ForumGhost Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Good riddance. Loophole contracts like that shouldn't be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) I'm against this ruling. It's bad for the game, it's bad for the players, it's bad for the owners...BUT it's not against the rules, and I am dumbfounded how this was rejected. I'm tired of contracts in pro sports not being honoured. As an aside, couldn't NJ simply do the same contract again, have the NHL take it to arbitration and hope they get a different arbitrator this time? Keep doing this til they get a favourable result? Edited August 10, 2010 by bar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I'm against this ruling. It's bad for the game, it's bad for the players, it's bad for the owners...BUT it's not against the rules, and I am dumbfounded how this was rejected. I'm tired of contracts in pro sports not being honoured. As an aside, couldn't NJ simply do the same contract again, have the NHL take it to arbitration and hope they get a different arbitrator this time? Keep doing this til they get a favourable result? I doubt another arbiter would undermine another like that. I think this ruling establishes a precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I'm thrilled this was rejected! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I'm happy from a fan stand point, but from a legal standpoint I cant see how it was allowed to be voided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I doubt another arbiter would undermine another like that. I think this ruling establishes a precedence. Hmmm I ponder.... Is it possible that Lamoriello's contract offer was in fact meant to establish a precedence? The front loading was just too obvious Lou might of thought 1) If it passes? great... Kovy is with the Devils for the best part of his carreer! 2)if it doesnt? Great as well! Other teams won't be able to do so (remember crosby's contract expires soon) and those that have issued similar contracts, well they might just get annulled as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I'm against this ruling. It's bad for the game, it's bad for the players, it's bad for the owners...BUT it's not against the rules, and I am dumbfounded how this was rejected. I'm tired of contracts in pro sports not being honoured. As an aside, couldn't NJ simply do the same contract again, have the NHL take it to arbitration and hope they get a different arbitrator this time? Keep doing this til they get a favourable result? Yes, it is against the rules. Any contract that circumvents the salary cap can be voided. It says so in the CBA. This circumvents the CBA. This is the legal equivelant of finding a new way to steal. Just because it's not specifically against the law that you can't steal from someone this new way, doesn't mean that the act isn't illegal. The NHL needed assurance that this was in fact circumvention, and they got it. Now they can go after contracts that are already on the books as well, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Apparently the league is looking into the Pronger, Luongo, Hossa and Savard deals specifically. Is there grounds to terminate a contract a year (or more) after it was approved? I don't see how but this is an interesting little side story. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330099 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Apparently the league is looking into the Pronger, Luongo, Hossa and Savard deals specifically. Is there grounds to terminate a contract a year (or more) after it was approved? I don't see how but this is an interesting little side story. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330099 There is grounds based on the arbitrator's ruling. You'd have to assume Lecavalier's, Zetterberg's and Franzen's deasl could be looked at as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 If the NHL starts headhunting there contracts u can be sure of a long nice lockout again soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonJ Posted August 11, 2010 Author Share Posted August 11, 2010 If the NHL starts headhunting there contracts u can be sure of a long nice lockout again soon. Really? There only seems to be about a dozen noticeable cases of this at most, so other than the NHLPA would the players really care? I think it would be interesting to hear what most players think about these expiring contracts. Many players might even want them gone because it takes away some of their bargaining power when a GM brings up an artificially lowered number for a comparable player. An example would be if Plek was trying to play hardball and PG brought in the Zetterburg or Savard numbers and said Plek isn't as good as the why should he make more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I think it wouldn't be fare to take action against contracts that have already been signed. The NHL passed them originally, they can't change their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I think it wouldn't be fair to take action against contracts that have already been signed. The NHL passed them originally, they can't change their minds. Based on the TSN article, I gather that the case is that the contracts weren't ever closed as done deals. It seems like although the NHL didn't reject them originally, they left the door open to reject them down the line... perhaps when a precedent had been set . Apparently even Hossa's contract can be debated, and he is one year into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 If the NHL starts headhunting there contracts u can be sure of a long