Are the league and the NHLPA circumventing the CBA? (hint: if the reports are true, the answer is yes)
by Quisp on Sep 2, 2010 3:44 PM PDT
in CBA
Email
PrintHere's our old friend, the Collective Bargaining Agreement:
26.4 Circumvention by NHL or NHLPA. It shall be a Circumvention for the NHLPA or the NHL to engage in any conduct prohibited by Section 26.3. It shall not be a Circumvention for the NHL or the NHLPA to advise their respective constituents as to whether specific practices comply with this Agreement.
What's in 26.3? Well, everything. But keep this in mind: 26.3 describes circumventions by players or clubs (or player actors or club actors). 26.4 extends all of these prohibitions to the league and the NHLPA itself.
26.3(a)
No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement.
So, per 26.4, the league and the NHLPA may not enter into any agreements, promises, etc., that have the effect of circumventing the CBA. And:
26.3(f)
No Club or Club Actor or Player or Player Actor shall induce or attempt to induce any other Club or Club Actor or Player or Player Actor or cause any other Club or Club Actor or Player or Player Actor to be induced to engage in any Circumvention that violates this Section 26.3.
But in case you're wondering if the NHL or the NHLPA can be covered by the term "club/player actor":
26.2 Undisclosed Terms and Revenues. A Club (directly or indirectly through a "Club Actor," i.e., any owner, shareholder, Club Affiliated Entity, the NHL or third party acting at the behest of a Club) and a Player (directly or indirectly through a "Player Actor," i.e., his Certified Agent or any other individual, any entity, or the NHLPA, acting on behalf of the Player) may not, at any time, enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the Player, or Player Actor, by the Club or Club Actor either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player's SPC.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, it has something to do with this evening's news. I'll give you the clippings in a second. The general plot is: the ever-reliable New York Post says that the league has issued a secret ultimatum to the NHLPA, the effect of which is a prohibited agreement (if the NHLPA agrees), whereby the league will approve the Kovalchuk contract (despite the fact that it will otherwise reject it), if the NHLPA agrees to a bunch of amendments to the CBA.
Let me just pause here for a second to say I think there's a decent chance the Post is pulling this out of its hat.
A couple of points before I start with the cut/paste:
- The CBA is binding. There is no provision for amending or renegotiating it. I don't know anything about the ins and outs of labor law, but I would be willing to bet changing what is essentially the beating heart of the NHL CBA (the salary cap, Article 50, etc.) is frowned upon from a legal perspective. At the very least (in a world in which I am wrong and these things happen all the time), there's no way the CBA gets changed without a full vote of the owners and the player population, since these are the guys who pay the league/NHLPA salaries. And that -- voting, I mean -- isn't going to happen without meetings and lawyers and negotiations -- you know, like when you're negotiating a CBA. Like, for example, the year 2004 and most of 2005.
- Changing the rules of how cap hits are calculated -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TERM OF THE CBA -- is fundamentally unfair to all players who didn't cheat back when it was cheating and all players who now don't get to cheat now that the rules are different. That is more of a circumvention of Article 50 than the original Kovalchuk contract.
- For the league to use the approval/rejection of the Kovalchuk contract as a bargaining chip manifestly undermines the salary cap system because it is in effect saying this: (1) whether or not this contract is actually a circumvention according to the CBA is irrelevant; (2) the league's ruling -- whether it says it's a circumvention or not -- is available in trade for favorable decisions on the part of the union.
- There can be no, "do this or we'll reject the contract, even if it's valid; and if you do what we ask, we'll approve the contract, even if it's a circumvention." There is only "we reject it because it is prohibited by the CBA," or alternatively, "we approve it because it is allowed by the CBA."
- The CBA prohibits back-room dealings. And that's what this is.
- As far as I can tell, the CBA doesn't say anything about penalties for the league or the NHLPA for circumvention. But I can imagine some peoples' employment contracts do.
