, what do you want them to do? just allow them all? they want to close the loophole, and this is how they've apparently chosen to do so. motivate the other side to sign off and sign off quickly.

I just don't understand the sentiment of "waaaaaah, they hate the Devils", and now that it's proven incorrect, it's "waaaah, how can they do this to someone else too?"

if this is the case, you all should be thrilled because you're 95% likely to get your goofy contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/devils/nhl_gives_players_assn_ultimatum_UEbYgwfB6I4E4y7xGbE1OP

YOWZERS!

That's a fvcking hell of an ultimatum. If the NHLPA had any teeth, you'd be hearing talk of a strike. That's balsy as all hell of the league to talk about killing Hossa and Luongo. Why the Wings and Savard get a pass I don't know.

The thing is, I have NO problem with the proposal the league is making for future contracts. I think this loophole sucks and these are sensible solutions. The problem is, you're not going to get the NHLPA to be able to agree to it in 48 hours and that's what's total bullsh!t. The NHLPA will rightfully want something in return for this giveback and that's something to negotiate. Meanwhile, Kovalchuk and the Devils sit and stew.

Furthermore, if the league tries to pull this sh!t with the other two contracts, you'll see not only grievance/arbitration. You'll undoubtedly see lawsuits. I'm amazed the NHL was able to put this on the table because I'd think there would be at least 1/2 a dozen clubs that wouldn't want this rule in place.

WOW...i cant believe it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you find a more amateurish lot? I'm speechless, absolutely speechless.

You know whats going to happen now...teams are going to start backloading contracts like crazy. Its going to be a 15 year deal, the years under 40 paying $1 mil per year and the years over 40 paying $20 mil per year since it wont count under the cap the team will send the guy to the minors and he will collect his paycheck in earnest.

Not saying it will actually be those terms but something equally ridiculous to frontloading we'll probably now see frontloaded.-dead in the middle-backloaded after age 40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know whats going to happen now...teams are going to start backloading contracts like crazy. Its going to be a 15 year deal, the years under 40 paying $1 mil per year and the years over 40 paying $20 mil per year since it wont count under the cap the team will send the guy to the minors and he will collect his paycheck in earnest.

Not saying it will actually be those terms but something equally ridiculous to frontloading we'll probably now see frontloaded.-dead in the middle-backloaded after age 40.

2 things I think would severely limit that:

1) Players won't want those type of contracts.

2) Anything that's absurd would get voided by the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for the 10 players grandfathered into the next amendment.

Those were front loaded, not back loaded deals. Only Kovy's contract had the absurd back loading, which was BS to just make it seen in court that there was incentive to play those years out.

Players love front loaded contracts, pay me more now is always good. Pay me more 10 years from now is not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those were front loaded, not back loaded deals. Only Kovy's contract had the absurd back loading, which was BS to just make it seen in court that there was incentive to play those years out.

Players love front loaded contracts, pay me more now is always good. Pay me more 10 years from now is not good.

I know what you guys are saying. I'm not arguing on exact terms. Of course players prefer the money in the front to the back but if the deal is sweet enough... I just think this solves nothing. You could have a player aged 27 sign a 15 year deal for $5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-10-10-10-10-20-25 or something. 15 year deal for lets say $130, the backend $45 doesnt count against the cap and you have a $6.5 cap hit.

Just saying we're very likely to see something like this even if the numbers are totally different the concept will be same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I think the PA will accept this only to argue it when the CBA expires. There is a year left and they just want to get it resolved. HOWEVER...I don't think we're gonna be seeing hockey anytime soon after the next 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you know as much as the fact that Savard (Boston) is getting a pass in this ultimatum and Hossa (chicago) would only be getting "formal investigations" opened on him, and even to a lesser degree Pronger begin left off (I say lesser because he is on there cap hit for the entire duration no matter what because of the over 35 rule so the front loading is there but it's pointless) would all indicate that the whole "the league would never do this to the rangers!" thing I would just like to remind everyone that the league has gone after the Rangers for stupider things than this.

A few years ago when the league was making a conformity push to have all the team websites running under the same nhl."teamname".com format with all the same kind of formats for the page itself, they went after the rangers for not complying and if I recall they ended up winning and fined the Rangers TONS of money (in the neighborhood of $10,000 per day that they refused to comply) and they didn't give up on it until they changed it.

So ENOUGH with the inferiority people, the only thing holding this back at this point seems to genuinely be that the NHL is determined to try and beat every last inch they can get out of the currently weakened and mostly leaderless players association so that they don't have to do it against a strengthened and prepared one 2 years from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you guys are saying. I'm not arguing on exact terms. Of course players prefer the money in the front to the back but if the deal is sweet enough... I just think this solves nothing. You could have a player aged 27 sign a 15 year deal for $5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-10-10-10-10-20-25 or something. 15 year deal for lets say $130, the backend $45 doesnt count against the cap and you have a $6.5 cap hit.

Just saying we're very likely to see something like this even if the numbers are totally different the concept will be same.

If I was a player I wouldn't sign that deal. There's a good chance I won't be able to physically perform those last years and I won't get paid the big bucks, and you're asking me to take a hit on my contract to help the team out. In the front loaded scenarios players are being asked to get a bonus to their contracts to help the teams out, so they're happen to do it in the scenarios we've had. On a super long term deal like that the time value of money is going to come into play, so those last years with big dollars get heavily discounted to how much they're worth to the player.

Edit: Plus, the team has to carry a cap hit of 20 million and 25 million for that guy in those last years now, so I don't think he's going to want to do that. If you send him to the minors you'd probably get fined for the league for circumventing the cap, with this demotion as proof of it.

Edited by Devils731
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things I think would severely limit that:

1) Players won't want those type of contracts.

2) Anything that's absurd would get voided by the league.

the 3rd is the NHL's stance that the top 5 years of a deal longer than 5 years = cap hit which would likely override the over 40 doesn't count rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.