Still, Lamoriello said he "absolutely" rolled his eyes when the Islanders signed Rick DiPietro to a 15-year contract in 2006 and when Washington signed Alex Ovechkin to a 13-year contract in 2008. He also said he "absolutely" rolled his eyes when Kovalchuk’s contract was completed.
So why would he sign Kovalchuk to such a deal?
"You’d have to speak to ownership about that."
Loophole Lou on how he "might" agree these deals aren't good for the league. Full quote and more at Tom Gulitti's Fire & Ice blog.
UPDATE: Obviously, the topic in comments has turned to discuss the NHL's rejection of the contract. For theories as to why, follow along...
UPDATE 2: Quisp at Jewels from the Crown is all over this with hilarity and insight. Spend your lunch break there.
almost 2 years ago
Dominik
93 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
yeah, saw those tweets from him, was pretty good stuff, in the end, you’re your bosses’ puppet, even when you’re a HOF’er
still trying to figure out the meaning of "want you, cuckoo, cannonball" ... ... ... 17 years later...
I’m a believer that Lou is in “F-it, I’ll be retired before this might haunt us” mode…
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
I was just about to say exactly this.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
hope this isn't a stupid question
What is the difference between a no movement and no trade clause?
NTC, you cant trade them to another team
NMC, you cant put them anywhere else- no trading them, no putting them on waivers, into the AHL, etc.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 20, 2010 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And it isnt a stupid question at all, IMO.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 20, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
HOLY SHIT!
The NHL rejected the contract!!!!!!!
http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2010/07/20/ilya-kovalchuks-17-year-contract-rejected-by-nhl/
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
Wow
Seems odd that the NHL is choosing Lou to make an example of. I would have thought they would have communicated to him beforehand what would be out of bounds on such a high profile deal. Embarrassing for everyone, including the league.
I am happy they realize they need to rein these contracts in, though.
I think it was too obvious that Kovy was just going to retire when he started making less then a million a year, thus taking the rest of the hits off the cap.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Yes, just when we thought it was over they drag us back in. Now we’ll no doubt see more and more round and round crap about will he sign won’t he sign etc.
actually, according to what I was reading, if the Devils tried to circumvent the CBA, they could lose 1 to 5 million worth of capspace among other things. They really wouldn’t be able to fit him.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I bet
that they ignore the punishment part.
But Im thrilled that they said no to this bullshit cap-circumvention garbage. This should have happened with Luongo and Hossa, too.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 21, 2010 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions
http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/2010/7/20/1579849/your-high-level-nhl-person-should It sounds like they can’t get away with just a slap on the wrist.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
the nhlpa will fight and win this one, because of our very own ricky D, the other 12 year jobbers, and the fact that a lot of guys play into their 40’s
this is just puffing out your chest before you fight, because the next big hurdle will be the reigning in of these types of contracts in the next cba
still trying to figure out the meaning of "want you, cuckoo, cannonball" ... ... ... 17 years later...
NHLPA doesnt really benefit from frontloading contracts
I dont see why they would stick their necks out for something that doesnt help players.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 21, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely!
Not only does it not help the players but it alctually makes them subsidize the contract because of escrow
http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3266
nice link on why if th NHLPA was really a union that cared about its the majority of its players instaed of the high earners and the agents they would not file a grievance
It's scary how much pull the agents have
There are many reasons this is not a real “union,” and one of the reasons is the players are advised and led on by a cabal of agents — non-members — who have a vested interest in having them vote a certain way.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
the agents are already up in arms
Look up Allan Walsh’s twitter it’s not his client but he is outraged
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 11:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Bunch of self-serving weasels
FYI for others, here is Walsh’s Twitter.
I love how the lockout was all the owners’ fault, and Goodenow had nothing to do with it, no nothing at all. Because the NHLPA never went on strike to get what they wanted…right? ;)
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Actually
DP’s deal is way different – $4.5mm each year. It’s not front loaded.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2584306
Check out the quote from Daly:
“Clubs are free to make their own decisions” within the rules, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said.
I guess he changed his tune.
This is NOT "within the rules"
-thats the thing. And anyone making a case that this contract IS within the rules is lying to themselves.
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 21, 2010 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Which rule does it break? It definitely goes against the spirit of the CBA, but does it actually break an explicit rule of the CBA?
