| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 08:50:33
Report: Kovalchuk to sign seven-year, $60M deal with Devils
According to TSN Ilya Kovalchuk is to sign a 7 year 60 million dollar contract to keep him in the Garden State for 7 years.
GO SHARKS GO |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Deaner |
Posted - 09/04/2010 : 09:46:37
thank god its over and done with |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 09/04/2010 : 07:56:09
yep official. nhl.com has the whole story.
I'm glad they finally came to an agreement and that they will drop any further investigation on the other deals. And plus they were able to add rules to the CBA in order that deals like that don't get out of hands.
1. The cap hit will only be the average of what the player makes when he signs the contract up to 40 years of age. When the player hit 41 those year doesn't get in the average.
2. If a player signs a contract over 5.75 million cap hit, the cap hit when he's 36-39 can't be less then a million. The player can still sign for less but the salary for those seasons that would be awarded in the cap hit would stay at one million.
anyway this is a quick review but check nhl.com for the whole story. |
| irvine |
Posted - 09/03/2010 : 21:53:00
Ken Cambell of THN is reporting that league (NHL) has approved Ilya Kovalchuk's new 15-year deal on Friday.
I'm unsure how accurate this is, though.
If true, it appears that the NHLPA had to agree to changing the CBA. Apparently, it will be that no more deals of this nature can be made. We'll see!
Irvine/prez. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/03/2010 : 14:12:29
well, its being reported that the NHL will approve the Kovy deal, and will also allow the other 4 deals in question - and these 5 deals will likely be the last of their kind in the NHL.
TSN is reporting that as part of the approval, the NHLPA has agreed to changes to the CBA governing the length and cap hit of long term deals. No details yet on what that agreement is, but you can be sure that it will ensure that its very crippling to teams to sign players to this sort of deal. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 14:02:00
Slozo, don't get me wrong. I love the fight, but not the chance for a strike/lockout.
Another perspective on this is what kind of message the NHL is sending to whom ever the NHLPA head is going to be.
Bottom line, from this as well as the recent hockey summitt, the NHL is the biggest, baddest, and best in the world and the the owners and administration of the league is ready to fight as such. |
| n/a |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 11:35:04
You may love it Beans, but I don't . . . I can't take another strike!  (I know you were saying it in jest)
This is like a Scott Stevens check at the blueline with your head down . . . I seriously doubt that anyone, especially the NHLPA, saw this all coming as a result of one long deal.
I truly wonder though how Hossa's deal could be revisited . . . he has already started fulfilling it. Will any player movement result because of this? Strange, but possible . . . and the reason why I suppose they moved the deadline ahead for Kovalchuk's deal announcement.
If Bettman nixes this second deal, it'll be like the first shot across the bow before a battle.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 11:28:05
yep this is some hardball indeed, I honestly do not have a good feel for how this will turn out.
We know how the NHL feels about these contracts, but no one really talks about how the NHLPA feels - do they like them, or approve of these tactics? If they don't like these contracts, or the direction that it takes their membership, they might agree to the demands. According to the same article, it sounds like a do or die for the NHLPA:
- accept the changes, and the NHL will grandfather the Luongo and Hossa deals and adopt the new rules for any future contracts
- reject the changes, and the NHL will void Luongo's deal and formally investigate Hossa's.
There is no mention of Savard's deal or Pronger's deal, likely due to the length of the contract being less than 10 years.
This could get very messy very fast.. I would think that the Luongo deal is the easiest to void, given that it was never fully approved (or at least we have been told that), and it has not started yet - however I don't think his agent will let it go without a fight. With Hossa, the deal was approved and has started - voiding now would likely go against all kinds of existing US contract law, and a lawsuit would almost be a certainty. Savard's agent has already stated that he will sue if his client's deal is voided.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 09:21:37
I love it!!
The NHL has a gun held to the NHLPA's head right now. They are basically saying(unconfirmed, as posted on TSN who are normally pretty accurate) that the PA has to agree to:
1. "That the cap hit on future multi-year contracts will not count any seasons that end with the player over 40 years of age. The cap hit would be calculated on the average of the salary up through age 40 only."
2. "That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five years with the highest salary."
The report goes on to say that if the NHLPA does not agree to this than Kovalchuk's deal is denied, Luongo's is void, and Hossa's will be investigated immediately.
Wow, can anyone else smell another work stoppage coming?? This is some serious hardball.
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 08:35:35
it looks like the NHL have once again brought Luongo's deal into the debate (and may formally investigate Hossa's).
According to a story in the Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Report Ultimatum Kovalchuk Luongo deals/3471430/story.html), the NHL are possibly using the IK and Lu contract approvals as leverage to get the NHLPA to sit down and hammer out agreed rules regarding long term deals going forward |
| Leafs81 |
Posted - 09/01/2010 : 13:07:15
This deal makes a lot of sense to me. If they don't want the NHL to reject it this is the way to go. With this deal they are saying look we are ready to pay Kovalchuk a lot of money even when his career is coming to a close, if he wants to retire that's his decision.
