Thread: Kovalchuk Part VI-The Return of Lombardi?-UPDATE IK A Devil again thread in NHL TALK

I just cant see how it bumps back up to 3 and 4 million the last 2 years when he's what gonna be 41 and 42, after 3 years at 1 million. they are definatley betting on him not playing that long.

Originally Posted by Iroqnroll

I just cant see how it bumps back up to 3 and 4 million the last 2 years when he's what gonna be 41 and 42, after 3 years at 1 million. they are definatley betting on him not playing that long.

I agree. If this information is correct, I can't see how the league would approve this deal either.

another joke contract.



Comparing the two Kovalchuk contracts in a chart. Note how si... on Twitpic

It looks as though Kovi maybe headed to the KHL if the NHL rejects this new contract submitted by New Jersey.Thank goodness DL has decided not to pursue Kovi again.

Originally Posted by CUP4LA

I agree. If this information is correct, I can't see how the league would approve this deal either.

Because it's not different than the Luongo/Hossa/Pronger deals that they've already said ok to? Also not really different than the Zetterberg/Holmstrom deals either.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

Because it's not different than the Luongo/Hossa/Pronger deals that they've already said ok to? Also not really different than the Zetterberg/Holmstrom deals either.

For the billionth time, The arbitrator specifically addresses this. Just because those contracts were registered doesn't make them any less problematic. The NHL could still void those contracts as well, especially if they end up voiding this second Devils offer. Precedent is only something that applies to legal rulings, of which there have been none on the other contracts.

"(23) It is true, as the Association observes, that the NHL has registered contracts with structures similar to the Kovalchuk SPC PA Exh. 8 reflects a list of 11 multi-year agreements, all of which involve players in their mid to late 30's and early 40's. Most of them reflect reasonably substantial "diveback" (salary reductions that extend over the "tails" of the Agreement). Of these, four such agreements, with players Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, Roberto Luongo, and Marian Hossa reflect provisions that are relatively more dramatic than the others. Each of these players will be 40 or over at the end of the contract term and each contract includes dramatic divebacks.

Pronger's annual salary, for example, drops from $4,000,000 to $525,000 at the point he is earning almost 97% of the total $34,450,000 salary. Roberto Luongo, with Vancouver, has a 12-year agreement that will end when he is 43. After averaging some $7,000,000 per year for the first 9 years of the Agreement, Luongo will receive an average of about 1.2 million during his last 3 years, amounting to some 5.7% of the total compensation during that time period. The apparent purpose of this evidence is to suggest that the League's concern is late blooming and/or inconsistent.

Several responses are in order: First, while the contracts have, in fact, been registered, their structure has not escaped League notice: those SPCs are being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration. It is also the case that the figures in Kovalchuk's case are demonstrably more dramatic, including a 17-year term length, a $102,000,000 salary total and precipitous drop that lasts for the final six years of this contract."

Originally Posted by tortfesor

A link to the arbitration ruling is in the article below:


Full 20-Page Copy of Ilya Kovalchuk Arbitration Decision | The Hockey Writers

Much thanks.

So, after a quick read, the issues the arbitrator had with the SPC were the fact that 97% of the value of the contract was paid in the first 11 years, and also the fact that the NMC was transitioned to a NTC for the final 6 years.

(Yes I am procrastinating)... Hossa will receive 93.68% of his contract's value in the first 8 years (before the contract back dives down to $1M.). Kovalchuk's contract will pay him 90% of the value before in first 10 years (before his back dive to $1M).

So, without knowing when/if a NMC transitions to a NTC in the contract, I don't see how the league can reject this.

I also did find it interesting that the arbitrator seemed to go out of his way to point out the Kovalchuk and the Club did not operate in "bad faith or on the basis of any assumption other than that the SPC was fully compliant with the CBA."

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

Because it's not different than the Luongo/Hossa/Pronger deals that they've already said ok to? Also not really different than the Zetterberg/Holmstrom deals either.

if they switched the last couple of years of salary around with the $1MM ones, then it would be a totally different world.

Originally Posted by EB924

For the billionth time, The arbitrator specifically addresses this. Just because those contracts were registered doesn't make them any less problematic. The NHL could still void those contracts as well, especially if they end up voiding this second Devils offer. Precedent is only something that applies to legal rulings, of which there have been none on the other contracts.

But talk about a can of worms, since Hossa has already played one year under his SPC, and what "new evidence" will the league reference if/when it rejects the contract?

It isn't like there is a smoking gun like a tape recording of Hossa saying "I plan on walking away after year 8".

The league dropped the ball last year, and I think they will have a hell of a time trying to fix it.