Kovalchuk part V, The NHL Strikes Back, NHLPA files Grievance (All Discussion Here )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

sure, but im talking about the last year or two being stupid low.
Posted via Mobile Device

---

I think I see your line of thinking...... I guess that since it could not have been for cap circumvention, the league allowed it. There is no cap circumvention issue with his contract. Maybe if it was not at 35+ contract the NHL may have bitched about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

I wonder why the nhl didnt void the contracts selanne and kariya signed in col? Those weren't fair market value either (which is the argument on those final years).
Posted via Mobile Device

---

Different CBA, first of all. Second, it was only a one year deal (for Kariya, and Selanne's deal was not that far below the market), and the purpose was not cap circumvention (there wasn't even a cap), so on what basis could it have been rejected? Unfair to whom? If anything, NHLPA should have been and probably was pissed at Kariya for taking such a low deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darby

Was there a cap in place when they played in Colorado? Wasn't Selanne coming off an injury?

And Pronger - isn't his deal is gonna count fully against Philly's cap whether he plays or not? The 35-year-old clause comes into effect on that, right?

---

So? Isnt IK going to be 40 in the last couple of years? What grounds does the nhl have to void the deal? Honestly. You cant argue anything is unique on the deal or terms.
Posted via Mobile Device

Here it is:
http://="http://www.thehockeynews.co...olations.html"

Quote:

---

The contract was rejected because years of low salary at the end of the contract were added for the sole purpose of lowering the cap hit. The person added that no side believes Kovalchuk will play the final years of the deal at those terms. The star forward was slated to earn only $550,000 in each of the last five seasons of the contract that was to run through the 2026-27 season, when Kovalchuk would be 44.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingNewfie

KING KOVI!!!! There's still a chance!!!



Sorry... had to do it.

BAhhhhh, hahahhaha. This is too freakin' funny.

---

Let this be a lesson to everybody.

See, I thought I didn't need to work on my "slap someone through the internet" technology anymore, so I stopped working on it. But lo and behold....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

sure, but im talking about the last year or two being stupid low.
Posted via Mobile Device

---

Dude's 35, contract goes til he's 41 and it's only 2 years at that level. AND it counts even if he doesn't play.

Kovy's contract goes 3 years longer age-wise and starts paying sub-million money a year earlier. And if he quits at 40, the cap hit goes away entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OTTo VoN BLoTTo

Wasn't happening to begin with, and ESPECIALLY not now after what's come out of his mouth.

---

what exactly did he say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

So? Isnt IK going to be 40 in the last couple of years? What grounds does the nhl have to void the deal? Honestly. You cant argue anything is unique on the deal or terms.
Posted via Mobile Device

---

The deal will go into effect before IK is 35, thus it will come off the books if he retires. If it went into effect after he was 35, such as Pronger's, it would count regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

So? Isnt IK going to be 40 in the last couple of years? What grounds does the nhl have to void the deal? Honestly. You cant argue anything is unique on the deal or terms.
Posted via Mobile Device

---

Look at the actual numbers of all the contracts that you are thinking of. Then, tell us there is nothing unique about this deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by symbology

Look at the actual numbers of all the contracts that you are thinking of. Then, tell us there is nothing unique about this deal.

---

Those kind of facts have no place here.

james duthie tsnjamesduthie

If grieved, arbitration is binding. If arb. rules in favour of NHL, he is supposed to fix deal so it "conforms to the requirements" of CBA.