- This is so blatent in my opinion that I have to believe the ultimatum reports must be wrong in some crucial way. Otherwise, it strikes me as very, very destabilizing.
So, anyway, here are the clips:
Twitter / Darren Dreger: Don't be surprised if the ...
Don't be surprised if the Kovy extension is extended on Friday, plus...it's a longshot, but there could be a rule amendment by the end of wk
Kovalchuk decision delayed as NHL, NHLPA debate CBA - Puck Daddy - NHL - Yahoo! Sports
Wednesday, the ante was raised: Not only is Kovachuk's long-term contract at issue, but the current language in the CBA that deals with such contacts as well. [...] The NHLPA and NHL are in talks that go beyond the Kovalchuk contract's validity.
NHL gives Players Assn. ultimatum on Kovalchuk, Luongo, Hossa - NYPOST.com
[...] 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 [...] and Hossa's [...] deal [...] into the CBA under the following conditions:1. That the cap hit on future [...] contracts will not count any seasons [...] with the player over 40 years of age. [...]
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 [...] until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses [...] the league [...] will reject the Kovalchuk contract [...] [void] the Luongo contract [and] open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract.
EJ Hradek on Twitter at 9:40PM
On NY Post story (http://bit.ly/9U9s69) concerning NHL/NHLPA Kovy talks, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly says, "No ultimatum has been given."
So at least there's hope that this is all ****ing made-up ****-****.
58 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You bring up some great points about why the Post is possibly pulling this out of their hat...
I offer the counter: This is still Bettman’s NHL. He’ll feel free to circumvent the CBA and make illegal bargains as he pleases.
If it is real, I don’t get the threat to de-register Hossa and Luongo. In both situations your doing something that will probably help each team. And even if Hossa is de-registered they aren’t going to take any steps beyond that to last years Stanley Cup Winners. Yes, they won it with an illegal contract, and Roger Clemens took roids but the Yankees still have their championships.
You know what, forget all the legalesse and trying to figure out what’s going on. Kovy is a douche. Why?
All he had to do was look around and see “Holy Shit, no ones offering me 10 million a year” and take a deal that gave him 7 or 7.5 Million and this would have been over a month ago.So screw him for messing around with the league this much just because of whats most likely his ego saying he needs to make more then Ovechkin for one season. Take your ten million go to Russia and stop screwing around with everyone.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Yeah. I can't say I disagree with you.
Until proven otherwise, I’m just going to assume nobody knows anything, including me.
Wait till this year.
I think Larry Brooks probably read between the lines, either correctly or (more likely) incorrectly. Perhaps the NHL’s language implied a vague threat of a contract crusade, but Bettman, being a smart lawyer, would never say anything so incriminating like that, even between closed doors.
You have to remember, even though Bettman seems like a dithering idiot, he’s proved that he’s both a amazing lawyer and can dominate the NHLPA whenever he feels like it.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
Okay one thing about Brooks' report in the NYP
And it’s just a little thing, but sometimes little things can tell you a lot about the validity of a claim.
But isn’t Hossa’s contract already being investigated by the League? How can it open an investigation that is, supposedly, already open?
The NY Post Is Making It Up…
This is a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is practically a tabloid. And during the first Kovy Saga two months ago they were constantly making s—- up that later proved wrong. I’m too lazy to find examples, but it’s true.
And Quisp, you are absolutely right in your legal suspicions. They cannot go amending the CBA right now. If they try to, I would not be surprised to see a strike.
The Post is a joke, but the Sports section is easily one of the best in the City. It used to be worth paying a quarter just for the sports.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I don't believe this is true
And if it does turn out that NY Post was making it up I hope someone fire bombs their office or something (but not really, don’t hunt me down homeland security).
Seriously, look at this one line mentioned as a possible “fix” to the CBA -
That the cap hit on future […] contracts will not count any seasons […] with the player over 40 years of age. […]
How does that not scream “Add high salaries to the end of the contract to have them disappear from the cap hit”. You’d just have the opposite problem as now with front loading. Maybe not as obviously, but for instance, the Kovy deal where it goes up at the end…poof – those higher salaries are now gone from the cap calculation.
