Just checked my afternoon backlog of tweets, and there are several rumoring that the “complexity” of the Kovalchuk offer has to do with a potential “lock-out” in 2012, when the CBA expires. Uh…I don’t know what to make of that. Like what, for example? If there’s a lock-out, I get x? No, can’t do that. He can’t have compensation in the contract other than salary. Is he trying to get some language in there about “if the new CBA lowers the cap and as a result contracts are reduced (like they were in 2005) then mine won’t be reduced”? I’m too tired to dive into the CBA right now, in search of language which prohibits or allows contracts to self-referentially set terms in case the contract is altered by a new CBA. It stands to reason that, when the new CBA is negotiated, if cap reduction is something that’s going to happen, the new CBA will also have language (as it does now) about what happens to the existing contracts, what’s allowed and what’s not. And whatever the owners and the NHLPA agree on, Kovalchuk has to go along with. He can’t have a side deal related to the new CBA or a potential work-stoppage. I doubt he will be able to make his deal “2012 CBA-proof”.
I’ll read more about it when I’m done in the real world.