Kovalchuk extension, and I think I know why
by Quisp on Sep 1, 2010 2:05 PM PDT
in CBA
Email
PrintAnd with that, the Kovalchuk saga officially stretches from July 4 to Labor Day.
Bettman, Fehr may work to solve Kovy deal - sportsnet.ca
Can NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA advisor Donald Fehr resolve the Ilya Kovalchuk contract conundrum? A source told Sportsnet's Nick Kypreos via e-mail: "Don't rule out a possible resolution between Bettman and Fehr moving forward."
I was going to write a snarky post about how the CBA doesn't allow them to reach a "resolution" that doesn't involve the league either rejecting or approving the contract. I was going to say, the CBA prohibits renegotiating contracts. But then it was announced that the league and the NHLPA have agreed to extend the decision deadline to Friday.
Which certainly sounds like there's some extracurricular talking going on.
EJ Hradek (EJHradek_ESPN) on Twitter
Decision to extend deadline on Kovy contract speaks to an ongoing dialogue b/sides as well as multi-leveled ramifications of final ruling
Here's the thing. We're not in some kind of negotiation phase. We're in the approval/rejection phase. The only reason for there to be "on-going dialogue between the two sides" is that the NHL has already decided to reject the contract.
Let's think about it. New Jersey submits a SIGNED contract. The NHL can either approve or reject. If they approve, we're done. It's not five days later and we're not having this conversation. There is no, "we'll approve this, but --" clause. Because New Jersey doesn't care at all about the "but" after the word "approve." The only reason to talk further is if the league is going to reject.
But if they're going to reject, why talk? Why "on-going dialogue"?
Since rejecting the contract puts the ball in the NHLPA's court, the only reason to have "dialogue" is to work out "what you're going to do if I do this." If the league rejects, will the NHLPA dispute? On the face of it, the answer is an obvious yes.
But maybe not.
Here's my thinking. The league wants to reject this contract (or else they would have approved it two days ago). But they don't want to go to arbitration. Because they know, like I said yesterday, that the NHLPA has a much stronger case this time around, and there's much greater chance of the arbitrator approving the contract over the league's objections. If the league rejects AND the union disputes, then the decision is an arbitrator's, thumbs up, thumbs down. That's it.
But if the league rejects and the union does not dispute, then the contract is void and there is no arbitration. So, if the league can get the union to agree in advance that they will not dispute the rejection -- presumably the league promises not to pursue penalties -- then the league and the union, in tandem, can go to the Devils and Grossman and tell them exactly what they have to do to make this work.
This is a special circumstance. Kovalchuk is a big deal. The union has a new leader (maybe). The league must balance the integrity of the CBA and not losing star players to other leagues (which after all would compromise the integrity of the CBA, if it's driving marquee players away).
I think what's happened, in effect, is the contract has already been provisionally rejected in secret, and the league and the union are working with the club and player to announce a new approved deal on Friday.
That's the only sense I can make out of "on-going dialogue between the two sides."
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Makes sense to me
I would also add that Bettman may want to take the measure of Mr. Donald Fehr in advance of negotiations over the next CBA. The appeal/arbitration process is rather cold and impersonal — it is supposed to be, to preserve the appearance of impartiality. But you don’t learn as much about the other side that way in terms of preparing to negotiate with them.
This saga is longer than War and Peace! Huh.
I wonder why they didn’t just work longer on hashing things out before NJ submitted the new contract. NJ playing chicken, or trying to get some leverage?
However it works out, if they do force them into a 13 year deal, that will seem really weird to me. Unless they de-register Hossa’s as well, and put an asterisk by the cup (oy). But then again, the league does a lot of things that are odd.
What do you think — will this new deal be 13 or 15?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I'm agnostic on 15, only because I don't know for a fact whether the league ever said no to 15 in these pre-approval meetings.
13 requires compromises I don’t think Lou is willing to make (cap hit above $7MM). I don’t think Kovalchuk is going to come down on the money much if at all, so he’s not much help. I can see all these meetings leading to the league saying okay to 15 if they get rid of this silly tail thing.
