Told You They Had a Case
by Quisp on Aug 9, 2010 2:39 PM PDT
in CBA
Email
PrintNow, in anticipation of the "what comes next" questions...
- Many people will be saying that this is no big deal because New Jersey can just send over another offer that conforms to whatever the standard is supposed to be. However:
- First, someone (the league, the union, the arbitrator) needs to clarify whether (a) this ruling now moves us to the penalty phase, or (b) a second Article 26 procedure is necessary, and if so (b-1) will the league pursue?
- Before you pummel me with "we're not 'in' 26!" comments, know that we have been over this in excruciating detail here, and the question of whether we are, or not, is ambiguous, and that's putting it politely.
- Given that the league (Daly) discussed potential penalties and fines when they first rejected the contract, I think the league thinks either that the Article 26 penalties apply now, or at least they can get to them quickly enough with a perfunctory investigation.
- However, as I said in other posts, the idea that a second arbitration is necessary to get to penalties makes almost zero sense to me, since you would literally be on a path to the very same system arbitrator, who has already decided whether or not a circumvention has occurred. And that can't be undone.
- However-however: it's possible (though nutty) to read the CBA such that the Article 11 process determines whether a circumvention of Article 50 has occurred (it has), but we need to wade through an Article 26 procedure to determine whether or not there was a circumventer who did the circumventing, or (alternatively), whether it happened more or less without a wrong-doer (the "mistakes were made" model). I find this scenario to be extremely unlikely, but it's so entertaining and crazy I keep thinking about it.
- If penalties are on the horizon, I doubt New Jersey signs Kovalchuk. I don't see how it's possible given the possibility that a $1-5MM cap penalty could be imposed pending an Article 26 process. Of course, if I'm right and we're in the penalty phase now (or if Bettman simply says he isn't going to pursue penalties), then New Jersey will know quickly where they stand cap-wise.
- I wonder what the arbitrator has to say about Grossman and Lamoriello. Oh, and the owners. Suspensions are possible. If, as I said, we're there yet.
More later, once more details are released.
202 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not nearly enough gloating and giggling for me.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
by Derek Zona on Aug 9, 2010 2:41 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The NHL is biased against the Devils? This is what you’re saying?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Yeah I don’t know if you’ve heard but Bettman wants to make sure that no team can compete against the Penguins in their division.
Yeah I don’t know if you’ve heard but Bettman wants to make sure that no team can compete against the Penguins in their division.
I don’t know about that, but from where I sit the little weasel seems to get what he wants anyway. Coyotes, Kovalchuk…
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 10, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
i am 1000% sure if this was montreal signing kovalchuk this deal would never have been rejected in the first place
by kewlnsimpguy1 on Aug 9, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm 1000% sure that "1000% sure" is actually impossible.
And if Montreal tried to sign a player to a contract that made him the highest-paid player in the league for five years, while ending with five years at the league minimum, it would have been rejected too.
by BleedBlue42 on Aug 9, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the only teams that could possibly get away with it would be the Penguins, Caps, or Coyotes. And those would be slim chances at that, in my opinion.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 9, 2010 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
How do you figure the Caps?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Only that I don’t think Bettman would want to see their name dragged through the mud, basically. I honestly don’t believe anybody would get away with it with no questions asked, but I gave those three a non-zero probability only because he might care about their reputation for marketing reasons. Even then, I meant that in the slimmest of possibilities; I only put names I’d find plausible in there just because I don’t see Montreal being a realistic option of a team that would be allowed to get off scot-free if they tried it. Still just my opinion, though.
by DragonGirl0583 on Aug 10, 2010 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, and you’re perfectly objective and not in the least bit bitter.
Here’s a bottle with your own medicine. Suck it.
by DougX on Aug 9, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
this is whats called tin foil hatz
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
admit i was wrong about what? you know what the arbitrator said? he claimed that its a retirement contract, why you ask? because most players don’t play till 44. ROFL where in the rules does he get to make that judgment instead of following the CBA
by kewlnsimpguy1 on Aug 9, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I have been trying to find any reference to Daly referencing penalties and fines but I can’t find it anywhere. I have a found a bunch of articles with quotes from Daly and reference to the penalties, but the references do not seem to be comments by Daly.
I still contend that there may not be fines imposed. I imagine that it would have been referenced in the NHL’s statement if they had gone down that path.
What will be interesting is when Grossman and Lamoriello have to certify next year that they haven’t engaged in circumvention…
i'll dig it up for you. it was typically non-specific "not ruling out" language, I think.
Wait till this year.
