Allow me to be the first to say, no matter what happens, Kovalchuk must:
by Quisp on Jul 21, 2010 11:59 AM PDT
Email
Print
FIRE HIS AGENT.
That is step one to saving face.
110 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have to wonder...
how wrapped around Grossman’s finger Kovi is. I hope for his sake he has other sources for advice. Otherwise, he may be beside himself right now not know what to do and simply listening to Grossman.
What a mess.
Very true, unfortunately
You can be rich and talented and yet unworldly and naive. And I suspect that’s how a lot of super-agents (Scott Boras, e.g.) get to be so powerful: They latch on to a bunch of young guys (or older and not-so-smart ones) and start playing Iago to their Othello.
Abso-fucking-lutely, Quisp. Spot on.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 12:19 PM PDT reply actions
For Kovalchuk's own sake, yes
I don’t see how Grossman can be an effective advocate for him after all this. Every GM in the league will be sneering at him behind his back.
This confuses me
First, a source told ESPN.com on Wednesday morning that Devils president and GM Lou Lamoriello was aware of the NHL’s plans to reject the deal in advance of a press conference held Tuesday afternoon in Newark to announce the contract and still went ahead with the media availability.
I’d been wondering about this, as it made no sense that the league would not have forewarned Jersey about the contract being struck down. Scott Burnside has a piece on the topic and I cannot for the life of me figure out what went on at that press conference. It really sounds like Lou was not in the driver’s seat of this whole deal.
something is up, there, for sure
but I find it nearly impossible to believe that LL and the owners knew the deal was rejected before the press conference.
Wait till this year.
Or maybe he was...
Wow, if Lou knew beforehand, my far fetched story may be closer to reality than I realized! (click my name to see what the hell I’m talking about).
Well, Lou kind of disavowed the deal, didn't he?
I mean, he basically came out and said this was ownership’s idea and not his…. And you could kinda hear him counting the months until he retired. :-)
Kind of exactly what I blogged about this morning: http://prosportsblogging.com/nhl-hockey/did-lou-do-them-in/
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 21, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Furthermore...
It’s clear Devils GM Lou Lamoriello, an ally of commissioner Gary Bettman, was not driving the bus on this contract.
"I would agree we shouldn’t have these (types of contracts)," Lamoriello told Tom Gulitti of the Bergen Record. When asked why he would sign a player to such a deal, he said, "You’d have to speak to ownership about that."
Per Ken Campbell
Yeah. That’s what you want to hear from your GM, right?!
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 21, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I would have to agree...
After seeing the agreement I wondered why all that work just to fold?
Lamoriello and Lombardi were doing a great job ping ponging this guy, why cave in? And for so much more then need be? Certainly not because of Wangnuts.
I think fans were getter antsy but L & L were keeping a grip and taming the system until the trigger was pulled.
Wouldn’t it be smart to fire him no matter what, since he’ll probably have signed the last contract of his career? Get a manager to handle endorsements and all that.
Shocking
Why did the NHL wait until after the Devils’ press conference to announce that it was challenging the contract? Did the league want to embarrass New Jersey over this?
Well, if Burnside’s source is right, they didn’t. They told the Devils it was no good but the press conference went on anyway…
And Lou may hang it up soon, no matter how this turns out
I mean, he’s got to be thinking, “I work for idiots…. They tell me what to do… and they’re idiots.”
I think that they wanted it to be a power thing.
Kinda like,
NHL: Just wait to announce the press conference.
NJ: Make me!
NHL: FU, this is our league…Oh, and by the way, Kovi’s contract is void (after conference)
But his has been a terrible transaction.
From the start, the 20 days of being on the market, the visits to LA, and the contract that he signs in the end. Almost makes you wish that he signed the Atlanta deal
#2....
GROVEL ON HIS KNEES…..to DL for that 15year, 80MM contract. And I hope DL gives him an EVIL laugh and says “HELL, NOOOO!”
And I hope DL gives him an EVIL laugh and says "HELL, NOOOO!"
You are insane, sir.
by RudyKelly on Jul 21, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I know, I know, we shouldn’t care about these things, all we need to do is ice a winning team. But isn’t DL big on the concept of team ethos? Does Kovy fit in with the players who’ve tattooed the crown on their ass? I wonder if he’d go for it. I don’t know anything anymore.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
It's not personal, it's business :-)
I really don’t think DL is taking it too personally. He’s not Brian Burke. :-) I get the impression that he does an unusually good job of separating out his emotions.