I frankly think the bg fat tail tip thing is kind of ingenious in that it identifies Kovalchuk’s desire for appearance over actual dollars and actually addresses it. But if the league is trying to find a way to reject and drive through a quick renegotiation and approval, I think the weird tail will have to go. And then I don’t know what you do about Kovalchuk’s obsession with 100.
Maybe the trade off should be that he agrees to lower his total to 91, and in exchange he’s allowed to wear the number 100.
Wait till this year.
I frankly think the bg fat tail tip thing is kind of ingenious in that it identifies Kovalchuk’s desire for appearance over actual dollars and actually addresses it.
I hadn’t thought of that. I thought the tail-spike was there for defense of the 15-year strategy, and I took it as a sign the conflict over term was real. Because it could have been structured like this:
2020-21: $4 million
2021-22: $4 million
2022-23: $3 million
2023-24: $1 million
2024-25: $1 million
2025-26: $1 million
Same cap hit, and it’d be more natural for a player in his forties to be paid less than one in his thirties. But the league/the arbitrator might argue, “Those two or three cheapest years at the end should be chopped off, they’re artificially tacked on too.”
It’s just a guess, though. When this is all over, I hope someone writes a book about it.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
According to Lou, they are not going to adjust the contract.
I think the NHL told the NHLPA on Monday that they were going to reject the deal and the NHLPA (Fehr) stepped in and asked if there was something that could be done to the CBA (amendment) moving forward that would adjust the way these long term contracts have their cap figured. Then the league will approve the Kovalchuk 2.0 contract as written, but there will be a new rule in place for future contracts.
The NHL will agree to let this be the last circumvention contract and would also agree to let the other stand. Then there will be some new language added to the CBA that would close the loophole.
That is my thought as to what is happening. There is no way to re-structure the deal, it has already been submitted and approved by the NHLPA. The NHL can only decide to approve or reject the contract as written.
I think both sides don’t want to leave the decision for future contracts in the hands of an arbitrator. This is the first step to a new CBA without a work stoppage.
Can't buy it, Sydor25...
If I were, say Drew Doughty, and I found out a loophole which would have allowed me to get more money over the long term was closed without my consent in a behind closed door deal…
I’D SUE.
No deals. I like Quispie’s logic. Problem here is the establishment of a baseline contract. The IK contract has been chosen for that purpose. The fact that IK is a blow-hole is not relevant.
The NHL, the NHLPA and New Jersey are preparing the way for IK’s signature.
Good luck with that, guys.
Gotta take Quispie’s side on this one.
—Rejected on Friday/ No arbitration/ NJ’s penalty is the increased cap hit enforced upon IK signing the new contract/ New NJ contract signed with IK on Saturday and approved, or IK signs with the KHL on Saturday or Sunday.
I think that you missed my point.
The NHLPA is fighting to get Kovalchuk 2.0 approved so that he can play in the NHL on the terms that he negotiated. The NHLPA doesn’t want to leave the decision to another system arbitrator. How did the first arbitration go for Kovalchuk? Wouldn’t you want the NHLPA to fight for your contract rather than roll the dice on another arbitration that could take weeks to decide?
If the NHL was going to approve the deal, why would the NHLPA need an extension? The only reason for the extension is to negotiate an amendment to the CBA to close the loophole after the Kovalchuk 2.0 contract is approved by the league.
The fact that Lou is not involved in the extension negotiations tells us that it is between the NHL and the NHLPA, not the Devils/Kovalchuk.
Still can't buy it...
Negotiating a clause change in the CBA seems less likely to me than preparing for an accepted contract…
I think you and I and Quispie aren’t really that far apart. We all seem to be saying that this process must come to a quick and definitive end. There have been no precedents defining the margins of legal and illegal before this off-season.
We all agree that the only circumstance needing an extention would be a rejection. The only question involves the purpose of more time. On the In Lou We Trust site, many bloggers are saying that both the NHL and the NHLPA are conspiring to create a rule by which the IK contract can be rejected, because—well, because they can and they hate the Devils.