Check this Jewels on the Crown post for an interesting interpretation on why.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
I dont know if there is an actual rule but
During the last 5 years of the deal Kovi is making the league minimum (550K). and the year before that he makes 750K if thats not slapping the league in the face with cap circumvention then nothing is. None of the other contracts pushed it that far (none over 42 years old at the end) none making league minimum at the end (Note Pronger contract does not count because he is an over 35 contract and cap counts regardless whether he retires or not.) Luongo, Zettenberg, Franzen, The Chicago contracts. all push the envelope but at least they dont go beyond all previously known lenght of contract and dont do the league minimum bit. Note the league would not have done this as a PR stunt, only if they thought this had a a chanve to go through. By the way DP’s contrat is not frontloaded or backloaded what he gets paid is what his cap hit is. and Ovechkin is backloaded and that actually does nothing for him if he retires.
I would say Pronger’s still counts in a way — the salary drops so much at the end of the contract, which indeed lowers the cap hit even if it will still be on the books. But at least in his case you can argue that he could still be playing then and, if he is, he’d be making a Chelios-level salary (i.e. a washed up star’s salary).
It’s interesting that DP’s deal, the first one to try to take the long-term consequences of the cap in mind, was actually a defensible, non-circumventing proposition — a true player/team compromise: We’ll pay you a higher salary now, and commit to you for the rest of your career, in return for you accepting what will be (or so it appeared before the goalie market corrected) a below-market salary for a #1 during your peak years.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
The only thing about Pronger is that they will have to carry the cap hit no matter when he retires which the others don’t if they retire. Granted that was a f up by the flyers but they will still carry the cap hit for the length of the contract
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 11:14 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree — them having to carry that hit makes it less of a big deal (and hilarious that they seemed not to realize it at the time) — but you could still carry that to absurdity and sign him through age 50 or something to reduce what that post-retirement hit is.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
This is awesome
Check out this brilliant Jewels on the Crown post, which was before the rejection was reported.
I don’t know why 44 is where they drew the line (or is it the paltry salary in the later years, and the intentional low salary in the first two?), but those are some reasons you can use to say it circumvents.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Yup
If that’s the language, 100% against the rules. I knew it broke the spirit of the thing but it also clearly breaks the rules of it, as well. DP’s deal should not be used as an example of another contract that broke the rules, however. $4.5mm each year, no fluctuations.
As I commented earlier, I am a little surprised the league let it get this far, particularly with Lou and his contract track record. I get the shot-across-the-bow thing for negotiating the next CBA purposes but this is embarrassing for everyone involved and Lou deserved more respect. If the league was going to do this, they should have made the play with the Hossa deal.
Me too, surprise on all fronts. Why did they not send signals, particularly to “made man” Lou, that this might not fly? Or was it Devils ownership running with it?
And, it must be asked, since Anschutz’s Kings lost out on the bidding … is that why buddy Bettman stepped in?
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
If all GM’s acted like the old Lou, it never would have come to this. Now that I think about it, though, maybe it was Vanderbeek in charge here and Lou asked the League to reject the contract!
Haha
Conspiracy! I love it.
Although we should remember Lou was awfully shady on the Malakhov and Mogilny maneuvers, too. Maybe it’s three strikes and you’re out.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
hmm...
Michelle Kenneth just tweeted that the Devils knew the contract would be rejected.
Actually
She tweeted her reaction to this report…
“Further muddying the waters surrounding the rejection, a source told ESPN.com Wednesday morning that Devils president and general manager Lou Lamoriello was aware of the league’s plans to deny the deal prior to Tuesday afternoon’s news conference in Newark announcing the signing.”
http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/news/story?id=5397588
They knew before the press conference, not before the deal. According to report.
Ahh, gotcha
Still very interesting. Wonder if Lou altered his comments accordingly…
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
you have to love how
He earns 95 million of the 102 in the first 10 years of the contract. What an amazing coincidence
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 12:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
too much of the wording relating to circumventing the cap is open to interpretation, and you can only speculate that someone is trying to get around the cap, so you can’t prove it definitively… there is precedent for a structure like this, hossa, frandzen, etc, there is precedent for a length this long, hossa/DiP, so this is nothing except posturing for a fix to the rule in the next cba, this contract will be passed even if it has to go to arbitration because of the past examples they let pass
still trying to figure out the meaning of "want you, cuckoo, cannonball" ... ... ... 17 years later...
you may be right
But Mackenzie twitted a good point. He said just because the cops don’t stop you for going 56 MPH does not give you a defense if they stop you doing 60. If I had to take a guess I’d say that these contracts were addressed in some way during some league meeting and Lou took it too far
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 11:25 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Burnside
It boggles my mind that someone who covers the NHL for a living doesn’t know this:
There are regulations in the CBA that cover fluctuations in contract payments. For instance, a source told ESPN.com on Tuesday night that a player can’t get paid $10 million one year and $1 million the next; and there have been contracts that have had to be altered to ensure those regulations were followed.