But that being said, as per The Ram’s comment, I don’t think he will use his last offer as the starting point. I’m sure he understands that if/when the NJ deal is voided, Team Kovi will have much less leverage than before.
Actually...
If Kovadonnachuk DOES try to renegotiate with the Kings, DL will surely low-ball him with a 10 year, 60MM contract just to start.
Did anyone listen to this interview from the Kings website?
http://kings.nhl.com/club/podcastplayer.htm?pid=51&iid=23800&navid=DL|LAK|home
Are DL’s comments about the differences between his offer and the Devil’s offer:
A disclaimer? A strategic move to pressure Bettman to reject the Devil’s offer? (I think the interview took place yesterday morning.) The timing and content seem pretty meanful in light of what ended up going down.
And Quisp, are you Dean’s bell curve guy:)
Why?
The agent/player offered the deal and the Devils organization accepted. The deal, while pushing the limits, is based on precedence. Why does Kovy need to save face?
You have to explain what his agent did so wrong that he deserves to be fired.
yeah
it seems to me that his agent got him the type of deal Kovalchuk wanted and, in the end, isn’t that what an angent is supposed to do? It’s not the agent’s job to make sure the deal adheres to the CBA.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
OK, isn’t it part of the agent’s duty to make sure that the client gets the best deal possible within the scope of what is allowed in the CBA? Well, in this case, Grossman encouraged his client to accept a deal that was not within the scope of the CBA. Grossman did not act with his client’s best interest in mind here.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
The Devils have a capologist who used to work for the NHL and the burden is on them to make sure a deal is within compliance. It is not the agent’s job to ensure compliance with the CBA. That said, the agent can’t knowingly circumvent the language of the CBA, but this was not done here. This was a political move by the NHL.
This was a political move by the NHL.
Because the Devils are involved, right?
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Not at all. Not even remotely claiming conspiracy theory. This is bigger than the Devils and one acquisition. This is about the NHL trying to make a point.
This is about the NHL trying to make a point.
OK, on this we agree.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
It is. See below.
The agent is certified by the league under the CBA. The agent agrees that he will uphold the CBA.
Wait till this year.
but the CBA is vague, at best, and if the Devils thought it was in compliance with the CBA, why would Grossman think otherwise?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
After watching yesterday’s press conference, do you feel that LL honestly felt that the contract was in compliance of the CBA?
If the final 5 years of the contract where Ilya was scheduled to recieve less than $1 million annually were not intended to circumvent the Salary Cap, then what other purpose would those final 5 years serve?
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Part of the issue to I think is having him take a small salary like a million or so isn’t too bad, but why would Kovy go I really want to play when I’m 43 and I don’t think I can make anything over the league minimum at that time so its a good thing I got it added on here. No sane person would add that because the minimum is likely to go up anyways so waiting and signing then already gets him more money.
Lamoriello isn’t necessery the same entity as the Devils in this instance, however. He employs a capologist who was involved with writing the CBA. Lou seems to have felt all along that this contract was against the spirit of the CBA, but if the owners were pushing this and the capologist said it adhered to the law of the CBA, why would he stop it?
And even if Lou was uncomfortable with it, why would that make Grossman say “nah, we’ll pass”? It’s the best deal for Kovalchuk that was offered, I think it completely makes sense for Grossman to advise him to sign it.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
It was not in the best interest for Kovy to take the contract as it was structured because it was an attempt to circumvent the Salary Cap and thus in violation of the CBA.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
But not according to the experts.
If I’m an agent, I defer to the NHL employed capologist on its’ adherance to the CBA.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah…if the people at the top are saying it’s okay, I don’t know why Kovy himself would say no. Why would he know they’d be wrong? I for one expected it to go through.
The root of the problem may be his obsession with getting a bigger deal than Ovechkin’s. But even if that’s true, it’s kind of far back in the chain of causality. They didn’t have to give it to him. Or strutcture it like that.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
yup
It’s also totally possible that Grossman was aware that the league may not permit this deal to go through, and advised Kovalchuk of that. But Kovalchuk ultimately is the one who decides.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions
the CBA makes it pretty clear though that there are circumstances in which the player does not necessarily know somethinig is a circumvention
and provides for the possibility of his ignorance. no such latitude is granted clubs or agents, or the NHLPA.