Any change in the CBA in this toxic atmosphere would be grounds for litigation. However, precedent can be established by which the ground rules would be clearly defined. The lack of involvement of Sweet Lou and KoveeBaby simply means that the two overseeing bodies are trying to make clear to the two negotiating parties what the rules are, exactly.
Defining the rules of the game is a different process than re-writing the rules of the game. A subtle difference, yes, but a difference nevertheless.
To cut down on my verbiage, this: When there are accidents at a particular 4-stop intersection, the most likely corrective action would be to put in a stop light. Only in the most extreme circumstance would the Rules Of the Road be re-written.
The League needs a new stoplight. Re-writing the rules of the road comes with the negotiations over the new CBA…
Fehr and Bettman can be talking about changing the “rules” of the long-term contracts, but they can’t agree to the changes unless the entire membership agrees. It’s not like Fehr and Bettman can just shake hands and the CBA is changed, it would have to go to a vote of the NHLPA and the NHL owners.
They can decide to reject the change to the “rules” of the CBA and Kovalchuk 2.0 will be rejected. That is why some are saying it will probably be extended again on Friday. These kinds of negotiations will take longer than 2 days.
To cut down on my verbiage, this: When there are accidents at a particular 4-stop intersection, the most likely corrective action would be to put in a stop light. Only in the most extreme circumstance would the Rules Of the Road be re-written.
But if those accidents are being caused by one idiot in the intersection, shouldn’t you just remove the idiot? ;)
I will say this has been the best August and September for hockey talk in a long time! Usually it is just wasted on stupid trade proposals and lame rumors.
In 15 years, people will be looking back with fond memories of the summer of 2010. :)
Amen, brother...
AMEN!
The Kings may have lost IK, but I can’t remember a season I anticipated as much as this one—save last season.
I just hope DD doesn’t become the IK of the next couple of seasons…
Oh—about the intersection…
There is a rule (unwritten, of course) that a new light cannot replace a 4-stop intersection unless someone or multiple someones DIE in the accidents.
And, if the Idiot needing to be removed is IK, so be it!
I agree about being pumped for the new season...
…I’m going to my first frozen fury game this year and I can’t wait! It’s only a month away!
The Kings top 4 defensemen (top 5 when Greene gets back) are among the best in the NHL. If Bernier is as good as advertised, the Kings will be very hard to score against with Murray’s system.
I expect a battle between the Sharks and Kings for the Pacific to go down to the wire.
??
Fehr and Bettman can be talking about changing the "rules" of the long-term contracts, but they can’t agree to the changes unless the entire membership agrees. It’s not like Fehr and Bettman can just shake hands and the CBA is changed, it would have to go to a vote of the NHLPA and the NHL owners.
They can decide to reject the change to the "rules" of the CBA and Kovalchuk 2.0 will be rejected. That is why some are saying it will probably be extended again on Friday. These kinds of negotiations will take longer than 2 days.
I think you’ve drifted way off base here. You can’t amend or in any way alter the CBA. Even if you could, you’re not going to grind the quickly approaching season to a halt to do so. That would be tantamount to having a work stoppage right now.
To say nothing of all the other “amendments” that would have to be discussed. No, that’s just crazy talk.
Bettman holds ALL of the cards. He can reject the contract or not. The extension, presumably, allows the league and union to work out the details of how the rejection is going to be handled, so that a new deal is still possible.
What you’re proposing is, in the words of Zappa, “decapitation as a cure for dandruff.”
Wait till this year.
Is a new deal actually still possible?
Bettman holds ALL of the cards. He can reject the contract or not. The extension, presumably, allows the league and union to work out the details of how the rejection is going to be handled, so that a new deal is still possible.
Ok, the NHL apparently decided not to fine NJ for the previous contract, but if they have really submitted a 2nd contract that circumvents the CBA only a few weeks later, can the league really not fine them again? I think this time it has to. And if it does there is absolutely no way the Devils can sign Kovalchuk because they are already over the Cap and the penalty would lower their Cap that much farther.
On the In Lou We Trust site, many bloggers are saying that both the NHL and the NHLPA are conspiring to create a rule by which the IK contract can be rejected, because—well, because they can and they hate the Devils.
