NHL News: The Kovalchuk Saga Isn't Over Yet
Well the saga continues. According to TSN the NHL has rejected the contract signed by Ilya Kovalchuk with the New Jersey Devils yesterday.
The NHL has rejected Ilya Kovalchuk's 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils on the grounds that it circumvents the NHL's salary cap.
Not to brag, but I called this on Rink Side Radio last night. Also it isn't a surprise, since $95 million-dollars was given in the first 10 years, and 550K a year for the remaining 7 years of the deal.
More when we know it ...
157 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow…I don’t even know what to say. If Lamoriello wore a cap, he’d throw it to the ground.
Bettman's Nightmare: Still Trying to Figure out How Gary Bettman Costs More Than Pavel Datsyuk
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
by Bettman's Nightmare on Jul 20, 2010 9:44 PM EDT reply actions
Lou may have shit in his own bed by coming out and saying these contracts are bad, but they’re not illegal. All but saying “well, hell, if everyone else is doing it, why can’t I?”
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 20, 2010 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
and honestly he has a point. is this worse than hossa, pronger, franzen, zetterberg?
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
luongo has 3 or 4 bs years as well and i think it goes til he is 41.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
hossa has 2 at 1 mil; 2 at 750K the rest i believe stop at 1 mil being the lowest.
thing is they are all intended to circumvent the cap, so bettman needed to crack on all or none.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
after Lou kept bad-mouthing them and then turns around and does it, even basically bragging about it…yeah if I was Bettman I would have done the same thing
yeah Savards hit the last 2 years is like around 500k
Since the face been revealed the game got real
even more than that you could argue like pronger his is a 4 year deal w 3 bs years.
25.5 first 4. 2.55 last 3. 91% first 4 years.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s still not age 44, as none of them are. It might be splitting hairs, but there are enough players that played into their 40’s you can at least make the argument.
How many 44 year olds has the NHL seen?
Just playing devils advocate (pun fully intended) here.
And teknics brings up a good point too, I don’t know that any of the others have league minimums in there without checking.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 20, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Pronger does.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 20, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
pronger goes from 7.6 for 2 to 7.2 to 7 to 4 to 525K the last 2 years when he is 40-41.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
tell me how that isnt designed to circumvent and lower his cap hit to 4.921 a year
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
why not just have a cap hit of what the player is getting paid. doesnt that make more sense? i mean i understand u could still mess around and cheat the system a bit, but it still seems like a much better idea
i agree it should be like the nba cap where you can finagle salaries in different years to fit cap needs to an extent and you are charged for the salary that year.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it's the years that the NHL has the problem with
at least with Pronger you can argue that they wanted to sign him for 5 mil a year, they just frontloaded the money.
Kovalchuk wanted to be a 100 million dollar man from the get-go. And to give him the league minimum for the final 7 years? No way
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
so pronger getting 7 years at 35 til 42 is significantly better than kovy getting 17 til he is 44?
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
show me how in this market pronger is only worth 5 mil. wouldnt that amount to a form of collusion as they tried to claim when kariya took less to play with the avs? the union would never stand for a player of prongers caliber only getting 5 mil a year if it was a legit deal.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Woah woah
just a though by me. Lol
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
im just playing the other side, you know it’s not personal, lol.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I just see Pronger
a little different because he will probably play out that full contract.
I don’t see Kovalchuk playing out the last 7 years of this deal
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
well it’s 6 near minimum, or it was, lol.
and just because pronger may play it out doesnt mean it was circumventing the cap by the flyers.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the real problem with the Kovy deal
is that he has no point to play the final 7 years of the deal. if it was the final 3 years, it would’t have been an issue. but it’s not
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
but your point conflicts to an extent because is not playing the last 3 of a 17 year deal the same as not playing the last 2 of a 7? are we arguing that if it had been 4 or 5 BS years the nhl would have let it go because on % of a contracts the equivalency exists.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Well I agree there
but I think the NHL knows that it will happen, just that 7 years of it is too much lol
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree lou did an awful job of hiding the blatancy in which he was doing it. at least make some of the 750/550 years 2 mil or so lower the 11.5’s down and he probably gets away with it.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
ahh hI love when we agree
lol
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
and to your point does the nhl reject the 15/90 deal i laid out at the bottom since it’s basically 4 BS years.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
me either but it was 750 for 1 and 550 for 5 so still only 6 total.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
unless u meant pronger in which case his last 2 are 525K
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
that one makes it interesting, definitely one that will be the most highlighted, id guess, in their defense, if there is an appeals process or anything
well it is stupid though now that deal is void and in theory could he call the Kings if he wanted?