I sure hope we get more information about his decision
I would love to see a report similar to the TO arbitration that is posted on the web
... and before I get flamed from NJD fans ...
I’m pretty positive The Devils will find a way to retain him; nor do I as a LAK fan necessarily want Kovy any more then I did before the whole mess.
And it HAS been a mess.
Once again,
Quisp was right…
It’s amazing how it is actually possible to predict something like this by actually READING the CBA.
by Passemoilapuck on Aug 9, 2010 2:47 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
To be fair
It was at least equally as probable it would go the other way.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
For sure. But it was controversial to even say that it wasn’t a slam dunk for either side.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I know
I got sick of that. Real quick.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
I’d rather keep statements like “equally as probable” to a pure random processes like a coin toss. But that’s just my inner actuary talking. Given what Quisp posted over the last couple of weeks, I had pegged the odds at 75%/25% in favor of the contract getting voided.
by Passemoilapuck on Aug 9, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
We'll never know
so the argument is moot. Let’s just agree there were valid arguments on both sides. This is how it ended up.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
Why agree to that?
There were no valid arguments for the Devils’ position. There were frivolous arguments about no specific language in the CBA prohibiting the contract. That’s not a legitimate argument when the document in question talks about circumventing its rules.
Your side lost. Like I said the other day, this was open-and-shut. The NHL’s position was 100% correct. I would like to point out that I got my facts and analysis from Quisp, so as always, thanks for all the great work, Quisp.
Heh, it’s not my side at all, I’m a Leafs fan. Just seeing both sides of the argument.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
Hey, I remember you! You got in trouble at ILWT for not posting a link to the James Duthie piece…nice to ‘see’ you here.
John
seems to be a good guy and good blogger, but for my taste, a bit of a nazi about the link posting requirement.
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
Hey your use of the word nazi offends me. Can I get a ban for this guy?
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
There WERE valid arguments on both sides
but the NHLPA didn’t make one. They dropped the ball.
Wait till this year.
Bloch ripped the NHLPA's defense apart relatively easily:
A contract term covering a Player’s NHL services to age 70, for example, is not expressly prohibited by the CBA. But the parties to that SPC may not reasonably be found to be seriously anticipating its fulfillment. The Association does not suggest that such agreement must pass muster under Article 26.
I disagree...
See my analysis elsewhere about the NHLPA’s case but, in essence, “it’s not expressly prohibited” is a relatively valid argument in this kind of context. There just was too much evidence them against that to support it.
therefore it was not a good argument.
“relatively valid” is damning with faint praise.
Wait till this year.
Crow
Making up some crow pie for the knuckleheads at ILWT.
Don’t mess with the Quisp.
God Loves the Kings
Regarding potential fines, can NJ be fined even if Kovalchuk signs elsewhere?
Or will they only be fined if he does in fact become a Devil? Tough pill to swallow if you are assessed a cap hit for a player who doesn’t even get to play for you.
Any penalties imposed are regardless of where Kovy actually ends up. But as Quisp mentioned, if the penalty imposed is removal of cap space from the Devils, then they really have no ability to sign Kovy any more unless Kovy suddenly decides he’s willing to take waaaaaaaaaay less money, which flies in the face of the reason we got in this mess in the first place
by Beantown Canuck on Aug 9, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
There doesn't have to be a penalty right?
The CBA wording reads “the Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies”. One of the listed penalties is “Void any SPC, or any extension of an SPC, between any Player and any Club when both the Player or Player Actor and the Club or Club Actor are found to have committed such a violation with respect to such SPC or extension”. I take this to mean that simply voiding the contract can be deemed to be enough of a penalty.
The penalties (if we're there yet) are at the commissioner's discretion, and yes, he could choose to have no penalties at all.
Wait till this year.
No penalties
I have a feeling no penalties get assessed in this case if only because it was the first time one of these contracts was determined to be a circumvention. Other teams had been pushing the limit and the Devils fond and crossed it, but they didnt know where it was necessarily. Yes, there had been warnings in the wake of the Hossa deal last year but there was still nothing definitive. If something like this were to happen next year I would guess that there are definitely penalties.
But we’ll see.
I have to disagree...
…the NHL has to levy punishment in this case. This was willful cap circumvention, if there is no penalty, how exactly would this deter anyone else from trying? The NHL already told everyone to cool it with these deals and they even gave NJ a last chance not to file the contract and they did anyways. It may not be a monetary fine, but they will lose draft picks. NJ gained an unfair advantage during the negotiations with an UFA.
Toronto lost a 4th round pick for a minor infraction against the CBA on an ELC contract.