Wait till this year.
that's bogus
the “capologist” you’re imagining works for the Devils, not the league. The Devils are certainly the bad-actor here, and it remains to be seen if Grossman will be determined to be one as well.
Wait till this year.
except it obviously was not in his client's best interest, was it?
he misread the situation. just as he misread the initial market for his client.
it makes sense, in the sense that he was greedy and I think a little stupid. and if you think no one saw this coming and i’m just 20/20-hindsighting this, see my first post after the deal was announced, which said, uh, don’t be surprised if this is rejected…
Wait till this year.
Oh yeah you were right on with your analysis on this one.
I just think that given that Lamorello, the NJD capologist (who formerly worked for the league and was involved in writing the CBA) and Grossman all thought this deal could go through, it’s hard to say Kovalchuk should fire Grossman for accepting the contract. The CBA is not very well written and IMO, that’s the root of the problem. From a lawyer’s standpoint where the letter of the law is all you need to adhere to, this deal is legal. From a spirit of the law standpoint, it’s not.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
However, I think most people here are not saying Kovy should fire Grossman simply because they accepted the contract as offered by New Jersey.
Grossman should be fired because Ilya has lost a lot of popularity in the eyes of general hockey fans since July 1. And dismissing Grossman in favor of a new agent is the first significant step Kovalchuk can make towards improving his much maligned public image.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
After watching yesterday’s press conference, do you feel that LL honestly felt that the contract was in compliance of the CBA?
I agree…but it’s ultimately not Grossman’s responsibility to make sure Lou isn’t wrong about the CBA, is it?
Kovy might fire him to make it look like his agent was the driving force of greed, and maybe it was (iffy!), but he was getting the most money for his client. That’s his job.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
it is, Niesy.
The agent agrees to uphold the CBA. or he doesn’t get NHL clients anymore.
Wait till this year.
YES IT IS
The agent’s job is to uphold the CBA, per his agreement as defined in the CBA, without which he will not be certified and will not get to be an agent for clients under the CBA.
Wait till this year.
Is that responsibility at least split with the GMs, though? I don’t know. If I don’t blame the Devils for expecting it would work, I can’t blame Grossman. (I can blame him for plenty of other things.) I’m not you, though — I didn’t see this coming.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
That what I was (clumsily) trying to express. Presumably, they all attempt to uphold the CBA, or they don’t have jobs. So they’re all responsible, not just Grossman. Except I would expect the clubs to be even more well-versed and/or cautious on this issue, since their risk is greater. (Or is it?)
Maybe we got off track from what you were trying to say. Only Grossman is only under Kovy’s control.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
The deal, while pushing the limits, is based on precedence.
It is not based on precedence. The contract attempted to set a new precedence. And it looks like unless the NHLPA successfully wins an arbitration, the new precedence has failed.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Precedent requires similar issues and facts. This contract was based in structure on similar past contracts.
I’m going to split the difference:
A) By approving contracts like Hossa’s instead of penalizing them, the league gave rise to the expectation that similarly structured deals wouldn’t/couldn’t be punished;
B) this contract does, however, go beyond all others in terms of size, dollar amount, and length of tail. (TWSS.) So the league has finally decided to act.
But I agree that right now it doesn’t seem like Grossman’s fault. It sounds like NJ’s owners wanted to put a big fat $102 million deal in front of him no matter what, to have the best chance of winning out in the FA market. Lou took that and worked it into a manageable cap figure. Kovy didn’t get that offer matched by the Kings, despite trying many times over the course of two weeks. And here we are.
In retrospect, though, the investigations into Pronger and Hossa’s deals seem more like warning growls and less like helpless bleats.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
The problem is that even Hossa’s contract last year was investigated and the NHL basically warned all the teams saying if you push it any further we are going to do something. Kovalchuk’s contract is similar, but it pushes things even further than Hossa’s contract went and so the NHL is going we warned you and now we are doing something about it
Kovalchuk’s contract is similar, but it pushes things even further than Hossa’s contract
Exactly. Grossman, Vanderbeek and LL all tried to set a new precedent with the contract. Unfortunately for them, they found out that there is a limit.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t know if you should call it “setting a new precendent” as much as trying to push the existing precedent to the extreme.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
You can call it whatever you want but pushing the precedent to the extreme limit is really just setting a new precedent for future contracts. If next year Thornton or someone gets a contract that goes just a year further then its just stetching the precedent Kovy stretched even further and where do you draw the line?