The last deal the average was brought so low because of the last 7 years of the deal were getting lower and lower and lower. Plus the deal is 15 years compare to 17 the last one. This way here Kovalchuk is happy because he gets the money he wants. The team is happy because they get a reasonable cap hit and the league is happy because the last few years of the contract doesn't affect the average that much (especially because of the last two seasons of his contract)
I would be really surprise if they reject this one.
Sure it looks weird because of all the changes through the years and it's the first time we see a contract like that. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 09/01/2010 : 09:13:20
you may be right beans, looking at the overall deal it does seem to be more in line with the cap than that last one. One would also have to think that NJD worked very closely with the NHL on this version of the deal to avoid another rejection... we shall see by 5pm I guess.
those last 2 years stick out. For the deal that got nixed, NJD argued that he should be paid less at the end of the deal as he will not be as effective a player - which is the way all the other suspect deals are structured, and in fact sounds like a reasonable argument. However, they seem to have reversed their thinking, and have a deal that suggests he will get better in the last 2 years of the deal?
Either they are doing as I suggest, and attempting to save money on the whole deal, or they are attempting to provide additional incentive for Kovy to play out the full deal by backloading some money.
I wonder if the league will argue that the 4M and 3M should be in years 11 and 12, with 1M for 13-15. Then I think it would be in line with other deals. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 09/01/2010 : 09:01:02
Honestly, how is this circumventing the CAP?? A nearly $7 million cap hit for 15 years. That's a pretty large impact. In fact, for deals lasting longer than 5 years only Lecavalier, Ovechkin, and Backstrom's cap hits are higher.
Considering he is under 35 at the time of signing the deal, if he retired the cap hit still applies.
If you look at a buy out, there is $10 million on the last 5 years of the deal meaning the cap hit on a buy out would be over $3 million.
This deal, also very odd looking, is a lot more in line with deals that are considered completely acceptable today. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 22:11:04
So, Sportsnet is reporting that Kypreos has the inside scoop on the IK deal part II. The new deal breaks out as follows:
15yr/100M, yearly breakdown:
1,2: 6M
3: 11M
4,5: 11.3M
6: 11.6M
7: 11.8M
8: 10M
9: 7M
10: 4M
11,12,13: 1M
14: 3M
15: 4M
I swear, this deal makes even less sense that the previous one - so many salary shifts over the life of the deal, and instead of a bell curve, they now have a tail at the end where the salary actually goes UP again in the final 2 years.
IMO this one is more glaringly cap-subverting than the previous one - the last 2 years at a higher pay grade after 3 straight years @ 1M are very suspicious, and I think NJ is actually trying to get more actual $ dropped off this deal.
With the last deal, we saw it tail down to 2.5M over the last 5 years, or something like that. This one has 10M over the last 5 years, but is constructed in such a way that Kovy has to endure 3 years @ 1M each in order to get to the final 2 "bonus" years. If you assume that Kovy will retire as soon as the deal hits 1M per year, then NJ actually saves 10M over those 5 years, instead of 2.5M
I don't think the NHL will accept this one either.
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 10:22:38
quote:
Fair enough, nuxfan . . . but you lose me a bit when you say you haven't lost the love for Luongo, but are only willing to pay a star goalie 5.3 mil or less.
But then again, the market really has crashed for goalies, when they are getting signed for the same price as career third-line forwards. Maybe it is just a result of the flooded goalie market.
It really comes down to 2 different things - paycheque vs cap hit, and they *are* different. I'm happy and willing to PAY Luongo 10M this year, and 7.6M for the next 7 years after that - Orca Bay has that money to spend, and they have decided to make a long term investment in a franchise player. However, if he takes up 6-7 in cap space, I'm not sure that it makes sense anymore, or allows the team to build the necessary core around him.
I don't think you can build an effective team, in a cap world, when your goatending takes too much of your cap. If you're using 10-15% of your cap for a single player (only 4% of your team), that player had better be scoring goals, not saving them. Goaltenders might steal you a few games, but the guys putting the puck in the net will win them for you far more often. For me, 6M-ish on your goaltending tandem is about as high as I'd want to commit. Thats just my opinion though.
quote:
For me, it's sad to see position players of that quality making the same as a player skating for 12 minutes a game . . . the impact is like comparing apples to oranges!
Any word out there yet on the current investigation into Luongo's contract?
I agree with you, there is a glut of goalies out there - but I think that was bound to happen eventually, as the global popularity of hockey took off. The world keeps cranking out quality goaltending, but the NHL only employs 60 each year. They are also generally more durable, so you see goalies playing longer than other players - thus freeing up less spaces for new blood to come in. We'll probably continue to see more goalies fight for the same positions as time goes on.
There has been no word on Luongo's deal, other than a lot of articles claiming that the whole thing is just smoke (for Luongo and Savard, and Pronger). At this point, I don't anticipate a voiding, and once it actually starts getting paid out, I think the issue will die. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 09:58:58
Fair enough, nuxfan . . . but you lose me a bit when you say you haven't lost the love for Luongo, but are only willing to pay a star goalie 5.3 mil or less.
But then again, the market really has crashed for goalies, when they are getting signed for the same price as career third-line forwards. Maybe it is just a result of the flooded goalie market.