I dunno...
I think that the loss of this contract will be seen as penalty enough because this was a case of first impression. This was the league putting its foot down and drawing a line in the sand. If someone tries it again, then there would be penalties. But because this was an unknown given the vague language of the CBA, they may choose not to penalize the folks.
On the other hand, Grossman and Lamoriello have to file their annual certifications saying they haven’t tried to circumvent the CBA. They can’t reasonably certify that now. That could get interesting…
Lou is already saying that they did nothing wrong:
New Jersey DevilsNew Jersey Devils President/CEO/General Manager Lou Lamoriello today issued the following statement in response to Arbitrator Richard Bloch’s decision in regard to the team’s contract with Ilya Kovalchuk:
"We have reviewed and respect Arbitrator Bloch’s ruling in the Kovalchuk matter. We also note and appreciate his finding that nothing in his opinion should be read as suggesting that either the club or Ilya Kovalchuk operated in bad faith or on the basis of any assumption other than that the Standard Player Contract was fully compliant with the CBA. That has been our consistent position throughout.
"While we do not currently have a contract with Ilya Kovalchuk, discussions have resumed and we are hopeful that a contract will be reached that meets with the principles in Arbitrator Bloch’s award and the NHL’s approval."
Doesn’t sound like they learned their lesson. A monetary fine would get their attention and the rest of the GMs. That is the only way to protect the CBA, their stern warnings before weren’t enough.
Fines and Suspensions
Guys—
Just BEING in this situation is penalty enough!
—No Kovee (As of this moment…)
—Continued Cap Purgatory…
—A VERY ANGRY Agent…
—A VERY ANGRY Fan Base…
—The only visible resolution to this situation requiring a much larger Cap hit on a similarly-based contract, dollar-wise.
And the best part?
—DL and the Kings may be able to make a beneficial trade to get a Devils player, to get NJ under the Cap!
yeah but there was a draft pick penalty in the toronto case, which was totally minor
i would be mildly surprised if there were no penalties. but, as I keep saying, there are things going on behind closed doors that we can’t know.
Wait till this year.
Oh didn't you hear?
If this had happened to Toronto, Montreal or Detroit it never would have gotten rejected!
/smirk
Tick Tock, Tomas. Tick Tock.
A drinking team with a hockey problem.
And the league can say that they did warn Chicago, etc.
Because investigations were opened and never closed, right? I think clearly, the intent was to waggle a warning finger and say, don’t push us any farther than we’ve already been pushed.
ACTIVIST COURT!!1
No, j/k. Mad props, Quisp. I just didn’t believe the league had the stones.
Bow down.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I didn’t think they’d have the stones, either.
by DougX on Aug 9, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
VERY good one, Sir! Well played!!! Rec'd
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 9, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Quispie--
I can see that smile spread all the way across your face…
It looks a whole lot like mine!
I'll want to see the wording Bloch used and whether he refers to it as a circumvention
If he does, it would seem to make the penalty phase simpler, since the System Arbitrator will have called it a Circumvention in the rejection of the SPC.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
The full text of Bloch’s Terrell Owens decision was published, so I’m hopeful that this one will at least get the summary published.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
That may be a matter of a difference in policy between the NFL and NHL. Hopefully they will make this public because of the public interest. But they may have a policy of keeping decisions in-house.
Only quotes I have seen so far:
RealKyper tweet: Arbitrator Bloch says " this is a retirement contract" in his report. said deal “well beyond the typical retirement age for NHL players”.
Define typical ;)
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I could see the league going after Hossa's and Luongo's deals...
…stranger things have happened so far this year.
I can see that happening
The League may feel the need to shore up its credibility in this matter now that this case has been resolved with this particular result.
I doubt it
While it would be nice to see, it would cause more trouble than it was worth. The league needs stability to operate and, while it is within the NHL’s power to do so, if they start revisiting past contracts, it would create instability. They’ll leave the contracts alone. Tho, Article 26 does allow them to go after the teams for circumvention, even if they contract has already been approved. That could be interesting.
I would really love to read this ruling, but I think this contract is different enough from those two that it basically helps draw a line in the sand. With those two, they warned everyone that they were pushing the limits and, with Kovy, they pushed even further. I would expect to see future contracts come within the limits that were set by Hossa and Luongo and not even go as far as those two deals did.
I must agree. I doubt they look into any existing contracts. Line in the sand is drawn.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t recall if I ever made any comments on any of your posts so I can prove it, but I always thought you were bang on, Quisp. Vindication!
Well, I did and he was. Nice to see you here BC.
