DEAL VOIDED BY ARBITRATOR! Kovalchuk re-signs in Jersey: $102M over 17 years

Lou will have to make the salary drop off much less ridiculous as well. As long as they structure is similar to an already approved contract, the NHL will have to allow it.

I think Jersey will just file another contract. They've gone in too deep with the Kovalchuk talks, as well as introducing him to the press, advertising him as a devil. And I think Grossman will want to save his hide too, so as SD says, 15 year contract should be around the block.

shabbs wrote:

Michallica wrote:And where does this leave Kovalchuk now....is he officially a UFA again?

According to Darren Dreger:

"If NJ doesn't refile and the NHLPA doesn't grieve, Kovy will be a UFA. If the PA grieves, his future is up in the air pending resolution."

Would be hilarious if at the end of all this, he ends up with LA or the KHL....or anyone not New Jersey

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Here comes a 15 year contract, worth a cap hit of around 6.5. It's not that hard to fix, but it hurts the Devils (which is good).
EDIT: This is my gut feeling, nothing more.

They allowed contracts to go to age 42 already, so this might be the ticket. They can probably still work the same cap hit too for a little more money in different years of the deal.

How is that possible? I thought the cap hit was a straight division of total $ / nb years.

TheAvatar wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Here comes a 15 year contract, worth a cap hit of around 6.5. It's not that hard to fix, but it hurts the Devils (which is good).
EDIT: This is my gut feeling, nothing more.

They allowed contracts to go to age 42 already, so this might be the ticket. They can probably still work the same cap hit too for a little more money in different years of the deal.

How is that possible? I thought the cap hit was a straight division of total $ / nb years.

That's true. The total amount of the deal would have to be adjusted too. If this deal is voided, I would expects some grievances and other legal challenges.

I wonder if this was Lou sending a message to Kovalchuk and his Agent? Lou probably knew this would get rejected based on how it was structured but Kovalchuk wanted the big money and would not budge. So, Lou says fine, we'll sign you to this ridiculous contract and you'll see it get rejected. Then, come back to the table and we can get a real deal done.

Lombardi was on the Fan 590 yesterday talking about the details and he said they had a very different structure to their offer with a "bell curve" style. Not a front loaded one with a massive drop off... but it was also $20M less overall.

NHLPA's response:

http://www.nhlpa.com/News/Media-Releases/Details.aspx?R=E2012F2B-D8D0-41D6-B395-C5B9630D05D9

Basically, "no comment at this time while we review the NHL's decision".

Stay tuned...

shabbs wrote:NHLPA's response:

http://www.nhlpa.com/News/Media-Releases/Details.aspx?R=E2012F2B-D8D0-41D6-B395-C5B9630D05D9

Basically, "no comment at this time while we review the NHL's decision".

Stay tuned...

they can only argue it based on the grounds that nothing in the CBA was actually violated, but even the NHLPA knows that they're getting away with murder with a deal like Kovalchuk's (and Hossa's)

If they appeal and it goes to arbitration... I think the NHLPA wins. There really is nothing concrete in the CBA that does not allow this type of contract. We all know it's wrong, but the CBA allows for it, for now.

Ovechkin only signed a 13 year deal, so they can't really use that as an example, IMO. He was 22 when he signed it.

For Kovalchuk to be signed to a 17 year deal when he is already 27 years old makes little-to-no sense to me.

Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Amnesia021 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Good call. The hit won't be as bad though, but it's still something.

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

The reason it looks that way, is because that was the intent. Unfortunately for the Flyers they didn't read the CBA very closely and thought that the +35 rule was at time of signing as opposed to realilty, which is 35 years or older when the contract begins. The NHL had no reason to look into circumvention because it is a moot point on +35 contracts.

Amnesia021 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Yes, this is true... but the subtle difference is that without those two years added on, the cap hit is $6.89M. With them, it's $4.921. It saves them some room.

If the Flyers were not aware of the 35+ rule they they screwed themselves even more as the hit remains.

The key issue the NHL has is artificially extending contracts to bring the cap hit down and front loading them, knowing full well the player won't play those last few years and will get their money up front.

shabbs wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:

shabbs wrote:Pronger's contract certainly has the look cap circumvention...

$33.4M over the first 5 years and $1.05M over the last two years.

Big difference though is that if Pronger decides that playing for two years on a 525,000 salary is not worth it, so he retires, the flyers will still be left with a massive Cap hit for those years...

Yes, this is true... but the subtle difference is that without those two years added on, the cap hit is $6.89M. With them, it's $4.921. It saves them some room.

If the Flyers were not aware of the 35+ rule they they screwed themselves even more as the hit remains.

The key issue the NHL has is artificially extending contracts to bring the cap hit down and front loading them, knowing full well the player won't play those last few years and will get their money up front.

It saves them room now, but they pay for it later when they have a 5M cap hit for a couple years and are getting nothing for it.

Would just love to know if they totally forgot about the 35+ rule...

I believe though the Flyers could waive Pronger if he was to retire, and then assign him to the minors, where he could retire and be off the NHL cap, I believe. i'll look into it.