You don’t need “a source”! It’s in the damn CBA!! I know the CBA is a royal user-unfriendly pain, but this is actually one of the easier-to-understand clauses. The standard is 50% of the salary of either of the contract’s first two years.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Exactly what I thought after I read your link to Jewels! If the agreement is available, it’s that guy’s job to know it, or at least to read it before writing something pertaining to it.
CBA link
BTW, I should probably put this link in the left-margin, but here’s where the CBA is at nhl.com. (There’s a link at the top for the PDF download.)
Fair warning: It’s a beast, and I get a migraine every time I open it. Also, even when I’ve read a clause and “know” the rule, I have to go back and look through the legalese again, as each opening wipes away part of my brain.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Not completely
No one has signed through age 44. And no one has carried it to quite these extremes:
- putting the first two years at $6 million per before rising to $11.5M deliberately circumvents the clause that requires any contract to only decrease, in any given year, by no more than 50% of the salary in either of the first two years.
- dropping his salary in the final years to what is the veteran minimum now requires a massive leap of faith that the minimum salary will not have gone up by then.
In any case, the CBA allows for circumstantial evidence (i.e. induction, interpretation of intent); the NHL just hasn’t had the balls to use that yet.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
44 Vs 42
I think the reason the league drew the line at 44 is because what happens when someone signs a contract through 46? Teams were going to keep pushing the limits of this until the league did something.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
And to me, that actually makes sense
You at least see examples of guys playing through 41, 42 (looks awkwardly at Islanders goal crease). But even Doug Weight and Mark Recchi are pulling more than minimum salary.
The problem is it was never codified, but I’d concede it’s difficult to imagine every loophole when you’re drawing up a CBA, unless you’re an agent with a commission on the line.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Plus there’s no way to know what the Vet minimum will be in 15 years.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Seems like Lou didn’t want to do this completely but was pressured into it by Vanderbeek. “You’ll have to ask ownership”. I have too much respect for Lou to think he didn’t know this could blow up with cap hit ramifications like might happen now if Kovy’s deal gets restructured.
by 19! on Jul 21, 2010 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
that's my favorite part of it
Lou has basically turned into Ray Romano’s father. He doesn’t give two shakes anymore, and whatever the hell he wants to say is going to come out of his mouth. I’m surprised he didn’t throw a jar of jelly at the presser.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
I can see Lou...
“Hell, it’s this guy’s money. I’m just trying to win one more Cup before I go.”
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Doesn’t the CBA expire next at the end of this year. I’m guessing this will become a big issue in the next one
everyone agrees the loophole will be removed about 10 seconds into the new CBA negotiations.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Yes but how? put a limit on length? are they going to roll back existing contracts ? IF that’s the case the Devils contract is increadibly smart. Sign Illya for a Cap discount now and watch the whole thing go poof later and start over
grandfather in the old contracts probably. Not sure how they are going to close it, but they definitely are. Most likely a cap on years.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
The way to fix it is this...
Just like the reason that the NHL turned its nose at the Pronger, Hossa, Franzen deals is that the maximum salary in the front loaded deal is not massively bigger than the cap hit, whereas Kovi’s cap hit is les than half of the max yearly salary. This is obviously a joke.
So the way they deal with this is to put in a provision that says that the maximum salary in any one year of a deal cannot exceed, say, 140% of the cap hit over the term of the deal. THEN they say that in any deal that is over, say, 7 years in length, you eat the cap hit for the length of the deal regardless of whether or not the player retires (this would be like the over 35 years old provision).
by Nova Scotia Isles Fan on Jul 21, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice.
I’m kind of ashamed I hadn’t thought of that type of calculation. In theory, I’ve always liked the idea of an aging player’s salary being able to drop as he reaches his ancient years. Kovy at 38 probably shouldn’t make what Kovy at 28 makes. But the drop shouldn’t be THAT huge, and that suggestion might be the way to address it.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
add some other issues
Escrow, buyouts vs burying salaries in the minors or as I like to call it the Wade Redden, cap high and cap low. What % each side gets. Add Donald Fehr and you have a recipe for all out war that’s only equalled by the US Congress.