Since the face been revealed the game got real
sure he is a FA again. if he wont hit the magic 100 maybe it changes the dynamic, maybe not.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Well the kings can afford a more straight up deal with like a 7.5-8 mil cap hit. I think the Kings will win a Cup before the Devils with another one anyway.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
the kings dont want to offer him that. if they did they probably would already have him.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
AAV. kings dont want to risk future contract problems with other guys i believe.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
thats suprising because they got smyth and handzus coming off soon, Quick for 3 years at a friendly deal, I know they have some big deals to give out though. I think Lombardi is an excellent GM though
Since the face been revealed the game got real
i agree, but maybe it is just his excuse. not sure he really wants kovy especially at kovy’s said asking price. maybe kovy was willing to take “less” in NJ than he would in LA
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
7/60 was the rumor on nj the first time round.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok I will not argue with you today I learned my lesson LOL
no I didn’t know for sure just thought I remembered that number
Since the face been revealed the game got real
i have no problem with the debate. i enjoy it because in the “battle” we both learn things from the other person’s perspective. and back to hockey, ;-)
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
no kovy for you!
lol
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
at 15/90 i wouldnt mind him, lol.
think about it, that’s 1 mil than gomer and redden got for only 13 seasons. lol.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Pronger?
i thought Pronger turned 35 prior to the start of the season in which he signed that deal, so regardless if he retires, the Flyers have the entire contract cap hit on their books, am I wrong here?
LOL
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
And the evil genius just laughs........

Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers
Big Blue View: Unofficial New York Giants blog
by Jim Schmiedeberg on Jul 20, 2010 9:59 PM EDT reply actions
why am I laughing so hard at this.....
Go New York Go!
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 20, 2010 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions
this was taken right after he signed Boogaard
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
he was reading the Banter and reveling in our torment
Go New York Go!
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 20, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
well Hossa's
is a head scratcher but Franzen’s is not breaking any rules that i can see
by louielounz1 on Jul 20, 2010 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess its not as bad as kovi...still pretty bad 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.
and the only reason the 4 mil is in there is because his salary cant drop more than 4 mil in any year of the deal, so they drop it from 7.9 to 4 and then they can drop it to 1.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
and franzen and zetterberg are getting paid like a million each for 2 years at the end of there contracts… i agree with not allowing contracts like that and couldnt be happier that they stopped it, just seems like a double standard
they did give warnings by investigating the others, and im sure they mentioned it to the gms that they were watching
the thing is
he will probably stay with the devils but they will just have to redo the contract
twitter.com/NYRangerFan718
by NYRangerFan718 on Jul 20, 2010 10:03 PM EDT reply actions
maybe
probably 17 years
11million the first 2
9million the next 4
6million the next 5
2million the next 4
1million the last 2
by louielounz1 on Jul 20, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
i think he will stay so while it is a big deal it kinda isnt
twitter.com/NYRangerFan718
by NYRangerFan718 on Jul 20, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
so what will end up happening is the devils will take a mil off the high salaries, move money to the end of the deal and push it again.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:11 PM EDT reply actions
time value of money… the money needs to increase cant just take a million off today and say i will give it to you in 17 years
they probably want it to be less years mainly, as we have seen prongers contract does the same pattern of league minimum
from “NHL FanHouse” : Sportsnet’s Nick Kypreos reports, via Twitter, that the NHL considers it a “retirement contract,” claims it “artificially drops the salary cap hit,” and is “too overloaded” for the first 10 years.
can you not say the same about hossa? 55.3 in first 7 years 7.5 in last 5 years
pronger 29.4 mil in first 4 years…5.05 last 3?