Well that’s the problem.
I think it would’ve been reasonable to draw the line with the Hossa/Luongo deals last summer. Kovalchuk is being more blatant, but from my perspective, there’s not much difference.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
You’re right. They could have rejected those but they allowed them with warnings not to push it further. NJ pushed it further and the league said you crossed the line
by GoKings09 on Jul 21, 2010 3:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
yes….. I guess my point is that it’s nearly impossible to take Kovalchuk’s contract and build on it to be any more rediculous and expect the league to approve it. If they allowed a deal that took a guy to 44, signing an RFA to a deal that goes to 44 is unlikely to be significantly longer than 17 years. Maybe 20 years?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
means nothing
given that he’s now received money under that contract, it cannot be voided.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jul 21, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t understand this as well as Quisp, but I remember him saying that technically Bettman could void Hossa’s contract and force the forfeiture of all games he played in last season thus taking away the Stanley Cup. This won’t happen but it is within the rules of what the NHL could do
nope, totally wrong. Any contract that is deemed to be a circumvention can be voided at any time.
actually, MUST be voided.
and yes, bettman has the authority to declare all of chicago’s games last year FORFEIT.
true, but silly. it would never happen.
WOULD IT???
No, I’m kidding. It wouldn’t.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(would it?)
Wait till this year.
again, no.
precedents may require that, but that’s not all they require.
as they say, it’s necessary but not sufficient. For example, battery. If I tickle you, it’s similar to attacking you. But it’s not attacking you. Now what if I tickle you harder? Still not battery? Ok, how about if I push you down? etc. etc.
It’s a matter of degree. There’s a line. (unless you’re arguing that there’s no line, which is unsupportable.) They didn’t know exactly where the line would be drawn. They went too far. Bettman rejected the contract.
Do you think he has the right to reject a 100 year contract? If so, he has a right to reject a 17 year one. He has to draw the line somewhere.
Wait till this year.
Precedence is tricky in our legal system, too. Even if you can demonstrate that similar cases were upheld before this point, it can still be subject to reversal. Prior cases are traditionally given a lot of weight, but at any moment a judge’s close reading of the text can result in some seismic changes.
I’m not even sure if the American legal analogy holds, except that the Supreme Court struggles with conflicting judicial philosophies all the time, and all judges are labeled hypocrites at one point or another. No single philosophy can encompass the reasoning behind every decision. Hopefully, it’s simpler in hockey. Yet the NHL doesn’t even have a fixed group of independent arbiters all ready to go, do they? So what will be in their minds? What is even in Bettman’s?
I apologize if I’ve veered far off topic…
In Dinglebarn We Trust
The CBA is clear that it does not limit any length of deal. Is a 100 year deal insane? Absolutely, but the CBA doesn’t say you can’t do it.
The only issue the NHL can fight and utilize is the structure of the deal and the way the salary is disputed OR if they have legitimate proof that he will not fulfill the last years of his contract. Length doesn’t matter (that doesn’t sound good does it) per the CBA, plus if length is an issue it is quickly resolved by the DiPietro dealand age is irrelevant because if the NHL wants to argue someone couldn’t possibly play in their league because they are too old, well good luck with that.
The precedent is the structure of the finances and how they are distributed. Hossa, Pronger, etc. is precedent enough that the NHL won’t be able to touch this deal.
I think the "someone couldn't possibly play in this league because they are too old" argument is stronger than you think it is
Legitimate proof that he will not fulfill the last years of his contract…well, that’s easy to do in the case of the 100 year term, right?
So it’s a matter of degree.
Wait till this year.