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 9, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
It's funny because had it gone the other way I would have been "wrong," even though I never said it was going to go this way or that,
only that I thought the league had a legitimate case. The rest comes down to shit we can’t know, the politics, the personalities in the room, etc.. I have noticed very little correlation in my life between being right and being shown to be right in any timely way. And I think a lot of things that people think are just nuts. Oh well.
Wait till this year.
i agree as well
i haven’t been able to read ALL of the 1000 posts on the subject here (jk!) but enough to get the gist, and i had a feeling this was going to lean towards the league. If for no other reason then they whole “we had enough of this damn slippery-slope crap” argument.
And I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Derek Zona here, but i was hoping for more gloating (damn you Quisp and your show of restraint!!). maybe after penalties are assessed…
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Aug 9, 2010 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Well...
This is big.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:10 PM PDT reply actions
This comment is OK but mine was removed?
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 9, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
quisp just stfu….ever since the kings lost out in the kovy sweepstakes nearly 99% of your articles are about him and about his contract….just stop talking about it and just focus on your own team and stop worrying about us…yes it got rejected big deal…they even said that they dont want to give penalties, fines, suspensions, etc. they just want the contract to be restructured for a shorter length…it will be changed and worked on so just worry about your own team and their future
And on the left, you may see the Bitter Eastern Troll in his native habitat.
Watch him as he chews on his own liver.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
by Niesy on Aug 9, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 9 recs
Do you suppose that he chewed his own keyboard’s SHIFT key, too?
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Devils1992- You is ugly.
End Corporate Personhood.
by Player-X on Aug 9, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
just stop talking about it and just focus on your own team and stop worrying about us
Someone needs a mirror…
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
You don't think everyone was talking about something big happening on this date 22 years ago?
People can’t discuss something that could end up being a huge story for the entire NHL?
So far everything said at ILWT has been wrong, but now everything is true? Maybe you guys don’t know everything there is to know about the situation. How can you be sure everything will work out now?
Bitter much?
This is one of the most fascinating stories to hit the NHL in a very long time. Quisps readers enjoy the analysis and discussion. It’s not like Quisp is gloating over it.
Even Better...
No Quispie gloating…
—Let me do it for him!
To be accurate 99% of his posts since the Kings were IN on the Kovy sweepstakes have been about Kovy, not after the Kings lost the sweepstakes. His interest on the subject is not due to the Kings failure to sign him, rather the topic itself is interesting, not only to Quisp, but to us, his faithful readers.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I for one
have no dog in this hunt. I don’t care about the teams or player involved in any way. Yet I find the topic fascinating and have come here for interesting analysis, that I happen to have largely agreed with, and which turned out to have hit the nail on the head.
Ditto. Interesting subject as a hockey-fan, not just a Kings fan.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
I’m a Blues fan and have been reading both sides of this. I was commenting at ILWT but that even after the fact they can’t see how it was “circumvention” blows my mind with bias. Not even disagreeing with the conclusion, completely blown away that there was even a case that it was circumvention.
Not afraid to nitpick
Sour grapes
Your team cheated and got caught. That isn’t Quisp’s fault. This has been a legit story for Kings fans because since there is very little chance the Devils can re-structure the deal and stay under the Cap (As they were already 3+ million over it with him and needed to dump salary and now will have to go far over that to get him back, it is going to be damn near impossible, especially if I’m wrong and penalties to get assessed). If in fact the Devils can’t get his deal re-worked (and I emphasize, I do not think they can), then Los Angeles is most likely where he will be playing next month.
I just saw the news on NHL.com
First I must say, WOW!!! I, for one, am relieved that the arbitrator made this ruling for the fact that this contract would open an even bigger door for GMs to make bigger, more ridiculous contracts that would do the same thing as Kovadonnachuk’s contract. More contracts like this one can eventually ruin the NHL as a sport & business.
Second, to all the people at ILWT, HA, HA, HAA, HAAAA!!! I can’t believe you guys thought your team was going to get away with it. I know I’m gonna sound like an ex on a revenge trip but, that’s what he gets.
The only thing I’m hoping is that DL doesn’t sign him. That would make me very uncomfortable, unless he sees the error in his ways and accepts the previous offer. Not only would I laugh, but it will be a HUGH F-U to the Devils. But really, I don’t see that happening because of what he basically said at that BOGUS news conference he had. Can you hear it….sounds like a bunch of bodies falling HARD on the shores of New Jersey:-)
Sore Losers! I got banned from ILWT for the following statement:
It’s not about being 44 You guys don’t still don’t seem to get it and never will. The league doesn’t have an issue with the contract being until he is age 44. They have a problem with 95% of the contract being paid in the first 10/11 years. If the contract PAID Kov $6 million a year until he is 44, the league would be fine with the contract.