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 12:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Interesting Twist...
The NHL is rejecting it for circumvention without filing charges for circumvention.
What this means is that if they don’t file charges against the Devils for circumvention, and simply reject the contract for circumvention, then it’s basically a new loophole that allows the Devils to rework the contract till the NHL is happy.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
The NHL is rejecting it for circumvention without filing charges for circumvention.
Ahhhhh-HA. A loophole in the loophole!
Actually, this makes sense for both sides. If I gather right, they’re just saying, “Look, kids, just make it in line with ”http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/7/21/1579736/why-ilya-kovalchuks-contract-was" target="new">the other crazy deals/precedents and we’ll call it a day."
Side benefit for us being, hopefully this bumps up Ilya’s cap hit to the Devils just a bit.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Apparently you can't enclose a link in quotes, anywhere
Here’s where that link was supposed to go: to a list of the other deals, and how much sillier Ilya’s is.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
But
I’d like to see that chart with Hossa or Luonga compared to the average [including Kovalchuk]. It might not look that different visually. The conclusion is also absurd to me. That Kovy’s deal was rejected because it was $1.1mm worse in a still playing year, he’d be playing 2 years older, and that simply shortening the contract by 2 years will solve it. Not convinced of that.
It seems like Hossa vs. Kovalchuk would be the closest comparison. $3.5M vs. $2.7M savings, as Hossa’s is the highest on that table.
I’m not sure I follow you on the “$1.1mm worse in a still playing year” — can you elaborate on that?
I have no reason for drawing the line at 42, other than that’s what they’ve let go so far, and they issued the increasing warnings, and the CBA allows for interpretation (there are arguments that such leeway was necessary so that they could examine how things went before acting).
I also haven’t seen anyone else bring up the first two years, which to me is deliberate circumvention: You can argue a guy’s salary should go down as he ages in his late 30s, but there’s no argument for paying him almost half in his age 28-29 years what you pay him in the years following, unless you’re deliberately circumventing the CBA.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
The NHL saw no problem with Hossa and Pronger signing contracts last season that saved their teams over $2.4M of cap space during the years when they’d likely still be playing. But a $3.5M discount was too much. We’ll see what the Devils come back with to get this contract in line with expectations – if history is any guide, a 15-year, $102M contract would be just fine.
Good point on the first 2 years. No one is arguing any of these deals aren’t a deliberate attempt to circumvent the salary cap.
key point there
I think if the deal didn’t go 6 mill, 6 mill then 11.5 they would have let it go. Hossa starts at 7.9 and goes no higher
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 1:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
There could be legit reasons
You might want a bump like that in the middle if you’re the Devils just for their own budget: they may feel they can better afford to pay him more money in those years because Brodeur/Rolston will be gone, for example. (Not saying that this IS the reason, just that it’s possible they have a good reason besides cap hijinks.)
We all know that every last one of these front-loaders is a cap dodge; whether they can also be justified on other grounds is a legitimate discussion. The Devils are in trouble, as others have mentioned, because they made the dodgery way too nakedly obvious.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Is it really way more obvious than Hossa’s deal, though?
Hossa will make $7.9 million each of the first seven years of the deal. However, for the 2016-17 season, his salary drops to $4 million. In 2017-18 and 2018-19, Hossa will make $1 million and in the final two years of the deal, he will make just $750,000 each year.
yes
Because there is a rule in the cba about how much a contract can go down by and that has to do with how much is earned in the first 2 years. By artificially lowering the first 2 years they circumvented that rule. In other words they semi front loaded then middle loaded. All the other contracts had the highest salary also be in the first 2 years
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 1:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh
Well that’s not circumvention, that’s a violation. If you’re right, then Lou was wrong when he said the contract was completely legal. A circumvention is theoretically subject to interpretation, whereas a violation is not.
if they had not done that
Then the NHL has no legs to stand on because the only difference between hossa and this is 44 vs 42. All kovy has to do to technically fix this is work 12 or 13 years to get his 95 million instead of the 10 years or leave a bit more if he retires early.
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 1:51 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
its interesting
That most of the Hockey media is not catching any of the relevant issues.
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 2:14 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Go Light House Hockey!