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
88 and 85% in the front. Kovalchuk is well over 90 in the non-BS years.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 20, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
zetterberg 67.65 first 9…5.35 last 3.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
dammit. There’s always one.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 20, 2010 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
luongo 67 mil first 8 years…7 his last 4.
90.5%
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
right but 7 years to a 35 year old is basically the same as 17 to a 27 year old, just saying.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
2 years makes a big difference in all contracts, why should you be able to dump a 34 year old but not a 36 yr old?
you can dump either one, just depends on when you signed them.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
just saying there is no rule saying you can’t dump a 36 year old just dont get any cap relief if you signed him for multiple years after 35. if you did it at 34 you can dump him like anyone else. ;-)
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly what I am hearing
Less years, same 102 million
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
by Joe Fortunato on Jul 20, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions
We are going to have another lockout in a few years
I can feel it. This will only push the players association away from the leauge.
by The American Mr.Hockey on Jul 20, 2010 10:27 PM EDT reply actions
for the record I think the kovy deal is BS and we all knew it yesterday, but it’s BS for the nhl to have allowed some of these deals that were also clearly intended to lower AAV’s and call this one out.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:40 PM EDT reply actions
and if im the devils i submit a 15/90 deal and dare the league to block it since it will last til the same exact time hossa’s does in his career.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
and it’s still BS cause he gets 85 of the 90 in the first 11 years.
by Michael Gleich on Jul 20, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Fun with age stats, from elsewhere:
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2010/7/20/1578418/raging-about-17-year-contracts
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
I just want to tell my friend Lou one thing. HA! SUCKER! YOU JUST GOT SERVED!
by NYR #35 Richter on Jul 20, 2010 11:12 PM EDT reply actions
Well now, this is nice.
It was bound to happen. I was just explaining how this contract was illegal to a friend of mine today. Now I want to let him know I was right :)
"Jaromir Jagr.... it's a POWER PLAY GOAL!"
- Sam Rosen
"Marian Gaborik.... it's a POWER PLAY GOAL!"
-Sam Rosen
They are now seriously screwed.
"Mes que un club"
"You're a pro or you're a noob. That's life"
"Luongo: He's better than Cloutier"
by Scratch and Snif on Jul 20, 2010 11:27 PM EDT reply actions
Dont think Im adding much to this discussion, but it seems the only difference between this contract and prior heavily-front-loaded contracts is that Lemonjello acknowledged that it stunk. That may have backed the NHL into a corner and it took the opportunity. I can’t imagine the NHL would have taken this action against one of their biggest supporters in the GM ranks lightly.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
pretty excited about this
serves lou right to be so cocky about the structure of the deal. Go to LaLa land Kovy!
All else equal, Kovy’s contract should have been upheld.
However, all else is not equal. First off, these contracts are under more scrutiny now since the Pronger and Hossa contracts. While, I think there were grumblings about these contracts before, the Pronger and Hossa deals seem to have put the dislike with this tactic over some threshold value where the NHL felt any backlash from voiding the deal would be minimized. I think the NHL could argue that they are learning from past mistakes (i.e. not voiding) and making improvements designed to better the game. Second and most important, Kovy and his agent were LeBron-esque during this process. So, he deserves to get screwed.
I think it was the dead seven years, to long I guess. The “dead weight” years are longer then half the money years of the contract. Kovi has the right to decide where he wants to play. He wasn’t being all dramic like Lebron (unless I didn’t hear something he did) was. What did he do that you consider “Lebron esque” ?
Since the face been revealed the game got real
the NHL is right on this one but its time for the players to negotiate a new deal and to raise the salary cap. the point with the cap is that big market clubs don’t buy out smaller markets. that is definitely the case here. a smaller market couldn’t afford to structure a contract like this so it throws the edge to the clubs with sweet cable deals and such.
sounds to me like this is a case of GMs gnawing away at the edges of legality and the league just came in and drew a line in the sand…it was bound to happen sooner or later.
but yea, sounds like either Kovy or the Devils are out of it now. Can’t see NJ raising their Cap and Kovy is NOT going to get the money he wants when it forces a club to sacrifice building a cup contender. who can win a cup around Kovy making that much money? selfish. just like his playing style.