The Kings' Offer
The Kings offer was $80 million over 15 years. Does anyone know the annual breakdown? Did it have one of those tails that got the Devils in trouble?
Can people please get the contract offer from the Kings correct?
It was $80/13 years, Lombardi said it himself. Lombardi also talked about the contract being a bell curve using Selanne’s mid-thirties contract. Lombardi said the lowest salary was $1.5 million.
I don't think so
I am pretty sure the Kings were going for a smaller cap hit than NJ whereas 80 over 13 years is 6.15 and 102 over 17 years is exactly 6. I recall both 13 and 15 years being thrown out there, but 15 was the last number.
I am pretty sure the Kings were going for a smaller cap hit than NJ whereas 80 over 13 years is 6.15 and 102 over 17 years is exactly 6.
Dean said 13 years a couple times in a radio interview. I mean, it’s possible he made the same mistake multiple times but that seems pretty unlikely.
Wow, that’s bogus.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the best advice.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ll second that. Don’t poke a sleeping weeping bear.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you misspelled "whining".
Or you could have intended "bellyaching, “querulous”, “carping”, or “butthurt”.
Touche, sir. Touche.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
If I was a Devil’s fan, I would be a little relieved today, knowing what I now know about their cap situation.
As to the fact that ILWT invested so much of themselves in an unreasonable and illogical argument that they have now lost? That’s on them. I have no sympathy or empathy for them.
I’m not going to go over there, but considering how badly they have behaved, they can go to Hell.
This seems like a wise choice. As a blog-traveller myself on SB Nation, I try not to crap in other people’s yards. I’ll admit that I’ve screwed up a time or two, but I do my best to be nice. if I don’t think I can be nice, I don’t visit that blog (here’s looking at you, Pensburgh).
I’ve enjoyed Quisp’s analysis of the entire situation purely as an exercise in where the CBA is headed and where contracts are likely to go, although my team doesn’t have a dog in that fight anymore. So thanks for that, all :)
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
To be fair..
Your first comment on ILWT today was:
WHAT UP NOW DEVIL’S FANS
HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAA
by Kingsfan99 on Aug 9, 2010 6:18 PM EDT reply actions
You probably could have done a much better job of graciously representing Kings fans over there. But, whatevs….
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I should have mentioned, it's always a good idea to keep a copy of your comments when you engage them over there, as their definitions of "personal attack" are...ironic.
what was the “reason”?
Wait till this year.
It said I had “3 troll postings in 1 minute.”
Not sure how that’s possible when I only made 2 posts.
We know you thought that 3rd one. Don’t lie.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
BANNED.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
WARNING KINGS FANS
Please do not engage with the above post. Feeding the trolls will only lead to a thread with 600 nonsensical comments.
But it is August and we can still talk about a legitimate hockey story.
NHL 11 comes out in a month and the camps start up soon after.
And Nicky Deslauriers, too!
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
How about Sharks fans? Can I engage posts?
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
The Sharks are the NHL team with the closest proximity to the Castro District, so I would venture to say that if anyone knows how to engage a post, it would be Sharks Fan
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
BAH-ZING!
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Burn? I guess? Or something?
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
I think “or something” is right.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow- an SF "reference" joke...
I’m guessing you still yell “How much time left?!” at 1:01 of every period.
I’m a (hetero – but who cares) Kings fan btw, and since the Shark Tank is 53 miles from the Castro, whereas Staples Center is …. oops … 9 miles from WEST HOLLYWOOD, whad’ya say we stick to talking hockey?
Great.
Carry on.
Easy guy. The joke was in poor taste on my part, but Megalodon and I interact over at Battle of California often. I’m fairly sure he knows it wasn’t an insult, and no reason to call out the Political Correct Pain Corp. Sorry if I offended you.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 9, 2010 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Understood,
Apology accepted (and apparently- not really needed, now learning your history.) I’m certainly not immune to some smack talk amongst friends.
Go Kings.
I’M GOING TO KILL YOU
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
by Megalodon on Aug 10, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm jealous you had martin brodeur for twenty years and you have three cups.
The rest? No thanks.
Wait till this year.
by Quisp on Aug 9, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s always some asshole trying to shit in the apple pie.
