(Yes, Squanto, I do know it's past the elapsed time allowed to overturn deals)

Well we'll never see these deals again.

That's just my understanding of those clauses. I could be totally wrong. It doesn't make sense to me why the league would 'investigate' these deals unless they wanted to do something about it.

You both could be right in a way. What about the scenario of them fining the team? Is that still a plausible course of action?

Make the fine a cap hit, that'll teach them...

It's funny in a sick way.

The owners bitched and moaned before the lockout because salaries were escalating, there was no cost certainty, etc. So they locked the players out to get a cap system to provide a brake on salaries AND to get that cap in place.

Now that they got the cap in, those SAME owners are trying to find new and creative ways to circumvent that same cost certainty that they so desperately wanted.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=5450709

scott burnside suggests the nixed deal may drive a wedge between the owners and the PA.... and he mentions the possibility of another work stoppage.

"Bigger picture, some are suggesting the Kovalchuk ruling is the first border war in what may be another Terminator-style clash between the players and the owners when a new CBA is expected to be bargained at the end of the 2011-12 season."

he goes on to say HE doesnt think so, but even so, i dont even like the possibility of it all, even if it is minuscule.

Not what the NHL needs...