Someone really pulled this out their ass, I hope it was the Post and not the NHL/NHLPA, or else I will have lost all faith
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
Without those years past 40, Kovalchuk's contract would have a much higher cap hit.
Those years of salary after 40 exist for the team and player, but does not figure into the cap. The real deal would be $93/13 and the top five salary years (all over $11 million) would weight heavier on the cap hit (we don’t know the formula). His cap hit could end up above $8 million for all 15 years, if it wasn’t grandfathered in.
The only circumvention left would be to sign a 37 year old player to a 5 year deal and hide the higher salaries past 40:
Extreme example: 2-2-4-8-16: Cap hit equals $2 million. Good luck finding a 37 year old player that would be worth that contract though and no team would ever pay that much for a 37 year old player.
Everyone is hung up on the word “ultimatum”. Who cares if the NY Post wanted to sensationalize their story by using ultimatum instead of offer?
Both sides have admitted to talking about the particulars of the NY post report, they are just claiming that there isn’t an ultimatum.
The CBA is binding. There is no provision for amending or renegotiating it.
Doesn’t matter if there isn’t a provision for it, if both parties agree to the change (along with the membership votes to accept it), you can change the CBA.
Changing the rules of how cap hits are calculated — IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TERM OF THE CBA — is fundamentally unfair to all players who didn’t cheat back when it was cheating and all players who now don’t get to cheat now that the rules are different. That is more of a circumvention of Article 50 than the original Kovalchuk contract.
Again, if both parties agree to it, you can change any CBA. Labor unions have amendments to contracts mid-term all of the time. You can’t build into a contract everything that could come up in the future. I’ve been a part of a labor Union before when I worked in California and we had to vote several times on amendments mid-term, one of them was a major change to work week schedules. The amendment was agreed to by the Union and Corporation, but was voted down by the membership.
A loophole has been found and the league has warned everyone to stop escalating the issue and then NJ submits a $102/17 year deal and blows the CBA to pieces.
You are starting to sound like the Devils’ fans complaining about the trapezoid. Who said life is fair? The NHL is trying to close a loophole that wasn’t thought up in 2005. How many 10+ year NHL contracts were there before the salary cap? They didn’t even think teams would sign 12+ year deals and have players under contract until 40+ on these deals. They never happened before and the cap was a new system.
If the NHLPA doesn’t want the deal, then the NHL will use the agreed system of voiding, rejecting contracts and having an arbitrator decide if they have grounds to do so.
Do you think the NHL doesn’t have the right (under the CBA) to reject Kovalchuk 2.0, void Luongo’s contract and open an article 26 investigation into Hossa’s contract? This is all they have said to the NHLPA. Either we work together to fix the loophole, or we exercise our power given by the CBA.
Complaining about the trapezoid? I don't think so.
They can’t amend the CBA without (if it is at all possible) a vote from the owners and the players. Which you already pointed out. I know next to nothing about labor law. But I am extremely cynical about the prospect of getting the owners to agree to a change in 2010 that stands to benefit only a small number of teams.
But you certainly can’t use influence over a ruling (does the CBA allow this contract or not) as a bargaining chip in whether or not to try to make changes to the CBA.
You are starting to sound like the Devils’ fans complaining about the trapezoid. Who said life is fair?
You misunderstand. I’m not upset that it’s “unfair.” I’m pointing out that it’s a circumvention because it undermines the CBA, one of whose tenets is the fair application of the salary cap rules to all players and clubs. “Fairness” is specifically addressed in the CBA. Seeking to make changes that undermine fairness is in fact a circumvention.
I stopped thinking life was fair when Don Mclean didn’t win best album at the Grammys in 1971.
Wait till this year.