The Devils just shit in the one apple pie that knows how to shit back.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
FYI
http://devils.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=535772
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
And
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 9, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Today I get to re-use this graphic...
by BleedBlue42 on Aug 9, 2010 4:19 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
We have reviewed and respect Arbitrator Bloch’s ruling in the Kovalchuk matter. We also note and appreciate his finding that nothing in his opinion should be read as suggesting that either the club or Ilya Kovalchuk operated in bad faith or on the basis of any assumption other than that the Standard Player Contract was fully compliant with the CBA. That has been our consistent position throughout.
Interesting. So this seems to support the theory I was discussing this weekend with Quisp and Niesy that, even where a contract is ruled to have the effect of circumventing the CBA, it doesn’t mean there has been a circumvention by the team or player/agent.
Craig Custance posted this excerpt from the conclusion:
“…the System Arbitrator here concludes the SPC terms themselves demonstrate this agreement ‘has the effect of defeating’ the provisions of the CBA, with particular reference to the Team Payroll Range language. For these reasons, the finding is that the League has sustained its burden of demonstrating its actions in rejecting the agreement were in accordance with the bargained authority under Section 11.6(a)(i). Accordingly, the grievance protesting that action will be denied.”
Again, that seems to state that what was at issue in the grievance was merely whether the NHL properly exercised its authority to reject the contract, not necessarily whether there was a circumvention under Article 26.
At this point, I would be shocked if any fines or penalties were levied.
I think it might also come off as insult to injury at this point.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I only wonder
When the contract was initially rejected, it was specifically because the NHL accused the Devils of creating a contract that “circumvented” the CBA. How this changes, or if it even affects, whether or not there are penalties is what I’m curious about.
Check out my discussions with Quisp and Niesy on this post for my take on it. In a nutshell, I think the contract can circumvent the cap without the team or player being guilty of a circumvention sufficient to warrant the fines. I think it is only the contract rejection that is at issue here.
For these reasons, the finding is that the League has sustained its burden of demonstrating its actions in rejecting the agreement were in accordance with the bargained authority under Section 11.6(a)(i).
That should be heartening news for the Devils, then. And fascinating stuff. Thanks so for all your input during this whole drama, it’s been very enlightening.
Perhaps the league made threatening noises about fines (which I believe they did — I don’t think there was an exact quote from Daly in the news, but there was something) to try to get Kovy to tell the NHPLA not to grieve it? But they had a better chance of winning if they went for the lesser charge.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Lesser charge?
It was an article 11 because it was a rejected contract. Article 26 is just for circumvention and includes contracts that are already listed.
Article 26 has the same rules for circumvention, they don’t have to intend to circumvent, only have the effect of circumvention.
Doesn’t mean that the NHL will try for one, but the NHL would easily win an Article 26 arbitration.
Well, as we were discussing in this post, it’s unclear if the league just wanted to reject the contract (which they successfully did) or whether they also wanted to impose additional punishment on top of that. There’s also some debate on what that would look like. The burden of proof might be even higher (did they clearly acted in bad faith, or did they construct a contract along the lines of what they thought was permissable?).
DLVEsq is a lawyer, and Quisp has read the CBA a million times, and even they don’t agree. :)
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I split several hairs and then devilesque came in and somehow split those hairs
none of it matters though, if the league doesn’t want to penalize.
Wait till this year.
Ba dum bum!
He likes to keep his fire engine clean
It's a clean machine
by Joe Hockey Fan on Aug 10, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure they would, but I don’t think they go for it this time. I don’t think they need to. The fact that the arbiter upheld the rejection means that they have made their point. The investigation of the Hossa and Pronger contracts was strike one from the NHL; this was strike two. If anyone else tries it in the future, I’d expect, and hope, that penalties are imposed.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I’ve got to say, this guy on ILWT makes a pretty convincing argument as to why the NHL needs to go after all the other similar contracts, even those already established and in force, in order to be fair:
Not morally wrong. That would be the only moral thing to do. That would be like letting a murderer go just because the person has already been killed.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
Except…
While those other contracts may be doing the same thing, they do not do it to nearly the extent the Devils tried to do. None of them go below a million dollars a year in the tail of the contract, have a tail that’s as long, or take the player to an age no one plays to.
I have a feeling the NHL leaves all the previous contracts alone.
Hahahaha
That would be like letting a murderer go just because the person has already been killed.
The most insane simile.
I rec’d it. I love it when people compare hockey contracts to homicide.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
They’re just as important.
www.prosportsblogging.com
by Great Ice-Pectations on Aug 9, 2010 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m sympathetic to what he’s saying, but I dunno if I’m on board with that analogy.
