dear god i never thought i'd agree with that lol

_________________

FIGHTER OF THE NIGHTMAN

"on the ice now for buffalo, looking for the pass, and gets it, afinogenov, couldnt get the shot away, now HE DOES, HE SCORES!!!! HOLY MACKEREL ROLE THE HIGH LIGHT FILM, MAXIM AFINOGENOV, WHAT A MOVE!!!!.... thats not fair... that was unbelievable"
-R.J. and Lorenz

And here I thought this was a boring time for hockey

_________________

Thank god, they also should throw that Bullshit Hossa deal out too, but they can't because it's already approved.

If you try to fuck the system, you should be punished, I really think that if the deal isn't allowed, the NHL should strip the Devils of 3M in cap space, or a 2nd round pick next season. Really send a message to the GMs of this league; don't fucking exploit a legal loop hole just because you think you can get away with it.

_________________
"She's like plan C after an 18 pack"

Squanto 7/27/2010

For some reason this made me about piss myself.. I have seen that commercial a hundred times but in this instance its fuckin funny

_________________
The Board Drunk.

This contract is not 'perfectly legal under the CBA' as so many have said.



(The and at the end goes into the arbitration scenarios.)



This contact OBVIOUSLY meets this clause. Even if Kovie wouldn't be 44 at the end of the deal, it's painfully obvious that the only reason for the last 6 years of the deal is to reduce the cap number. Players don't sign 17 year deals only to have 35% of it at the league minimum salary, especially not after making the max early on.

The Hossa deal was on the fringe of this definition, although the league could go back and challenge it if they like, if they take some liberal definitions of when the 'should have known' is was a circumvention. They can't void it since it's already played on it, but they could penalize Chicago for circumvention. The Pronger deal is listed as a 35+ , so there really isn't much to say about it since it counts even if he retires.

The Devils ownership basically saw the Hossa deal, and tried to one up it. They went too far.

I full expect them to just readjust the money and resubmit a less obviously shitty deal that does the same thing.

This is all typical NHL though. They don't make their rules specific enough, and rely too much on judgement calls.

Hit me, tubesock.

_________________

Again, like I said. The NHL can't do that if they expect Hossa, Zetterberg, Pronger, Franzen, and Savard to play into their 40s. Also, Luongo is expected to play until he's 43.

The reasoning is bull and the NHLPA would win this case in a landslide.

Listen, I'm not for the contract for Kovy, but when the NHL has already set six precedents for teams circumventing the cap, they can't all of a sudden switch hands and say no on this one.

_________________
Girgensons for captain. Team Keep Nick DesLauriers forever.

@TJLuckman550

Yes, they can. Nothing in the CBA says that they cannot challenge this contract since they've allowed others.

The NHL looked into each of the previous contracts you mentioned. They could not prove intent to circumvent the cap in any of the prior contracts. In fact, Pronger's contract should never even be considered. Since it's a 35+ contract, his cap hit is fixed regardless of when he retires.

Hossa, Zetterberg, Franzen, all have final year payments of $1M, and only Hossa goes longer than 2 years. Hossa's contract was almost rejected by the league too because of his 4 years of low salary padding, but they didn't.

This Kovie thing is a slap in the face. 35% of the contract length has annual payments LESS THAN HALF of the average NHL salary. It's not even close to legit. The NHL warned teams to stop doing this crap, and the Devils' ownership thought they could get away with it.

It's an obvious and blatant attempt to jack the cap number, and I'm glad the NHL is manning up and doing something about it.

If the NHLPA grieves, there's still no way the NHL wins. Even if the Pronger contract is factored out, I can't see an arbitrator ruling in favor of the NHL here.

_________________
Girgensons for captain. Team Keep Nick DesLauriers forever.

@TJLuckman550

For the sake of us all now having to listen to the media and the speculation as to the, "What now?" as to where he'll go if Kovy turns his back on the team after praising the organization, I too am happy the league decided to say enough is enough when it comes to these kinds of deals. As Squanto already mentioned, the previous deals were pretty close to being tossed out but in this case, it was pretty obvious as to what was going on.

