On Kovalchuck, Redden, Huet, Witt, The NHLPA and Hypocracy, A question for you guys.
by lostsin44 on Aug 10, 2010 1:35 PM EDT
Email
Print
My first fan post so please don't be too harsh
No I'm not here to discuss the voiding of the Kovalchuck contract. Enough people are and will be doing it for some time now. What Id like to do is ask the hockey minds if the NHLPA should have fought the Kovalchuk contract in the first place.
In my time visiting this site, Id like to say that there is a lot of very intelligent people who frequent this site with some very good opinions on hockey. Id like to ask you guys your opinion on this as for the life of me, if the NHLPA is really looking out for the majority of its members, I don't understand why they fought the Kovalchuk contract.
Background:
For a while I have been reading a lot of articles about how the biggest problem the players have with the current CBA is not just that it holds contracts down its the Escrow amount they hate. Pundits like Larry Brooks who styles himself as a Bettman hater and pro player keep on telling me how the Kchuck contract and the others not only are fair and don't circumvent the cap but they are also good for the players in general. As I understand it (And I might be wrong, part of the reason for this post) the Escrow is tied to money paid out not cap space. Because it is tied to the money paid out the players for the last couple of seasons have had to pay back the owners a large amount as the expenditures exceeded the amount the players are to get as per the CBA.
Kchucks contract is heavily front loaded, which means that at the beginning of the contract the $ spent on him would be higher than the cap hit. This means that the Devils (and others who have such deals) could spend more $ on that year than what the cap hit is. Therefore increasing the possibility of the whole players union having to pay back Escrow. Based on this and based on the fact that we all know that Kchuk (and others) was not going to play out the entire contract, wouldn't he by retiring early not ever give back (where his cap hit is more than the $ spent therefore making it less likely that Escrow would have to be paid) ?
To me by fighting the contract, it basically says that the NHLPA is more worried about the few superstars and their agents making as much $ as possible at the expense of the other players all having a better chance to give the league back $ through Escrow. Stars account for at most 4 or 5 players per team.
Unless you are telling me that the intent was to give all other players (except rookies who fall under separate rules) the same type of cap circumventing contract that few stars have been able to get (Good luck on somebody like Gervais or Sim negotiating a deal like that), then it really is against what I would consider union like behavior and more of a Pro star and agent conclave. And if that's the purpose that still means that Everybody still likely has to pay Escrow. If I'm Kchuk (or insert other big name star) and I have to give back lets say 5% of my earnings I might be ok with it. But if I'm making league minimum and only might play 5 or 6 years in the league and I'm giving back 5% so KChuck can have 100 Million and retire early..... I have a huge issue with my union.
My biggest problem with this is that I am not an Economics expert or a CBA expert but somehow none of the so called NHL experts have brought up the fact that these contracts screw over the little guy in the union (or basically everyone that's not a star) Am I missing anything? Id really like to know your opinions on this.
On to the second part of my post. If the NHLPA wanted to fight what I think is a good fight for them to fight, I think (and I might be wrong, asking for opinions) I think they should fight the whole lets bury our mistakes in the minors. (Also known as the Redden). Now I'm not going to defend any other players that seem rumoured to be sent down to the minors (Redden, Huet, Finger, last years Witt, those are the ones that come to mind), they are all overpaid. But are they getting sent down because their respective GM's are all idiots for overpaying, or are they getting sent down because there really is an option on the roster (not one you brought along counting on that freed cap space) that's better than them. Why should Wade Redden have to ride the bus in the AHL because Sather is an idiot and now wants a do over? Now I know they technically are allowed to do this under the CBA, but why isn't the NHLPA at least making noise that if you want to get rid of our members, we have negotiated a mechanism (The buyout) and we will instruct our players to not sign UFA deals with said team who does this. After all if they do it to Redden, or Huet, or Finger, why not Cambell, or Drury, or Briere or anybody who at some point is not playing up to their contracts? You sign people to ridiculous contracts, live with them. I say that at 6+ million Redden is a horrible player but at lets say 1 or 2 million a year he is still an NHL player. Now I know the second part is not clear cut a win for the players but to me is a issue worth an unions time (good of the whole instead of good of the least) much more than Kchuck which is clearly not good for most of the union.
Am I missing something? Why isn't anybody in the media telling me a clear reason why the NHLPA should fight that contract?
Thank you guys in advance.
Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good Points
On the kovalchuk thing, length and the way it was set-up was a monstrosity to the game in a way. Kovalchuk is a one-way player, although a good one, and if his tools ever fall off or injuries get him, no way is he playing in his 40’s. The NHLPA didn’t fight hard/much-at-all for this contract for all the reasons you pretty much said too.