Plenty of criminal cases don’t get brought to trial just because the prosecutor doubts he/she has enough evidence to secure a conviction. This particular case could be like the murder where the fingerprints and the weapon were clearly visible.
The other cases are similar in type but not degree. It was the Devils’ choice to push it.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I agree that the analogy is overwrought
But I, too, have a lot of sympathy for what he’s saying. I thought those other contracts were bullshit, too.
If Quisp is correct and there are other contracts still technically under investigation by the league, then the door was left open for future action in those cases. It would be fit and logical for the league to make some kind of statement by revisiting those cases in light of the decision on Kovalchuk.
Stan Bowman is probably on the phone right now, begging Bettman to do this.
Invalidating the Hossa contract solves Bowman’s cap problem without forcing him to exile Huet to Rockford; it’s a move he could pin on Tallon’s fiscal mismanagement; and it probably helps the Hawks’ chances to win again in 2-3 years, as it opens up cap room in 2011 and beyond.
by BleedBlue42 on Aug 9, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
except that
we want to keep Hossa. I don’t know a single Hawks fan who would consider getting rid of him (unless we were forced to) to stay under cap. now if we could do something about that Huet contract….SIGH.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Aug 9, 2010 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
We love Dale Tallon! He saved us from one hell of a mess.
Signed,
Washington Capitals Fans
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
haha, very funny! he actually still has a lot of fans here, and we hope he does well in Florida (though the words “good luck with that Dale,” may have crossed my mind once or twice).
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Aug 9, 2010 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Hahahaha. Oh, he’s the architect of last year’s Blackhawks. Gotta give him credit for that. But seriously, CapsNation is (with the perennial few weirdos) eternally grateful the Caps didn’t get stuck with Huet’s contract. They’ve got three kid netminders in their system right now and that contract would have killed their development.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I like the comment
But proving that the other contracts are bullshit is slightly more difficult than one that had 7 tack on years till the dude was 44.
Not afraid to nitpick
It’s like that parable about the frog in the pot of water that’s slowly boiling. Whenever you finally draw the line and say that something is too egregious to ignore, people will be able to ask why you didn’t complain about the slightly-less-blatant things that came before. Regardless, this contract needed to be voided for the good of the league.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
These are referenced in a footnote to the ruling:
“four such agreements, with players Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, Roberto Luongo, and Marian
Hossa reflect provisions that are relatively more dramatic than the others. Each of these players
will be 40 or over at the end of the contract term and each contract includes dramatic divebacks.
…
First, while the contracts have, in fact, been
registered, their structure has not escaped League notice: those SPCs are being investigated
currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration. It is also the
case that the figures in Kovalchuk’s case are demonstrably more dramatic, including a 17-year
term length, a $102,000,000 salary total and precipitous drop that lasts for the final six years of
this contract.”
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Pronger
was over 35 when his contract took effect though, right (even though it was unintentional)? That contract is different b/c it doesn’t actually lessen the cap hit, so it’s not like the other contracts even though it WAS intended to be.
happy ninja is happy....and wants to share its new toy!
by puppetmasterp on Aug 9, 2010 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree though, because it really is a matter of degree.
So it’s not that the league is letting several murderers walk. It’s that one guy shoved someone and nothing happened, and then the next guy pushed someone to the ground and nothing happened, and the third guy shoved someone to the ground and then stomped up and down on him with nazi boots, and suddenly that’s battery. What about the other guys? Why didn’t they get arrested?
On the other hand, I know Wyshynski thinks illegal is illegal, and that’s a valid point of view. The problem is, the CBA is not black-and-white like that.
But it reminds me of the GB Shaw story, which I am about to butcher because I can’t quite remember it…
Shaw: would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Woman: I would certainly consider it.
Shaw: How about for a pound?
Woman: (insulted) What kind of woman do you think I am?!
Shaw: We’ve already established that. Now we are haggling over the price.
Wait till this year.
Is it real, or is it Memorex? Is it Yoda, or is it Lou Lamoriello?
My hope is that there is a penalty in addition to the delay and loss of Kovi at a reasonable cap hit. If there is any sense of poetic justice, or if Commissioner Bettsy wanted to be seen as imposing a penalty to satisfy the meat-eaters while also not crippling the Devils cap-wise to appease the ownership and fan-base in New Jersey, then Bettsy should levy a $550,000 cap hit penalty for 17 years. And at the same time, he could tell New Jersey, “Hey, I am saving you money, by not letting you spend it.” Such a deal!
End Corporate Personhood.