Also
Do you think the NHL doesn’t have the right (under the CBA) to reject Kovalchuk 2.0, void Luongo’s contract and open an article 26 investigation into Hossa’s contract? This is all they have said to the NHLPA. Either we work together to fix the loophole, or we exercise our power given by the CBA.
They have the right to reject Kovalchuk 2.0. In fact, they have the obligation to reject it, if it’s a circumvention. They also have the obligation to approve it if it’s allowed by the CBA. Whatever that contract is, it’s not changing between now and tomorrow. What’s up for grabs is the league’s opinion, and that’s not allowed. The CBA does not allow the league to make factual determinations based on anything but the facts of the contract.
I will grant you that the league and the NHLPA have the right to attempt to make amendments to the CBA if they’re willing to weather the ramifications of that, and if they’re willing to endure the process of meetings and more meetings and votes and more meetings and votes (with the season a couple of weeks away, mind you).
I happen to think that would be suicide. The owners are apt to think they have their own ideas about some other amendments that they might like to piggy-back on this new legislation. etc. I would be surprised if that’s not an utter nightmare.
But there’s just no way in hell the league is allowed to offer to approve a contract it will otherwise reject, depending on what tasty morsels the union is willing to agree to.
Is that another reason Lou is not involved in all this? Because certainly if he were in these discussions, there are about twenty different parts of Article 26 that apply directly to him.
Wait till this year.
I think the league’s opinion remains the same either way, but they don’t care too much so they are willing to make “concessions” in exchange for some things they wanted in the CBA 5 years ago.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
the opinion only remains the same if their decision remains the same
there is no, “well, we conclude that it’s a circumvention but we’ll allow it if you agree to help us change the rules.”
they just can’t change their determination of the facts based on outside influences. the facts are not for sale.
Wait till this year.
The NHL is most certainly soliciting a bribe here. That seems to be fairly common in negotiations.
Also keep in mind that the one that would be stopping any CBA circumvention by Bettman would be the NHLPA (well, the owners too because they can fire him if they feel like it), so as long as they mutually agree, there’s no circumvention no matter how outragous.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
I will just say that whether or not the league's (hypothetical) action is a circumvention doesn't depend on whether the NHLPA or the owners act on it...
but depends on what’s in the CBA itself. I agree with you that the likelihood of anyone doing anything about it is effectively zero.
Of course, when I originally posted that Kovalchuk’s first contract was a circumvention (about five minutes after it was announced) I didn’t think they would do anything about that either.
Different “they” though.
Wait till this year.
Just because the NHL thinks a contract is circumvention doesn’t mean they think they can prove it to an arbitrator. Do you believe that the NHL doesn’t think that Hossa’s contract is circumvention? Just because they register a contract doesn’t mean they believe that it isn’t circumvention.
Until Bloch’s decision, it was all guess work for the NHL. Now that they have a binding arbitration, they are more prepared to go after the other contracts that they believe are against the CBA.
I’m not saying it is the perfect way to go after the changes, but the NHLPA wasn’t going to accept changes out of the goodness of their heart. They weren’t going to do it for the game either.
Both sides are in the wrong with this “negotiation”, but there would be no dialog if the NHL accepted Kovalchuk 1.0.
Just think of this as pre-CBA negotiations. I’m sure no new rules will be added to the current CBA.
Will the league follow through on what the NY Post reported? We may know tomorrow. I doubt it. They were just testing the NHLPA.
There's a huge difference between
1) knowing that someone committed an act, but not bringing charges because you believe you can’t make the case;
and
2) knowing that someone committed an act, and using the potential action of bringing charges in order to entice a third party to [whatever] in exchange for not bringing said charges.
Or, since you used the Hossa example, what if you learned — a year later — that Bettman made a deal with the NHLPA that it would approve Hossa’s deal only if they signed the 2009 extension of the CBA to 2012. I’m just pulling this out of my ass, obviously. Or, how about this variation: what if Bettman agreed to approve the Hossa contract only if the NHLPA hired person x for some job at the union?