This was going to be my reply. It is not precedence if you go beyond the term limits of the previous longest contract length with a greater variance in pay year to year. It is also faulty reasoning to assume that because Mark Recchi or Chris Chelios played into their 40’s that there is precedence for Kovalchuk, because those guys signed there deals at 1 or 2 years in limit and with the knowledge that they could still play (ex. Mark Recchi could still play as a 38, so teams were willing to try to get him to play at 39). There is no way anyone can know that Kovalchuk will still be healthy and have ability in his 40’s when he’s 27 now.
that's like saying my stealing from you is based on the precedence of previously having borrowed from you
there is no precedence. the contracts are different. and even if they weren’t, the CBA allows the league to investigate any possible circumvention for any length of time, at any time, at its own discretion. So any precedent you see is something that can be undone by the commissioner at his discretion.
Wait till this year.
My new favorite Kool-Aid® flavor for summer 2010? Why it’s OhSNAPberry, of course. Thank you, Quisp!
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
The agent needs to be fired because the handling of this situation, going back months now, has been an unmitigated disaster
At this point, with the deal in limbo, with the possibility of a suspension for the owners, GM, agent and/or the player (if the player can be shown to have known that this deal was a circumvention), with fines and cap penalties in the offing, when in fact they should have been able to compare two deals and choose the best one, within the limits of the CBA as they all agreed to do, I can safely say that Grossman has done just about the worst job of agenting possible.
Consider that he started with the #1 UFA of the season, and a guy people are calling the ultimate UFA prize of all time. And look at where his client is.
And it’s a PR nightmare. Everyone is sick of his client. The two fanbases that seemingly have the best chance of signing him aren’t even excited anymore. They’re exhausted. Will they get over it? Yeah. Did this have to happen? No.
Frankly, it’s WORSE than Labron. It’s Labron if both Cleveland and Miami thought he was annoying.
Wait till this year.
It’s unfortunate that in “our” eyes, the media/fans, the name Kovalchuk is the only one culpable. In actuality his agent should incur much of the blame fore the longevity and the ridicule of these negotiations, with both clubs. We say “man, Kovalchuk needs to decide already”, when it’s Kovalchuk taking clues from the man he depends on, Grossman. Kovalchuk is looking for the best deal possible and looking to Grossman to get him that deal. His good faith was sullied when Grossman negotiated a deal so negligent to the CBA (I’ll direct you to how much more negligent it is than other cap-buster contracts, http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/7/21/1579736/why-ilya-kovalchuks-contract-was).
http://www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Jul 21, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
The agent got Kovalchuk the best deal possible within what was understood to be the limits of the CBA by not only his view, but the view of the Devils and Lou Lamoriello one of the architects of the current CBA. He did his job.
Suspension? I have heard nothing of suspension for anyone. Right now the contract is in limbo and there is no grievance filed, so suspensions don’t seem imminent.
Why is his client in so bad a spot? Grossman knows there were only two long term suitors right now and both of them (if the deal falls through) are still in play. No one is sick of Kovalchuk either, they might be sick of the process with the endless rumors and daily updates on we are in/we are out but Kovy is fine and once he scores his first goal for any team he signs for, no one is going to care about this.
I like this blog
You all have been writing great coverage of the Kovy situation, both on the blog and in the comments… good explanations of exactly what the CBA says, and commentary that pulls no punches. Kings fans seem to have a special insight into the situation.
Welcome!
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you! I’m a Penguins fan, so I usually comment at Pensburgh but I found this blog during all of the Kovy drama. But Penguins fans and Kings fans can definitely be friends. We can all agree that Scuderi is awesome… and we have no rivalry because our teams are so far away from each other (geographically).
Tomas Sandström???
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn’t Bob call him TO-mas for years, until he finally said, “Thomas is cool”?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I mainly remember Uncle Bob using the TO-mas pronunciation.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Whew! I thought you were going to say that player was Jim Paek…
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Jul 21, 2010 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
sandstrom and granato for bernie nicholls
three players I loved, still my favorite example of a perfect trade
Wait till this year.
Those defending Grossman's actions
are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Repeat after me: it’s not your fault. it’s not your fault…
Heh, I don’t know if that’s the word…
I don’t know how much responsibility to assign to him, at this point. Or how much of what he did was driven by his client’s desires. I’m not a Grossman fan at this point, just an agnostic.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Again Why?
Is it because of the length of time that was taken to make the decision?
From the poorly planned press conference we learned that the Devils made their offer to Kovalchuk early on and had given the indication they were going to be patient. Grossman did the smart thing by continuing to look for other opportunities and offers out there.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Jewels From The Crown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