That’s what makes this blog and all the commenters awesome and fun to be a part of!
For the record, I still don’t see how the Kovy deal is that much worse than Hossa’s.
i think
That by artificially lowering the first 2 years they can go from the high salary years to the low end quicker (in number of years) and therefore the player gets the bulk of his $ quicker all other contracts of the long term persuasion either weren’t front loaded or if they were started with the highest $ amount in the first 2 years. Granted once you go to arbitration who knows what will happen but to me Lou definitely went around the cap
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 2:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHL was also upset about the end of the deal being for league minimum. It is very rare for even a 40 year old to play for Min Salary.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I agree WebBard. The Hossa contract and Kovy’s each have unique characteristics that make them slightly different in approach but both contracts’ intent is 100% to circumvent the salary cap. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. It was completely transparent for both deals. That’s why I’m surprised they chose this one to make a stand on.
I also think it’s true that Kovy’s deal is a bit more “circumventy,” but the 100% intent on both is clear and undisputed.
I think I agree that the Hossa deal isn’t THAT much better, but I guess the way the NHL got its feathers publicly ruffled after that one may have been a sign that that’s the line in the sand. Seems like at every spot where Hossa was on the extreme, this one has pushed it one or two steps further.
Absent clear language and any other mechanism to install clear language, I think I’m fine with them drawing the line here. (I’d have preferred they draw it earlier, actually, but again it’s which fight are you spoiling for?). It certainly takes a crap on the whole intent of the cap, and revenue distribution, and even escrow.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
That’s probably how it unfolded, I concur. You’d think they would have specifically forewarned Lou, though, considering all he’s done to help owners and the league. Unless the NHL decided they would take a stand with the Kovy deal in advance, knowing it would have to be structured so egregiously. Or, as per our earlier chat, Lou wanted to rein in Vanderbeek.
i would buy the budget thing if
It went 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc. But the fact that its 6, 6, 11.5 and there is a rule attached to the first 2 years. ……
by lostsin44 on Jul 21, 2010 1:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
'NHL is rejecting it for circumvention without filing charges for circumvention.'
Actually, now it looks like a lot of people aren’t buying the Sportsnet story. Like that’s not an option in the CBA. I’m not sure … the NHL can probably make up its own rules and the PA could go along if it helps both sides, lol.
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
I’m pretty sure Bettman has a loophole in mind, or is just going to fine them a worthless draft pick.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Devils Won't Appeal
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2010/07/21/kovalchuk_devils/
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
My guess is 2 years off
The league seems to be OK with 42 in other cases. In this scenario the Devils would take an extra 800k or so hit per year. They may ask to flatten out the curve so the final years are not at the floor. I think all parties will allow it if it is changed to 15 years at $102MM. He will still likely retire before the contract ends but at least it would match with precident and be more believable.
by Anarcurt on Jul 21, 2010 1:18 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
So how do we see this loophole closing?
I don’t imagine that anyone will be eager to make the cap hit equal to the actual salary plus an even portion of any signing bonus. I still see a provision that applies the cap hit for the entire length of the contract, even after the player retires. I also think that they have to tighten up the retirement clause, or else somebody’s going to “retire” and “comeback” their way to a few other teams… perhaps something that says that the cap hit is erased in the event of retirement, but that the player cannot unretire and play for another team for as long as the original contract would have been in force. I’m not certain if there is already a provision like that in the CBA or the standard players’ contract… it was too hard to figure that out. I have enough trouble following Colin Campbell’s Wheel of Random Supplementary Discipline.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Probably say that the minimal salary of a contract is 75% of it’s highest value. IE: If you pay someone 10 million during a season, the lowest you can pay him during the rest of the deal is 7.5 Million.
Wheel of Location, Turn Turn Turn. Tell us the location that we will play.
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Id say 50%
When you get to lower end contracts, that just seems to work better
Let Us Go, Islanders! (Ever notice how strange that sounds without the contraction?)
by TheMetalChick on Jul 21, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like there's a workable solution among these ideas
I like that idea, though I might lower it from 75%. I think you can pay Kovy at 27 $11 million and then reasonably believe he’s only worth $4 or $5M at age 37.
Philosophically, I figure:
- a player should be allowed to seek long-term security (i.e. “I will have a job at 37, even when I’m a Weighty third-liner”)
- a team should be able to offer that promise in return for a little less on the annual salary (i.e. even a DiPietro deal, except less foolish)
- a team should be able to long-term plan by slotting guys in at expected pay rates in certain years into the future.