That’s delightful. Were they not aware that the league can reject it all on its own?
Wait till this year.
I don't think so, exactly.
1) as I said above, can’t amend the CBA.
2) the league has no reason to approve something it doesn’t want to approve.
3) Your “the only reason for the extension is to negotiate an amendment to the CBA” is out of left field, if you ask me. However,
4) maybe we’re not really on two different pages. what i’m suggesting is that the league and the nhlpa is getting together to work out the step-by-step process whereby they play by the rules of the CBA while getting what they want, which is a contract for IK. You’re saying “amendment,” and I’m saying “creative solution.”
5) Lou is not involved because after the contract is submitted, he’s not involved.
Wait till this year.
They can't renegotiate the CBA on the fly.
That would, in effect, render the whole document meaningless. They have to work within the rules.
Wait till this year.
Can't I get a green highlight box for this?
I was pretty damn close with this one…and I posted before the NY Post released the “ultimatum” statement.
It was the first thing I got right on the Kovalchuk saga since I said the Kings wouldn’t sign him. :)
by Sydor25 on Sep 3, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
:)
Thanks.
Now, when does rookie camp start again? Go Kings!
Yeah! I want to see the kids in action. Especially Schenn.
Some Toronto fans are saying they have the better brother. Who cares about waiting to see how they play for several years, first? Bring on the rampant speculation! Bring on blatant optimism! BRAYDEN IS BEST! BLOG WAR, BLOG WAR!
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Whoa, did you see the latest from Wyshynski? It has this bit from Dreger:
“Some believe the NHL and NHLPA will amend the averaging rules that govern existing player contracts. Maybe we’ll see a rule change soon.”
!!!!
This is crazier than I could ever have imagined. Are there provisions for amendment of the CBA? Or can they change it at any time if both parties agree?
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Or …. the NHL has rejected the contract and need a couple of days to decide on the appropiate penalty for NJ – 1Mil or 5 Mil.
No, the NHLPA would be able to file a grievance and send it back to an arbitrator.
I don’t think the NHLPA would agree to an extension if there wasn’t a chance that the NHL would change their minds and accept the deal.
Quisp: I think what’s happened, in effect, is the contract has already been provisionally rejected in secret, and the league and the union are working with the club and player to announce a new approved deal on Friday.
Then what were the meetings about last week when the Devils/Grossman and the NHL discussed frameworks? Weren’t they supposed to work together to get a contract approved before the contract was submitted? The NHL gave Lou and Grossman the chance not to turn in another stupid contract and they did anyways.
This is now between the NHLPA and the NHL to avoid another rejection and arbitration. Lou is not working with Grossman on another contract.
"Obviously, the delay doesn’t help, but that’s not the point right now," Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello told me. "That’s something you can answer without talking to me. As soon as you have a decision, you’re able to go forward. But, in saying that, I respect whatever their reasons are. It took two people to make those decisions, the NHL and the PA, so we’ll go forward. Remember, you can’t worry about anything you don’t have control over."
Lamoriello would not answer when I asked if Kovalchuk was OK with the delay. It was reported last week that Kovalchuk had set a deadline of last Friday to have a contract done with the Devils or he would consider signing to play in Russia’s Kontinental Hockey League.
Lamoriello said the Devils were not involved in the discussions to extend the deadline two days.
"All I know is that I got a call at about 4 o’ clock saying they had agreed to extend the deadline," Lamoriello said.
Don’t you think Lou would be more invovled in the delay if he was really working on a third contract? If he was, he would have said everything was “status quo”. I don’t think Lou would be lying to the press. He just wouldn’t comment.
Wow!
From NY Post:
The NHL has given the NHLPA an ultimatum regarding the contested front-loaded contract of not only the Devils’ Ilya Kovalchuk, but Vanocuver’s Roberto Luongo and Chicago’s Marian Hossa, as well, The Post has learned.
A well placed source reports that the league has informed the Players’ Assn. that the league will grandfather the recently submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100M contract, Luongo’s 12-year, $64M deal that is entering its second season and Hossa’s 12-year, $63.3M deal that also is entering its second season into the CBA under the following conditions:
1. That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only.
2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary.