New day, same refresh key
This is great, I’m glad of the outcome, but damn I’m not gonna get anything at work done for the next couple weeks(maybe months). Basically were back to square one with me checking everyday to see whats happening with Koyi’s new contract, and yes I believe he will still be a Devil in one sense of the word or another. The only difference now is I’ll be checking for multiple reasons.
1. fines
2. new contract terms
3. new cap hit (hope it’s big)
The only way this changes is if the Kings start making some noise of their own.
GKG!
Maybe instead you could get @mirtle or @drosennhl tweets sent to your phone? Either of those is a reliable source. I’d say @TSNBobMcKenzie, but he’s on vacation right now and isn’t tweeting hockey stuff right now.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
So, I've read the ruling...
And I am still confused by the interplay between 11 and 26 although my previous interpretation appears to have been a little off.
I’m still trying to process it…
But, in essence, as was stated elsewhere, the contract was rejected because, taken as a whole, it had the effect of circumventing the cap even if the individual provisions on their own, would have been okay.
In Bloch's ruling, he states that the relevant articles (11, 26, and 50) need to be viewed holistically
I am paraphrasing grossly, but he essentially states that any attempt to separate them ends up limiting the CBA to the point of uselessness, and a useless agreement could not be the basis of a functioning league.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Well the provisions of just about any contract have to be read somewhat holistically, and that is especially true with collective bargaining agreements. I have always contended that the provisions need to be read together; I just still think there are potentially two different processes. Bloch’s ruling seems to support that in that he only ruled on whether the NHL was acting within its authority in rejecting the contract. He had to use 26 to interpret its authority under 11, but the ruling was not based on a circumvention investigation under 26.
great detailed explaination of the rule
I feel I understand the whole thing a lot better..and after reading your post..I would find it hard to believe that he will be wear a devils Jersey next season….but will he leave the NHL all together
is the KHL easier to deal with contract wise…maybe?
Everything depends on
1) what cap hit Lou is really willing to take on. Because just shortening the contract to 13 years raises the cap hit to $7.85MM, and if Lou had been willing to do that, there would have been a deal on 7/1. (of course, that was then, this is now)
2) What Kovalchuk wants to do, given all this. . Does he still need his $100MM/10 years? Does he want to throttle Grossman? Does he feel the Devils stuck by him? Hard to say without knowing everything that was said between them and what if anything Kovalchuk relied on.
I don’t think the KHL is anything short of total humiliation for IK. And the money isn’t guaranteed. The league is likely to fall apart eventually and he must know that.
I think the odds are about 50:50 that Lou will choose to afford a deal with a cap hit above $7.5MM. At the risk of being continually inflammatory, I don’t think people are right that it’s virtually certain IK signs with the Devils.
I would not be willing to bet any amount of money on any one outcome. I would bet against the KHL in general. Other than that, all bets are literally off.
I will have to revisit the NJD cap situation to see what I think Lou will be willing to do. It’s been awhile since I’ve had to think about that.
Wait till this year.
NJ will have a very tough time keeping Kovalchuk and Parise...
…if Kovalchuk is above a $7 million cap hit.
Capgeek already has NJ at $41.8 million next year without Parise and Kovlachuk signed and the UFAs contracts are gone in 2011-12. That is $17 million available with 12 players signed. Most teams use a 23 man roster.
Let’s say Kovlachuk is now signed for a $7 million cap hit, this would give NJ only $10 million available to sign 10 people (including Parise). All this without being able to use any “bonus” cushion. Lou needs to shed a lot of salary just to get Kovalchuk under the cap this season and even more next season to get Kovalchuk and Parise signed. NJ would have to have a fire sale similar to Chicago and then their highest paid players would both be LWs. Not a good way to build a team. Especially with Broduer set to retire and no #1 defenseman or center.
At this point
it wouldn’t surprise me to see Kovalchuk take a 1-year deal somewhere and come back to the market again in 2011.
I hope DL and AEG are still interested, and I’d like to see these 4 take it or leave offers done (if some team can beat these cool with it):
1 yr.- 9M
3yr- 25M (structured at 10, 9, 6, last year may be the lockout year)
5yr- 35M (10, 9, 6, 5.5, 4.5)
10yr.- 65M (10, 9, 6, 8, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 4, 3)
I’m sure the Kings may have to trade one of their core if he signs the 5 or 10 year deal, however I look at it as whoever they trade won’t be as good as Kovi is during their prime years. Too me the only players you can’t trade at this point are Doughty, Kopitar, and Bernier.
by Throwdeuce5150 on Aug 10, 2010 10:46 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Jewels From The Crown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