nice lockout again soon. you mean a strike this time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Yeah, the players don't have a union leader, haven't saved a dime in a war chest like last time, and have seen the cap rise nearly 66% since 2005-06. That has all the makings of a strike right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Yeah, the players don't have a union leader, haven't saved a dime in a war chest like last time, and have seen the cap rise nearly 66% since 2005-06. That has all the makings of a strike right there. Do I detect a note of sarcasm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Do I detect a note of sarcasm? No, not at all. Actually, I was wrong. The cap has risen ONLY 52% since 2005-06, used the wrong way of calculating that figure. It was $39m, is now $59.4m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 As I read through the arbitrator's ruling, I find it interesting that one of the NHL's points of contention was the transfer of a no-movement to a no-trade clause as the salary plummets. I never even thought to consider it, nor did I see that commented on when the deal was first released. Not a whole lot else to highlight (there was a typo on page 17, big deal), but the note on the other deals potentially being rejected caught my eye. Here's the excerpt I'm referring to: The premise that the league can revoke the deals is based on the fact that the contracts remain under investigation, that is to suggest they were "conditionally accepted." Unless there's other deals under indefinite investigation, I think we can forget about any of the other controversial deals (Lecavalier being one that some appear to be hoping for) getting nixed. That does though answer my question earlier as to how the league could revoke deals they already approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 HAAA!! i knew it!... Lamoriello purposefully sabotaged the deal with Kovie knowing the NHL wouldnt approve... this dude (agent) http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/304272.html says the league minimum 10+ years from now cant be 500k so putting 500k at the end of the contract he knew the NHL woudlnt accept.. !!! That Lou is Cold as ICE! haha B...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 HAAA!! i knew it!... Lamoriello purposefully sabotaged the deal with Kovie knowing the NHL wouldnt approve... this dude (agent) http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/304272.html says the league minimum 10+ years from now cant be 500k so putting 500k at the end of the contract he knew the NHL woudlnt accept.. !!! That Lou is Cold as ICE! haha B...! If that were the case, Lamoriello subjected himself, Kovy's agent, and his organization to massive fines and potentially losing their jobs. I don't buy that argument for a second. Would Lou actually do this to cost the New Jersey Devils heavy fines and potentially picks and cap space? Elliotte Freidman has an interesting take: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/elliottefri...uk-fallout.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 HAAA!! i knew it!... Lamoriello purposefully sabotaged the deal with Kovie knowing the NHL wouldnt approve... this dude (agent) http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/304272.html says the league minimum 10+ years from now cant be 500k so putting 500k at the end of the contract he knew the NHL woudlnt accept.. !!! That Lou is Cold as ICE! haha B...! From reading the arbitrator's decision, the 550k salary he'd have received in the final years did not directly void the contract and it was specifically addressed. It was a reason for Kovalchuk to not honour his end, but had that been the only concern, the contract would have been approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Kosmos Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Please, people, would you stop calling Kovalchuk "Kovy"? There is only one "Kovy" and that is Kovalev. kthnxbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Please, people, would you stop calling Kovalchuk "Kovy"? There is only one "Kovy" and that is Kovalev. kthnxbye Please note I now use "KovIE" and not Kovy, as suggested by Kovie's ex thrashers coach Bob Hartley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Today's the day we find out if the next contract has been rejected or not. The breakdown: 2010-11: $6 million 2011-12: $6 million 2012-13: $11 million 2013-14: $11.3 million 2014-15: $11.3 million 2015-16: $11.6 million 2016-17: $11.8 million 2017-18: $10 million 2018-19: $7 million 2019-20: $4 million 2020-21: $1 million 2021-22: $1 million 2022-23: $1 million 2023-24: $3 million 2024-25: $4 million To me, this looks a lot like the old deal, just with a bit of money taken off from the big years and backloaded onto the final 2 years. I'm skeptical this will be passed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Today's the day we find out if the next contract has been rejected or not. The breakdown: 2010-11: $6 million 2011-12: $6 million 2012-13: $11 million 2013-14: $11.3 million 2014-15: $11.3 million 2015-16: $11.6 million 2016-17: $11.8 million 2017-18: $10 million 2018-19: $7 million 2019-20: $4 million 2020-21: $1 million 2021-22: $1 million 2022-23: $1 million 2023-24: $3 million 2024-25: $4 million To me, this looks a lot like the old deal, just with a bit of money taken off from the big years and backloaded onto the final 2 years. I'm skeptical this will be passed as well. Wow, that's garbage. I'm guessing that Kovalchuk will start in the KHL then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.