The league has given the PA, which is being directed by Donald Fehr, until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses, or if negotiations fail to yeild a common ground, the league has informed the PA that:
1. It will reject the Kovalchuk contract.
2. It will move to immediately devoid the Luongo contract.
3. It will move to immediately open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract.
The NHL owns sweeping punitive powers against teams and players judged guilty of circumvention under Article 26 of the CBA.
It looks like a major change, but it would only be for 2 years and all registered contracts plus Kovalchuk 2.0 would be accepted. Can’t imagine the NHLPA not taking the deal.
Seems like a test by the NHL too see what the NHLPA thinks about restrictions to contracts/cap hits.
I wonder how the other teams feel about this. The NHL’s proposal is basically saying the Devils, Blackhawks, and Canucks are allowed to cheat the cap, but no other teams can do the same thing going forward. Giving those teams a competitive advantage under the salary cap system for the next 10+ years.
Remember when Devils fans were complaining that it was TOTALLY UNFAIR that the NHL allowed the Hossa contract but then wouldn’t let the Devils do the same thing? To be consistent, I hope they will now join every other team in objecting that it’s TOTALLY UNFAIR to allow the Kovalchuk contract and then prohibit other teams from doing the same thing next year.
True. It’s one thing to say “You can’t press the CBA bending farther than Hossa’s contract” and quite another thing to say “This handful of teams can do this, but not others.”
What a mess.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
But the NHL looks to be done accepting these contracts anyways. Does the NHLPA really want all long term deals taken to arbitration?
I’m not speaking from the NHLPA’s standpoint. It just makes me wish all the more that they’d taken a stance on Hossa’s contract. Because, let’s face it — the Hawks won the cup not only by making use of Hossa’s services, but also by squeezing every penny of the cap that Hossa at a discount price saved them. Now the league’s saying, well they did that, and they won the ultimate prize, but now we want takebacks.
I think what I’m getting at is, if Hossa’s contract isn’t even going to be the upper bound, it would have been better to act last summer.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Exactly — the NHL should have rejected the Hossa contract, but they didn’t have the stones, and then the Blackhawks used that advantage to win the Cup. Nobody can say for sure that they wouldn’t have won if the Hossa contract had been rejected, and he had either gone to another team or cost them some of their other expensive players. But it’s not unreasonable to think it mattered.
Now the NHL is in a terrible position because they let the Hawks not only get away with it, but immediately win the Cup. Other teams (Devils) think they should get to do the same thing and try something even more flagrant… and after all of this drama, their solution is to let those three teams keep their advantage while closing the loophole for everyone else? In other words, rewarding the teams who were most eager to cheat. But as much as I dislike the NHL’s current solution, I can see why they feel it’s the best solution — they don’t exactly have a lot of good options now that they have let things get to this point.
But think through what you just said...
This is the NHLPA’s decision, not the Clubs decision!
The NHLPA represents ALL NHL players, not just the rich ones.
According to your position, the only fair thing to do is for the NHLPA to fight this out, rendering the three contracts (at least) void. To whom is that unfair? It would be unfair to the players seeking their own long term contracts to allow this situation to perpetuate. Like musical chairs, the music must end someday. The contracts were going to get more and more ridiculous; the NHL, NHLPA, the Clubs and the Agents all knew this day was coming—no more outrageous contracts!
The Kings, for example, tried to be ‘good’ about it, and lost IK… Why should they be punished?
There will be a lot of whining and moaning, but this outcome seems inevitable.
But just which choice will the NHLPA choose?
I hope they decide to fight it—great theatre is coming, in that case!
I didn’t say it was the clubs’ decision, just that I imagine many of them will be bitter if this happens.
I don’t completely follow what you’re saying (I think you’re disagreeing with me in the part about fairness, but I’m not sure what you mean exactly).