As for the Redden/Huet problem thing. Witt would be in the minors this year or mid-last year even if he was making $1mil/yr. Redden, if he was honestly making $1-$3mil/yr instead of his crazy salary, I fully believe he’d be starting in the nhl next year which he likely won’t or at all for that matter.
I know what you are trying to say that nhl teams should pay for their contract mistakes, but that creates a lot of problems. If we were paying Yashin’s full salary we’d have less cap room then we do now, same with witt’s on the books. As for redden, it’s worth more to the team to have him play out his deal in the minor’s then buy him out and have him signed quick by some other team. If the rangers still would deal with redden’s contract on the books, then they’d be stuck with average potential or less players for the next X years because of that contract. IT KILLS THE TEAM FOR YEARS WHEN A HIGH PAID PLAYER PLAYS LIKE HE’S WORTH LESS THEN 1/3 HIS CONTRACT AND IS STILL ON THE BOOKS. It’s bad for hockey to lock him on the books. Sure I’d love to see the rangers stuck with him on the team and locking up free agent money, but if every team had these nhl locked players, then we would have a lot more bad/average teams in the nhl and worse play. It’s better off as it is.
If you honestly want to fix this problem, the best way to do it would make contracts not guaranteed like it is in football. THEN, Redden gets a contract restructure for less money or is released, DP would have been released by now, and none of these things would effect the cap hits like buyouts. That solves all problems for players needing to get their big contract money by playing in the minors, but it also makes anyone’s deal breakable and creates a lot more free agents, which creates lower salaries for players all around. This move is better for the teams but worse for the players, so the NHLPA will never let this be passed. That is why the way things are now work for the best.
Both sides are happy (for the most part) with the way things work now. Redden example: Redden now makes over $6mil/yr with no real pressure on him in the ahl while playing hockey and the Rangers now have more cap space to bring in a boogaard + Frolik combo with him off the books while they couldn’t before. The rangers get better and redden gets paid. Sure redden could still be a top 4, or at least a bottom 2 in the nhl but his contract is what hurts him. The way it is now is for the best, any changes will hurt one side more then the other.
Go isles or Go home.
I disagree a bit
Because this structure does favor the larger markets or moreso, the more “popular” teams for lack of a better term.
What I mean by that is, Redden is unquestionably still an “NHL player”, just not worth 6 mil. Now, the rangers can move him to the minors, and spend another 6 mil. Now, in doing that, they may still remain good because people want to play for them, while teams like phoenix or us for example, have financial leverage, but no attractablility. It really means continued mediocre hockey for teams like us, but the ability to remain relevant for the rangers.
As far as guys like Witt, he is used up and was hurting the team. He wasn’t buried in the AHL over money. Yashin’s buyout counts against the cap, as does DP due to injury. Even in football contracts, injured players can’t be brought out or cut can they? Once they’re recovered or otherwise intending to play they can be cut. (Leon Washington is an example).
I think it does suck a bit, an I think the NHLPA had to look like they were representing Kovi, but were probably against the contract. What they might want to look into is allowing contracts like this, and then having the player reimburse the overdue escrow upon retirement if the contract exceeds retirement date. Then you either play and get hit by all of the guys you screwed until your 44, or pay them back!
by Keith Quinn on Aug 10, 2010 2:53 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Given how weak the case the NHLPA presented was, it gives the feeling that they really wanted the contract to be voided and simply objected because they couldn’t sit by and let it be voided.
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.
It's interesting
I’m starting to wonder about that theory. Certainly their case was on that thread alone (which who knows — still could have won). But this way they do look like good soldiers while still getting the reasonable result.
Or it could just be that the NHLPA is still an incompetent mess.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
Good point
I wasn’t even thinking about it the way you did. All I had was hey union I’m an NHL.player I shouldn’t be in the ahl because Sather us an idiot. Buy me out and I’ll go play somewhere else
The media is missing something. So is the union.
Lotsin44, I think you are on to something, something I’ve tried to bring up a time or two.
Not only does Kovalchuk’s (now-voided) contract hurt union “brothers” through escrow, but players who complain about escrow don’t seem to understand how it works. Escrow is nothing but a mechanism to ensure players get their contractually mandated percentage of Hockey Related Revenues. The salaries in NHL contracts are just a guide, really, as the players actual compensation will go up or down depending on whether HRR hit the projected targets. In the first few seasons after the lockout, the players actually got an extra bump at the end of the year. The past few seasons, escrow has been bigger because revenue projections were lower.
I was actually challenging HNIC’s Jeff Marek on this very point on Twitter last night. I get the feeling a whole lot of MSM reporters haven’t read the CBA — or worse, they only listen to what agents tell them. They really should be asking union members why their union is intent on defending a contract that not only circumvents the CBA but also actively screws most members so that Kovy can take home a bigger payday.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
I was actually challenging HNIC’s Jeff Marek on this very point on Twitter last night. I get the feeling a whole lot of MSM reporters haven’t read the CBA — or worse, they only listen to what agents tell them.
