It was $22M more for years he probably was never going to play anyways.
Originally Posted by rede2rage80
Again, I think DL made a good offer for a contract that would not get revoked, it wasn't personal in turning down the Kings. It was an extra $22M free money for years he wasn't going to have to play. That's a 27.5% increase. He is a 27 year old man.
$22M more? or play for the team rumored to be your #1 destination? If the term of years on the contract is capped... he probably chooses the Kings.
My opinion is that he is probably about 35% to go to the Kings at this point in time. I do not think that there is a strong chance of Kovalchuk & the Devils restructuring the deal in a way to convince him to play for them, especially IF they Devils knew that the contract would be rejected and Kovi did not. I think the stronger possibility is that the NHLPA files a grievance, and the arbitrator rules in favor of approving the contract.
I've seen this said repeatedly and in more than one article, but I've yet to see any support, such as a citation to the CBA or a statement from any semi-official or official source, for this assertion. To some extent, it makes no sense - if this was true, there would NEVER be a penalty imposed since all one had to do to avoid it is submit a different contract. It would simply create an incentive to draft contracts that circumvent the cap, and if the league doesn't approve it, no big deal - just submit a different one.
Originally Posted by Winsomemore
didn't someone post a twitter link that talked about the NHL
Finding an arbitrator would take months and said they had to work it out on their own??
Posted via Mobile Device
It honestly depends on how harsh Bettman wants to come down on this. I know there is the CBA and it has legal language in it, but the CBA is a contract between the union and league that compels them to act in a certain way.
Originally Posted by santiclaws
The only way to enforce that action is either to go to court or in this case, the CBA has arbitration provisions.
But the parties to the contract can agree to do something else, AS LONG AS THEY AGREE. The NHL can simply say to the NHLPA "Hey you know, the Devils and your player agreed on a modified contract that we are prepared to accept, what do you think?" Then the NHLPA can say, "No way, we retain our right under the agreement to file a grievance" or "All right, let's work something out where we retain our right to file a grievance in the future but let this slide."
It's just like any contract between parties. The parties must sue or grieve for its enforcement. Lacking that, it is merely a piece of paper.
I could offer to sell you a car for $1000 and you could accept and we could sign a contract to that effect. But if you later said, "Well, what about $900" and for some weird reason I said, "Okay, you know what, fine" and chose to accept your $900 and not sue you for performance... well... no one else is going to care or even has standing to care about it.
Sports is a game and a business. The game part of it is somewhat political. Sometimes... just sometimes... you do things that aren't really good for business because you think there is a political aspect that will score brownie points with the fans and sponsors (you know, your true customers).
I think, however, that this is a longshot and the NHLPA probably likes their chances in arbitration.
I'm just saying that the CBA, while binding, could be ignored by the parties to it at any time with no repercussions as long as they agree mutually to ignore it.
What was discussed was that it might take time for both sides to agree on an arbitrator.
Originally Posted by the nxt Ersberg
The PA still has to file a grievance first.
If you were talking about two individuls who entereded into an agreement. When you are talking about parties that are representing larger groups this is not as simple as you might think. Yes they could agree to modifiy the existing CBA but that would not be up to Gary Betman or the head of the NHLPA (if there were one). Gary Betman would have to set a general meeting of the board if not the entire ownership of the NHL and put a vote to it and depending on what their bylaws are an agreement could be a majority vote of anywhere between 51% to 80%. The same with the head of the NHLPA would have to go to the Players and discuss it in a general meeting and also put it to a vote.
Originally Posted by No One
Usually with contracts binding between large groups or assosiations once it has been signed and agreed upon it would take a catastrophe in contract language or a huge "I can't believe we didn't include this" to modify such a document. This is not such a case between the league and the NHLPA on this issue. They will wait until this CBA expires to modify any language for a new CBA.
You are forgetting that Bettman is the commissioner for a league made up of 30 teams. The other 29 teams except him to follow the CBA, not choose to ignore it in a way that helps one team.
Originally Posted by SpaceShot
Precisely. In this case, I don't think the "let's just pretend it never happened" possibility is realistic, for any number of reasons, including what I would guess is a sizable faction of owners who will not want to simply let it go. Which returns me to my original question - reporters are unlikely to have come up with the idea of the NHL and NHLPA simply winking at this on their own. Who's whispering in their ears?
Originally Posted by Len-Det64
Since the CBA neither forbids nor approves the re-submission of a different contract I'm going to say that LL/Vanderwhatever and IK/Grossman are wheeling and dealling a new version as we speak.
Well, you know for damn sure that Lieweke is bending Bettman's ear about imposing a fine, etc.
After all, it would appear that a large part of the reason Kovy/Grossman went with the NJ offer was because of the (unrealistic) way the deal was structured. If NJ knew the contract would be rejected (or at least felt it would most likely be rejected), yet they went ahead with the negotiations as if it was a legitimate contract, they were acting in bad faith with both the player and the rest of the teams in the league.
Tim could argue that the Kings could have drawn up an illegal contract to woo Kovy in exactly the same way, but since their contract was "playing by the rules" they had little to no chance to land the superstar free agent.
I don't know if Bettman will act on it or not, but if enough GMs/owners yell at him about it, he may give NJ a little extra grief.
(fwiw, none of these contracts are really playing by the rules, and we all know it... while the Kings offer sounds like it would have more closely matched previous "legal" contracts, anything with a low salary tail at the end is likely a cap circumvention.)