Also from Eklund:
“Next on the Rangers/Kings…
It’s a bit unclear as to “who” both teams are targeting, but I have now talked to several people in the past few hours who say they are both “interested in the same top 6 guy.” When I get more I will update this blog or put it into my next one "
My guess would be Frolov, but come on its Eklund so Im not taking it seriously.
Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury
With Ek, he could be talking about Favre.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on Jul 21, 2010 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Good for the NHL… it’s about time… and there is no way that this deal wasn’t constructed in order for kovy to retire when his contract hit league min. even as many have said, prongers is the same, but prongers getting league min for 2 years, not 7, which is the length of prongers entire contract… I say excellent job, about time, i would love to see them have to sign him to a 10 year 102 mil contract, that will bind them for years to come…
OH GOD
Does this mean we have to sift through another month of “Kovy coming to NY rumors”? Please god……..shoot me now!!!!!!!!!!
I hope not
NHL should just let him sign that silly contract with the Devils and let the Devils figure out how to maneuver out of that….
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
by feslenraster on Jul 21, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Btw as per the rules, kovy is still a devil for 5 more days. If devils/nhlpa etc file a grievance he remains a devil until the decision is finalized. As of right now he is a devil and cannot talk to other teams about a contract. At least that’s how the rules came across to me when I read it last night, might be a bit off.
by teknics on Jul 21, 2010 9:20 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
i thought it was the contract was void. the nhlpa reserves the right to file a greivance and then an arbitor can then reinstate the contract if he rules in favor of the devils? i could be off also, i am compiling what i have read on a few different sites, not what the actual rule states
by BronxBeliever on Jul 21, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
It becomes void once the decision is permanent, which means no chance of appeal/grievance. There’s a 5-day period to sign a grievance, once a grievance is filed an arbitrator is given 48 hours to make a determination and if he finds it to be a circumvention he then has to deliver a modified version which is acceptable. Player/team then has 5 days I believe to agree to the modified deal, if they decline he become an UFA. if no one appeals he becomes an UFA in 5 days from time of nhl’s rejection of the deal.
But like u I pieced that together from what I’ve read, so I could be off still
by teknics on Jul 21, 2010 11:09 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The behindthenet take on why Kovy’s deal is different:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/7/21/1579736/why-ilya-kovalchuks-contract-was#comments
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
It's time to get rid of the Cap
I don’t care where Kovi ends up. But the Cap is just plain silly. Do we really need 32 teams? Is it worth losing players to other leagues because of Cap issues. Every team tries to game teh Cap. What they are going to start talking about is what is too far. The problem is that players have to take less and teams can’t keep talent, even home grown talent. [Think about Ranger issues 4 or 5 years down the road if all of the prospects pan out.] Enough already! Let’s play more games against less team.
by It may HAVE to Last a Lifetime on Jul 21, 2010 9:37 AM EDT reply actions
I could not agree more. At the very minimum, make it a soft cap like in baseball. I also agree that there are too many teams in this league……or at least they are placed in places people could care less about hockey. Florida is a prime example……..It is a football state, mostly ncaa, and pro comes second, baseball, tennis, wwe (LOL) and midget tossing comes before hockey does! Why does Florida need 2 teams?
Little late to the party but...
I see three major distinguishing factors between this deal and its predecesor illegal deals:
1.) its for 17 years
2.) by the end of the deal, in all likelihood, Kovy would be making less than league minimum
3.) I think that more than any of the other deals, another team (here the Kings) can claim that, but for an illegal cap avoiding deal, they would have signed Kovy.
Plus like someone said above, the diff between his highest year and his cap hit is 5.5mil, in hossas contract the biggest diff is around 2.5-2.6
by teknics on Jul 21, 2010 11:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Another interesting note is that we are only one year away from the expiration of the current CBA and this might be the perfect opportunity for both the League and the Union to dig their heels in a little.
Yea it will be interesting. I think a key point will be the exact definition of circumvention as used in the CBA. does it mean “breaking a rule”? If so then it isn’t a circumvention. But if they defined circumvention somewhere within the CBA itwas probably left somewhat vague just in case something like this happened.
by teknics on Jul 21, 2010 11:50 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

by 

