So maybe the answers involve the salary never dropping below X% of the cap hit like WebBard said, and maybe it involves an age cap or tightening the retirement affects like mikb said. Hell, maybe there’s a sliding scale for all of it according to age and salary. They’ve certainly played with that on entry-level deals and they’ve included 35+ restrictions, so they could really make up whatever they want.
(sorry, I’m sort of scatterbrained and thinking out loud here…)
Lighthouse Hockey: Adapting forecasts to the disturbance known as Nino.
Close but not quite the same
When Hossa is 35 he will still have 2 more seasons at his max 7.9 mil/season and still have 1/3 of the whole contract left
When Kovy hits 35 he will be less then his max and less then 20% of his contract left. The contract essentially makes it prudent for both the Devils and Kovy to retire him 6 years before it ends
Kovy’s cap hit is 5.5mil under his max salary while Hossa’s is 2.6
Kovy’s cap hit is 5.5mil under his max salary while Hossa’s is 2.6
This cannot be emphasized enough when speculating on why the League drew this particular line in the sand.
An interesting question is whether the NHLPA will grieve the decision. Everything I’ve read says that the Kovalchuk type of deal hurts the rank and file of the PA while lining the pockets of the top 3-4% of the membership. I recognize that the role of the NHLPA is to represent the players but can it, as a democratic (heh, heh) institution, reasonably take a position that hurts more of its members than it helps?
by Nova Scotia Isles Fan on Jul 21, 2010 9:49 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lighthouse Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Islanders Schedule
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Coyotes’ Mike Smith believes Dustin Brown should be ‘done forever’ for Rozsival hit; slams Game 5 officiating
- Tuesday’s Three Stars: Penner’s overtime winner puts Kings in the Final
- Mike Milbury vs. Jeremy Roenick over Dustin Brown’s Game 5 OT hit on Michal Rozsival (VIDEO)
- Watch Kings, Coyotes in hostile handshake line after Dustin Penner sends LA to Stanley Cup Final (VIDEO)
- Kings vs. Coyotes Game 5; Pierre McGuire on Tortorella/DeBoer argument (Playoff Puck Previews)
SBNation.com Recent Stories
1979-80
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 24, 1980: Tonelli to Nystrom. At long last, the steady build of the New York Islanders from expansion doormat to surprise semifinalist to annual contender reaches the promised land: Buoyed by a late season trade for Butch Goring that gave the team the depth up the middle GM Bill Torrey had been seeking, the Islanders knock off the Philadelphia Flyers in six games.
The victory justified the faith in coach Al Arbour who guided them from their second season to their first Stanley Cup seven seasons later. The Islanders would not be the first expansion team to win the Stanley Cup, but they would be the only one capable of a dynasty.
1980-81
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 21, 1981: This time it was much easier. After falling to "only" 91 points in the 1979-80 season, the Islanders returned to their division title tradition, piling up 110 points -- a whole 13 points over second-place Philadelphia.
Between the quarterfinals (where they beat the upstart Oilers in six games) and the finals, the Islanders reeled off eight consecutive wins -- with a four-game sweep of archrival Rangers in between. As they defeated the Minnesota North Stars in five games for their second Cup, their goal difference in the final was a combined +10.
1981-82
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 16, 1982: Another year, another landslide title. The Islanders won the Patrick Division by a whopping 26 points over the second-place Rangers, and were seven points clear of their nearest competition for the President's Trophy, the still-not-quite-ripe Edmonton Oilers.
A first-round scare against the Pittsburgh Penguins turned in the Isles' favor thanks to John Tonelli's heroics, and a true dynasty was on its way: Past the Rangers in six games, then an eight-game sweep of the Quebec Nordiques and Vancouver Canucks to run away with the Stanley Cup.
1982-83
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 17, 1983: Not so fast, whipper-snappers. The Edmonton Oilers' steadily rising challenge for league supremacy took them all the way to the finals for the first time, where the New York Islanders summarily dispatched them in a four-game sweep. For the Islanders, the Dynasty was secured. For the Oilers, it was a powerful lesson in where talent ends and the demands of playoff hockey begin.
Four years, four Cups, 16 consecutive playoff series wins (a record that would grow to 19 until the rematch with the Oilers the following year). Mike Bossy scored 60 goals yet again, and Wayne Gretzky became acquainted with Billy Smith's crease.