I’m willing to bet at least some people will see “hiring person x” as completely different from “amending the CBA.” They’re different in terms of the different kinds of ways the secret action is morally wrong, but they’re the same in the sense that they both should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Hossa’s contract was approved or rejected. There is only one set of criteria for making that judgment, and that’s the text of the CBA.
Wait till this year.
It's unfair to Kovalchuk, of all people
for the validity of his contract to be used as a bargaining chip in a labor negotiation. That’s a circumvention, at least, and if it’s not that, it’s a lawsuit.
Wait till this year.
I’d feel a lot worse about that if it wasn’t his insistance on being a 100 million dollar man that caused this whole mess in the first place.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
agreed, but it's the principle of the thing
to say nothing of the fact that the public reporting of this negotiation between the league and the NHLPA just confirms what everyone has been saying all along, that the approval or not of these contracts is political. I would have thought they wanted to steer clear of proving everyone’s suspicions about them.
Wait till this year.
@EJHradek_ESPN NHLPA dnt have conference call last nite. The CC was earlier in the week & thr was no expectation of a vote 2 install Fehr as Exec Director
Brooks was wrong about this, probably wrong about more
For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.
Exclusive! Also everything he says is so biased towards the players union(keyword) that I don’t really believe anything he says.
For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.
You're wrong
A contract can always be renegotiaited by the parties. It is unnecessary for the existing contract to say so. It’s contract law, not labor law. You correct about the NHLPA having to vote on it. But it would not be circumvention because circumvention refers to the type of SPC…..not the amendment of the CBA.
You can say how unfair it is all day long but again but parties who have a meeting of the minds have the full right to amend the terms of their contract.
Three things
(1) Like I said, I don’t know anything about labor law. I know something about contract law, but it would be fair enough to extend my ignorance to that as well.
(2) I am not complaining or upset or any other such thing about how “unfair” it is. Fairness with regard to the salary cap is one of the stated purposes of the CBA (as in, it’s in the CBA). So it’s a legitimate issue.
(3) It’s not just the NHLPA having to vote on it. It’s the owners, too, is it not? Or do we think the owners have empowered the league to make these kinds of changes, and their recourse is to fire him if they don’t like it. Him being Bettman. You obviously can’t fire “the league.”
(4) You’re conflating two separate issues. The first one is whether or not, in general, a contract can be renegotiated. I think we both agree that — if one is willing to go through the potentially incredibly disruptive process of doing so (the meeting and the voting and the negotiating and the meeting and the voting repeat ad nauseum) — it can. The second issue, irrespective of the first, is the Article 11 ruling on this contract.
The CBA absolutely without a doubt prohibits the league from making a determination on whether a contract is approved or rejected based on any criteria other than what’s explicitly spelled out in the CBA.
Just put all the other stuff aside.
The league is not allowed to use the approval/rejection process as a bargaining chip. If the contract is allowed by the CBA, it’s approved. If not, it’s rejected. There is no, “unless you don’t do as I say” clause.
And, p.s., if the NHLPA doesn’t do what the league wants it to, and the league rejects the contract as it has apparently threatened to do (assuming that all of that is accurate), the NHLPA would almost certainly win any arbitration, since you could demonstrate the impropriety in about as much time as it would take you to read this post. How could the league argue that the rejection of the contract was proper when they would have approved it had the union acted otherwise?
I actually think Bettman knows this but believes (as I suggested several posts ago) that he can get all the parties to agree to a new contract that satisfies everyone, so that it never gets to arbitration.
Wait till this year.
CBA Agreement Reached Between NHLPA and NHL: Kovalchuk contract approved
According to several sources and TSN: The NHLPA and NHL have agreed on a change to the CBA and the Kovalchuk contract will be approved based on this agreement.
Kovalchuk is finally a Devil for life.
Yaaay, it’s over!
Maybe this will finally put a spike in the idea that the league is out to get the Devils and hates their guts. Heh.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Not a friggin' chance...
…That Devils fans will get over their paranoia!
