September 1st, 2010, 03:44 PM #1411
That was my first impression as well. However, it might not be that simple. Here are some points to consider, although I'm sure most of you have already done so.
Originally Posted by Yog S'loth
1) The NHL would very much like to keep Kovalchuk in the NHL, due to his high talent level and subsequent drawing power. The Devils could certainly use his high profile to fill the seats. The league would like to see better attendance in NJ.
2) The NHL would not approve this latest contract as submitted. This is daunting for NJ, given that the league and team met ten days ago to iron out details on what was and was not acceptable.
3) For whatever reason, no other team seemingly is in the picture. L.A. is either out by its own choice, or Kovalchuk really does not want to be on the West Coast. My guess would be, given the involvement of the league office in trying to "assist" NJ, that the league has actually been in contact with the Kings and were told, "we're going in a different direction". In other words, I can't see the league "assisting" NJ if there were other teams still in the hunt.
4) If Fehr is really involved at this point, this is about more than just Kovalchuk. As others have said, this could be a preliminary bout to the next CBA negotiation. Both sides are under pressure to resolve this, but given that camps open in three weeks, I believe that the league is under a greater weight to resolve. After all, there apparently continues to be a hold on other transactions pending this resolution. Other teams will start putting pressure on Bettman to resolve.
5) I feel that the league is involved at this point, because they really don't want the bad publicity of outright rejection of another contract.
So is a compromise forthcoming? Will the league and NJ be able to iron something out? What if NJ has to bend a bit too far, and Kovalchuk / Grossman decide it's no longer good enough?
Although I was leaning the same way as Yog S'Loth earlier, now I'm not so sure. I may have argued myself the other way.
Last edited by AngelEyes; September 1st, 2010 at 03:52 PM.
September 1st, 2010, 03:49 PM #1412
As long as they're willing to rip up the other contracts, I'm perfectly fine with it. I've said each time one of those contracts was signed that they were trying to massage the cap hit. Nail them all as far as I'm concerned.
Originally Posted by AngelEyes
If you're willing to allow some of them to go, you have to allow all of them. Otherwise you lose credibility with fans. You can't arbitrarily decide that one cap circumvention is ok but the other isn't. Seriously, look at those deals and tell me what is different about them other than the numbers. Since there is nothing illegal about any of them, you're only violating them on the spirit of their intent. Can you find ANYTHING in the SPIRIT of those contracts that isn't identical?
September 1st, 2010, 04:05 PM #1413
I agree with you that the other contracts are suspect. However, I don't agree that the others have to be voided. The league can proceed however it likes, citing only that its highest mandate is the health of the league. They may well have decided that the other contracts are smelly, but what is of primary concern is to stop this *****, going forward. For NJ and its fans, this is just bad timing. They might have gotten away with it a couple of years ago.
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
As to your comment about the spirit of those other contracts, I'm not sure that lawyers care about that . . . at least not yet. If it were to go to court, they might have to.
September 1st, 2010, 04:23 PM #1414
Darren Dreger via twitter:
Don't be surprised if the Kovy extension is extended on Friday, plus...it's a longshot, but there could be a rule amendment by the end of wk
Darren Dreger (DarrenDreger) on Twitter
September 1st, 2010, 04:43 PM #1415
Maybe Fehr and the NHLPA are there to negotiate a new CBA....there is no rule that says they have to wait till the old one expires. Though the league approved an extension of the current CBA, if they vote on a new one to take effect at the start of next season, with language that explains everything about SPC's...I could see this happening now to avoid issues 24 months from now.
Just another interesting hypothetical situation to throw out there as the last thing either side and fans want is another work stoppage.
Posted via Mobile Device
September 1st, 2010, 05:18 PM #1416
Originally Posted by eyesk8r
it is interesting and while i dont think Fehr is there to start CBA negotiations now... its really NOT a bad idea... and hopefully both sides are aware of the disaster any type of lockout or missed season would cause...The league is just starting to thrive again after the last disaster.
September 1st, 2010, 05:26 PM #1417
Originally Posted by kluka68
change the rules so that teams are still on the hook for the full contract hit regardless of retirement.
there would be no need to review previous contracts, and in one fell swoop they would eliminate the gray area of what is and isnt circumvention.
September 1st, 2010, 05:47 PM #1418
September 1st, 2010, 07:28 PM #1419
September 1st, 2010, 07:48 PM #1420
A rule amendment at this stage in the game could be a very rough situation for a handful of teams.