Disclaimer: half-baked thoughts to follow. I'm really not sure what I think about this, nor do I know if any other team's have sent junior-eligible players to the AHL on conditioning loans. Maybe you'll tell me this happens all the time. First I've heard of it.

• CBA Article 13.8 allows a team to send a player on the active roster to the AHL for "conditioning purposes" for up to two weeks. This is, per Rich Hammond, what the Kings have just invoked re Brayden Schenn's assignment to Manchester of the AHL.
  
• The NHL and the CHL have an agreement (the so-called 1995 agreement) which is not available to the public. We don't know exactly what's in the agreement, but the gist of it is supposed to be (as it's frequently paraphrased), "players with junior eligibility not playing in the NHL must be returned to the CHL."
• The NHL/CHL agreement, whatever it really says, is grandfathered in by the NHL 2005 CBA.
  
• 13.8 specifically describes the NHL commissioner's authority to investigate the circumstances of a player's conditioning loan, to determine whether the loan is an attempt to evade "any provision" of the CBA.
  
• "9.1(iv): The return dates to Major Juniors (as established by Agreement between the NHL and the Canadian Hockey League, dated May 2, 1995 [...] are hereby confirmed and affirmed [...] (e.g., return dates, prohibition on sending underage players to minors)." Not really grammatical (shocking, I know), but it's arguable that the CBA considers violating the CHL agreement a circumvention.
  
• The big hiccup is that we don't know what's in the CHL agreement. But if the often-repeated paraphrase is accurate, it's pretty clear that a conditioning loan to the AHL is not what the CHL would mean by "playing in the NHL."
  
• Does the NHL care really, if the CHL gets upset? I have no idea. But:
• The nine-game limit is not, as far as I know, a part of the NHL/CHL agreement. The nine-game limit is found in CBA Article 9(d)(i). Players can be returned to junior at any time, even after the nine game limit is reached; but (per 9(d)(i)) at game 10 the player's contract kicks in. When and how a player gets paid is kinda sorta (entirely) a CBA issue. 
• I think that logic still folds back in on (or refers back to) the CHL agreement.
• I have to assume the Kings asked the league and/or the union in advance if this move would be okay. Otherwise, it seems a little dicey; mitigated perhaps by the fact that the transgression may be only of the secret CHL agreement, which we can't see. But still...

[UPDATE: turns out, according to Rich Hammond, Schenn has not yet been assigned because the Kings are in conversation with the league about the particulars, i.e. "how can we do this so it's allowed by the CBA?" Like I said...]

$3MM fine, no cap penalty, loss of 2011 3rd round pick, loss of 1st round pick in one of 2011-2014, Lou's choice.

Surprised?

No. Like I said:

About Those Penalties... - Jewels From The Crown
I keep reading that the fact that Bloch said the Devils and IK acted in good faith that the contract was in compliance with the CBA somehow means that penalties can't therefore be assessed. This is simply not true. The CBA doesn't make any distinction between an intent to circumvent and an action that has the effect of circumventing. It does not say that an "effect of" circumvention is a lesser charge than an "intent to" circumvention. It does not say anything at all about a standard requiring "intent" be shown as a prerequisite for penalties. [...] Bettman can have his penalties if he wants them. It's at his discretion. [...] In the Toronto case, a couple of years ago, they docked the team a draft pick, and there was no intent to circumvent at all. That in and of itself is evidence that the intent issue is a non-starter. So it would be weird if he didn't levy some kind of punishment [...]

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the league and the NHLPA agreed (as part of their amendment negotiation) that the league could assess fines without the required cap penalty -- but I imagine that was something the league had to relinquish in order to make the amendment happen.

Anyway, once Lou dumps a few million in salary, this chapter will be closed...just in time for hockey to start.

CBA - Article 26.13 (c)

In the event that the System Arbitrator finds that a Circumvention has been committed by a Club or a Club Actor, the Commissioner may impose any or all of the following penalties and/or remedies set forth below:

(i)    Impose a fine of up to $5 million in the case of a Circumvention by a Club or Club Actor, but in no circumstances shall such fine be less than $1 million against any Club or Club Actor if such party is found to have violated Article 50 of this Agreement. If such a fine is assessed against a Club (except in the case of a financial reporting violation), that Club's Payroll Room shall also be reduced by such amount.

And yet, here's the New York Post:

Continue reading this post »

Here'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.

Continue reading this post »

And 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.

Continue reading this post »

Kypreos reveals the last Kovy contract numbers - sportsnet.ca
2010-11: $6 million

2011-12: $6 million

2012-13: $11 million

2013-14: $11.3 million

2014-15: $11.3 million

2015-16: $11.6 million

2016-17: $11.8 million

2017-18: $10 million

2018-19: $7 million

2020-21: $4 million

2021-22: $1 million

2022-23: $1 million

2023-24: $1 million

2024-25: $3 million

2025-26: $4 million

Let's compare those numbers to my guess from last week:

Continue reading this post »

A few posts ago, I rambled my way through trying to figure out what the hell happened last week with the Kokvalchuk 2.0 pre-approval process (or lack thereof). We still don't know if it's true or not that the league didn't pre-approve this deal or if they did or didn't previously nix other NJ frameworks because of a 15 year term.

Having had a weekend to think about it, I want to take a stab at a simpler prediction tree:

Continue reading this post »

Kovalchuk, Devils propose to Bettman, get jilted again - Puck Daddy - NHL  - Yahoo! Sports
[...] According to a source with knowledge of the negotiation, the term of the contract was in the neighborhood of 15 years, and it was the term that appeared to be the point of contention between the sides.  [...] One more note on the NHL and those contract investigations: Daly told XM Home Ice's Hockey This Morning yesterday (listen here) that if the [other] deals are found to have circumvented the salary cap, the penalty may not necessarily be a de-registration of the contract; rather, the CBA allows for financial penalties and having teams lose draft picks as punishment. Keep that in mind for the Hossa deal, especially.

I'm going to assume the 15 year thing is true because (1) it's Puck Daddy, and (2) it makes total sense. Thirteen years would have been no problem for the league (essentially following the Detroit model). New Jersey knows they have to have a tail with salary at $1MM or above. The only question is term, and if we're to believe they're asking about something the league is balking at, it just stands to reason it's because Lamoriello wants 14 or 15 years.

[MORE]

Continue reading this post »