Well, I can hope, at least! Not only didn’t they get fined for circumvention, they’ll be rewarded.
In Dinglebarn We Trust
I was kind of hoping to string it out a while longer
Just to heighten the level of catastrophe. After all that we’ve been through this summer, to have it end relatively amicably now feels kind of like you’ve finally reached the scene of a car wreck that has been blocking traffic, and you look over and it’s not as lurid as you thought it would be, given how badly the freeway was backed up.
After all that, I thought we might even see body parts. And I was hoping that at least one car would be totalled.
If you want the latest, just follow TGfireandice on twitter
TGfireandice I’m told NHLPA executive board has not conducted vote on this yet, though. Might be a formality, but 20 yes votes would be needed.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the vote were 19 yes and 11 no…
TGfireandice CBA amendment would involve stipulations on cap hit for deals going past age 35 and age 40.
Well, that is fascinating. I didn’t know they could do that.
Darn it, now I’m itching to know what the agreement is!
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Allegedly it involves stipulations on cap hits for deals going past the ages of 35 or 40, according to TG from Fire & Ice.
So…would Kovy’s contract be governed by those rules, or would it be the last one to escape them? I was assuming the latter. (Why I assume anything anymore, I don’t know.)
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Are the league and the NHLPA circumventing the CBA? (hint: if the reports are true, the answer is yes)
The price is wrong, bitch! :)
Anyways, Quisp, have you read the new rules that have been reported? What are your thoughts? I like all of the new rules. It is exactly what both sides wanted. The league wanted to keep he long term contracts to 40 years old without setting contact term limits. Now that there isn’t any cap relief for added years past 40, you won’t see these deals anymore due to the risk to the clubs with no cap benefit. I like that this will still allow teams to sign their stars to creative cap management contracts when both parties agree and also sets a line for teams to be able compete on a level playing field for UFA negotiations. Very happy with how this turned out for everyone, NJ got their $100 million man and the league got rid of the benefit to signing players past 40.
Here are the new rules as reported: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=332542
I haven't read them because last I checked they hadn't "finalized" them.
Once the dust settles and the league makes an official announcement regarding the CBA amendment, it will be worth unpacking. I imagine they’ve been thinking about these changes for awhile and it’s not something they just made up on the spot without thinking through all the possible loopholes they’re creating.
By the way, the answer is still yes. It’s still a circumvention by the league. It’s a circumvention by its very definition. They used approval of the contract as a bargaining chip. I’m not opposed to an amendment in the abstract, in principle. But I think it’s clearly a violation of the CBA for the league to put its opinion on the legitimacy of a contract up for sale. And if the NHLPA had not played ball, and the league had rejected the contract, you certainly would have seen that argument from the NHLPA in the arbitration hearing that would have ensued. But the league’s play was solid. They calculated, correctly in my opinion, that the NHLPA had a good chance of prevailing in a second arbitration (as I argued in another post), and — not wanting to reject the contract only to lose publicly at the hearing — the league gambled that the NHLPA would agree to an amendment. And they were right. Someone remarked recently that Bettman does not like to lose. That seems to be fully in play here.
I don’t really understand, “the price is wrong bitch” but I will assume it’s friendly.
Wait till this year.
It's from Happy Gilmore. Just before Bob Barker kicks his ass.
It was friendly. :)
LAT reports no official announcement as of 8:30 PDT
So it seems that nothing will be stated formally and for the record until Tuesday at least. As with everything else related to Mr. Ilya Kovalchuk this summer, I will take nothing for granted until an official announcement is made.
“NHL has window to penalize the Devils” — NY Post
They could do this to avoid the appearance of rewarding bad behavior. However, given the buffet of hypocrisy coming from all sides this morning (agents, Devils, NHL), no one seems to care very much about the principle of violating the CBA any longer.
If they actually take draft picks, though, I’d be shocked. And they won’t go after cap space, the penalty that would hurt them the most. How very considerate. :)
In Dinglebarn We Trust
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.