I think going through Quisps Kovy-mania, this is too sadly true. There seemed to be far too many times that Quisp called out someone for just blatantly stating the opposite of what the CBA said.
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.
by Mark D on Aug 10, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wish
Somebody with some pull would do a story on this I think the union might be shady. Mirtle perhaps?
not necessarily shady
The players, for example, tend to object to escrow based on what you say above – that it hurts the rank-and-file at the expense of the stars, who are not exactly hurting for the cash. They overlook the positives: primarily that it guarantees their percentage of the revenues.
The other thing about the NHLPA is that it is currently under no real leadership. Donald Fehr is “advising” but they don’t have anyone in the captain’s chair.
Third, the union may have to lodge a pro-forma objection to the league’s actions here, just because it’s what unions do, without necessarily wanting to win the arbitration. They represent all the players as a unit, but also the individual players, and at stake here is not only the well-being of all the players, but also the contract of an individual player, said contract not having any one prohibited term or condition. They have to make that case on principle, even if they expect to lose – even if they PREFER to lose – in order to protect that one player’s due process under the CBA.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Agreed
Yeah, not “shady” but … lacking identity maybe? The union is poorly defined and has been for a while, I guess. They lack an identity because there are a lot of competing interests (star vs. plumber, young vs. veteran). In a way they’re a mini version of the NHL + NHLPA as a whole: They need each other, and should be on the same side, but there are many issues to sort out. Heh, efficient communism is hard.
The pro-forma objection is winning me over. I have a career union rep in the family, and I’ve seen several times when they have to defend someone who has done something idiotic simply because that’s part of the role: Provide the best possible defense for a member, even when they’ve done something so foolish that the company actually looks wronged.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
I only say shady because
After you read how they handled the Kelly firing and how Lindros was spending union $ and all the other shady stuff that went on there,
I really wonder how much power the agents hold in the NHLPA.
Good point
True, I’d certainly call those fiascoes shady. There has been a decent amount of MSM coverage of the dark side of those sagas, though.
It’s just hard to know what’s going on now because of the disarray. It sounds like maybe they got rid of several of the shady characters in the Kelly saga, but they are still rudderless.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
good questions, btw
And thanks for the kind comments about everyone! It’s the kind of board we all enjoy best, I think.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
whoa
In that case, there are a few things you could have looked for:
1. more such deals for stars, pushing the envelope even more in terms of front-loaded salary or “illusory” extra years;
2. the NHL pushing for a lockout after the current CBA unless such provisions were expressly forbidden, or else made so costly to teams and players that they would not be considered;
3. the NHLPA stuck in a cleft of their own cutting. Either they fight the league and let their stars help kill the free agent market for established supporting players, or they quietly roll and lose big among both the media and their own rank-and-file.
In either case, #3 would lead to #4, a widening of the gap between the top (and top-compensated) players and the pluggers. I could also see it leaving the league open to mass defections among that intermediate group, the solid second-line players who could command $2 or $3 million per year but won’t be able to get it because everyone’s top three guys are locked in at $25 million combined – even if that only costs the clubs $18 or so against the cap, that’s actual dollars that have to come from somewhere. In this case it would be coming from the 5% kickback the poor pluggers are giving up. At that point, lots of people may start following Maxim Afinogenov to the KHL, which would enjoy a heady few years before it collapsed like a bad souffle. That exodus would also crack the NHL in half: pluggers are plentiful and stars will always get theirs, but those middle-class guys don’t grow on trees. (Damn, is this the NHL or the Wall Street Journal?)
2005 was hardly such a fun year that I’d like to re-run it, so let’s be glad that Arbitrator Bloch is wiser than either party to the case he decided.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Nicely said.
I wonder how many owners actually would prefer a system were they could do Kovalchuk contracts.
I agree, there definitely would have been a lockout in trying to fix these contracts.
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.
Surprise, Surprise The agents
Are up in arms abut this.
Gee nothing about how these contracts make you more $ therefore you cant be unbiased.
Here is somebody who put this better than I could
With numbers
http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=3266#more-3266
I wish somebody would call out the agents cash grab
gaaahhhhh
I forgot to mention Tyler Dellow in my little round-up post. Darn it, being good at stuff is haaarrrrd. All the more reason to visit his site, he’s got some smart stuff.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Definitely
That’s the post I always refer back to (that and I think an On The Forecheck post where Dirk was calculating how much Ilya’s proposed deal would cost various players in escrow) when talking about escrow.
Tyler is always a good read.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
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.