Yay @ Bettman/Daily!

@ Kovy & NJ.

_________________
If it's a tight squeeze, spit on it! - NyI

He's a middling AHL player who had the good fortune of a drunk arbitrator. - The Squanto re: Tim Kennedy

I think the NHLPA isn't going to grieve here. The shitwar that would ensue would be just plain horrid.

_________________

Zetterberg and Franzen have contracts that last until age 40, with three years of lowered salary (1 mil minimum) at the end.

Savard's contract lasts until age 39 with three years of lowered salary (525k minimum) at the end.

Hossa's lasts until age 42 with four years of lowered salary (750k minimum) at the end.

Kovalchuk's deal lasted until age 44 with seven years of lowered salary (4-5 years at 550k) at the end.

There is enough difference in the Kovalchuk deal to justify the NHL's rejection. I hate the extra drama and the delay to the FA season, but it was the right thing to do, even if the NHLPA fights it and somehow wins.

The NHLPA will argue that the NHL accepted similarly structured contracts before.

The NHL will point out that the Kovie deal is substantially different from the previous contracts being that:
- The time period of minimum salary is longer than any deal before it
- The amount paid during the minimum salary is barely above the league minimum.

They're also point out that they already warned clubs after Hossa that they would heavily scrutinize contracts structured like this, and reject them if they were obviously structured to deflate the cap number.

I think the NHL has a stronger case.

Okay, I never did follow the lockout news, and really cared little for the hashing out of the current CBA. Can anyone tell me what the reason was to have two different numbers, a salary and a cap hit? Why not just make the cap hit for that year be equal to the salary for that year? Makes all this circumventing of cap hits irrelevant.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Couldn't the devils just restructure the deal to be essentially the same, instead of lowering the salary down later, they make the 11.5 million last for two or three years longer, then lower it to say 7, then lower it straight to 1 million in the last 4 years and still circumvent the cap hit that way but reducing the years paid out?

I'd have to look at the deal again and the terms of when the salary reduces so I could structure say a 12 year deal that has the same cap hit but is the same way constructed too.

Or the NHL just gets rid of the under 35 rule, if they retire the full cap hit is against the cap no matter what for the rest of the contract, then it would significantly reduce these ridiculous contracts.

I don't care if they sign a player for life, but if he retires before his contract is over, you have two options. Take the cap hit throughout the remaining contract, or buy out the remaining contract. Then every team would be reluctant to sign a player past 35. And by the time they are 35, you wouldn't want to sign a player to anything longer than 2 years, at that point one year deals would be the best option.

_________________

I like the Devils fail-ness. But at the same time I find it stupid that the NHL is choosing now to take a stand when they should have earlier with several questionable contracts.

It's like oh the Islanders, Flyers, Blackhawks, and Red Wings are allowed to cheat, but now the Devils aren't.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

Exactly. It's the NHL's OWN fault they made no guidelines, and thought they'd give themselves a trump clause(and that's what that is). A VERY subjective, super generalized clause that they think will give them God power. They usually hold very little water legally. If anyone is guilty of something, the NHL is guilty of trying to meddle in such manners. No one should have the ability to selectively enforce some vague rule. I really hope the Devils cause a shit storm. Work out the details, or don't create the rule. This clause ASSURED that this would happen someday. When the other teams did it, a few owners must have spoke up, but I'm guessing this time they all did. That's why this instance was enforced. Tell me that isn't gay. I wouldn't even join a fantasy league that was run like that, ffs.

I read somewhere that the devils are not going to bitch about this rejection. LA might be back into this saga

_________________
just call me Brad

Twitter @BUrbanowicz13

I hope they are clamoring for concrete structure to the clause, at least. If you send me into murky waters, and I come back with the biggest pearl, don't bitch.

The Devils won't complain because the team itself has no grounds to complain under the current CBA.

_________________
mechaphil