But, I too hope the NHLPA decides to fight… I would be happy to see the three contracts voided. I know that’s easy for me to say as a Penguins fan, since we don’t have any retirement contracts. But that’s kind of the point — I view it as unfair to my team if other teams get away with cheating the cap since we adhered to both the letter and spirit of the CBA and have big cap problems because of it.
That's where we agree.
Allowing Cap Circumventing Contracts punishes those teams that don’t make them. This is Tough Love, but someone had to do it.
Looks like you were right above...
A major power play by the NHL—definitely changing the Rules of the Road!
Finally, though, the power that Quispie’s been talking about in the CBA for the NHL is about to be used. And, don’t forget the PENALTIES, either!
They must be applauding in Devil-Land, however…
They should get their man.
And, I meant that for...
Sydor25.
It’s funny how other fans take this, though… Even though it likely makes IK a Devil (if the In Lou We Trust folks thought about it for just one moment), Bettman and the NHL are being pilloried while IK (who’s greed is central to this nightmare of a story) is just a poor, put-upon player.
IK is going to be a Devil, because the NHLPA’s options are to:
a): Bite hard down upon this bilious burrito, accept the conditions and grandfather in the contracts;
b): Accept the battle, and declare all-out war. IK, Hossa et al lose their contracts, and any arbitrator will grant the NHL the power to do so. Meanwhile, no long-term contracts are signed, and the superstars can only exit Stage Left to the KHL.
no long-term contracts are signed, and the superstars can only exit Stage Left to the KHL.
I don’t think permanently disallowing cap circumvention means that we will lose all of our superstars to the KHL… if that’s the case, then the CBA itself was designed to send all of the superstars fleeing to Russia, and that hasn’t happened. The salary cap places limits on what superstars can make, and they would make more in the KHL — that has been the case. They haven’t fled.
I would revise this to say “the extremely greedy superstars who want to make $100 million in 10 years can only exit Stage Left to the KHL”
The key word was 'meanwhile'...
Extremely greedy is such a relative term…
They have lawyers, don’t they?
If there are no longer contracts lessened in Cap hit by 25%-40%, the Clubs will be forced to lower their maximum contracts accordingly…
—Passing the cost onto the Consumer = Top Talent Players
I don't think this is legit…
How can the league issue an ultimatum like this? It’s essentially saying to the NHLPA, “We’ll let you have this one, but you’re gonna have to give us something in 2 years when we re-negotiate a future CBA.” You simply can’t do that. First of all, there is no assurance the NHLPA is going to actually give you that. For starters, the NHLPA is not at the bargaining table– I know there is no bargaining table, but for argument’s sake, pretend there is– Donald Fehr, who might become the head of the NHLPA, is there. His word in this instance would have no binding effect whatsoever on collective bargaining negotiations in two years. Even if he had that authority, he cannot bind the NHLPA to accept such propositions. Any proposed CBA negotiated by the NHL and Donald Fehr will have to be submitted to the players to actually be passed. One must ask, why in God’s name would they accept a deal that just got Hossa, Kovalchuk, Luongo, and Pronger something they can never get again? In other words, why should they accept terms that gave four guys special treatment? It would be to no one’s benefit except those four individuals who make up about .5% of the NHLPA’s membership. The players aren’t stupid, they’re not going to accept that, no matter what Donald Fehr tells Gary Bettman in the next 48 hours.
Finally, why would the owners of the other 26 NHL frachises even vote to accept such a CBA? They all– ok, maybe not all, but most of them– also want to win the Stanley Cup at some point. Why should they agree to a system that has rewarded four teams– maybe 6 if you include Boston and Detroit– and given them a major competitive advantage? How can the owners in Pittsburgh, Washington, and Los Angeles who are going to have to work that much harder to hang onto their homegrown talent accept a system that let New Jersey and Chicago flaunt the system and then be “grandfathered in”? Quite simply, they can’t.
There is no way in hell that what the Post claims to be going on is what’s actually going on. The 2 sides may well be talking about these things, but their having any relation to the Kovalchuk saga is unfathomable.
Okay. I'm going to have to take a few minutes and read some actual reporting, if there is any out there.
back in about a half hour, with a new post probably.
Wait till this year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