For me, it's sad to see position players of that quality making the same as a player skating for 12 minutes a game . . . the impact is like comparing apples to oranges!
Any word out there yet on the current investigation into Luongo's contract?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 08:52:53
Slozo, Alex is right - don't worry, no love lost here, Lu is still the man, you are misinterpreting. I thought I was clear, but maybe not.
I love Luongo - at the right price. I'm assuming that if the contract is voided, we cannot get Lu back at a cap hit of 5.3M, and will have to explore other options. If we have to explore other options, there are options out there.
Luongo @ 5.3M is my first choice by far. But if it comes down to Luongo @ 6.5M or Niemi @ 2.5M... the Canucks have structured a team whereby 5.5M is really all we can afford to pay a goalie right now. So if your hand is forced, then it is forced.
If the contract were voided, and we could get Luongo back @ 5.3M on some contract, then I'd keep him for sure, no brainer.
quote:
Maybe the last line of his post confused you..... "One thing I liked about the article - finally someone putting a bullet in the "you don't win cups with expensive goalies" theory... I agree with his reasoning 100%."??? This is saying he agrees with the writer of the article and is the opinion that you "CAN" or "DO" win cups with expensive goalies!
I hear a lot of "you can't win the cup with too much money dedicated to goaltending", or "Luongo is too expensive, the team can't build around him and won't win". The article implies that although teams with inexpensive goalies have won cups in the recent past, those teams have also benefitted from a pile of cheap entry-level forwards and defencemen as well - thus raising the question, is cheap goaltending the reason for success, or is it cheap teams? Did CHI win the cup last year because they had inexpensive goaltending and could pay their forwards more, or did they also massively benefit from Toews/Kane/Keith/Hjalmarsson all in the last years of their EL deals? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 08:29:19
As you always say, it's sometimes hard to interpret words and such that are typed, so first off, i hope you weren't offended by what i said. Secondly, it's why i said, perhaps i misinterpretted what he said?
Either way, i still don't think he meant it as you interpret it, but again, i could be wrong. While saying he'd "strongly like" a deal for Niemi at 2.5, i didn't read it as saying he'd prefer that to Luongo at 5.33?
Regardless, from what i read, i interpreted it as that he would prefer Luongo, providing we get to keep him at the 5.3 cap hit, over Niemi but would have no problem with a guy like Niemi for less than half the price!
Again, i hope you took no offense to what i typed, by saying "maybe the last line confused you...." i in no way meant it in a negative way. I know that using "confused you" or terms like that can sound somewhat insulting but i was genuinely saying it in that i really is a bit of a tricky / confusing thing he wrote. I myself had to reread it to be sure i was interpretting the way i think he intended (and i still don't know for sure ). |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 08:11:42
Nuxfan:
"If the contract is voided, the Canucks have other goaltending choices still out there - Luongo certainly, but as others have mentioned Niemi is still looking for a home, Nabokov could be lured back if the price was right, etc. They would almost certainly save money on that position for a not-Luongo player, and probably still get at least decent goaltending. I strongly like a deal where I could have Niemi as a starting goalie for a 3 yr/7.5M contract with a cap hit of 2.5."
What do I misunderstand, Alex?
He said he is more than happy to lose out on Luongo's somewhat burdensome contract, and would "strongly like" a deal with switching out Luongo for a much cheaper Niemi.
If being happy about letting your former star starting goalie leave isn't "losing love", what is?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 07:58:50
Slozo, i'm not sure, maybe it's me, but i think it's you who's misread nuxfan's comments. It didn't sound at all to me like he was "losing love" for Luongo (that could be a song).
He clearly stated that he loves him at the cap hit we have him at. While he did state he'd like a guy like Niemi at half the cap hit, he didn't say he no longer wanted or like Luongo. Maybe the last line of his post confused you..... "One thing I liked about the article - finally someone putting a bullet in the "you don't win cups with expensive goalies" theory... I agree with his reasoning 100%."??? This is saying he agrees with the writer of the article and is the opinion that you "CAN" or "DO" win cups with expensive goalies!
Unless i've misread it or misinterpretted something, i don't think he's at all worried about Luongo's "losing to a better team". I know i'm not..... |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 05:04:56
Wow, nuxfan . . . you really have lost some love for Luongo out there, eh? Just because of a few playoff games where he got beaten by the better team?
It may just be me, but I wouldn't jump off the Luongo bandwagon that fast, not after a season or two of non-mvp play. I mean, he still has the skills, and he is still a top goalie in my mind . . . and although some people may have overrated him in the past, there is no reason to go the other way and say that guys like Niemi are his equal!
They aren't. At least, not right now they aren't.
The Canucks would do well to keep him . . . otherwise he's likely to follow all the stars to San Jose!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 18:24:25
BTW - to bring this back on topic somewhat... I have heard nothing about IK and NJD, and any progression in a new deal. Anything? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 18:23:18
good read Alex, thanks for the link. Having given this some thought, I've come to realize that this is truly a win-win situation for Vancouver.
If the contract is accepted, the Canucks get a premier goalie for a very reasonable cap hit - the actual dollars paid to Luongo are irrelevant, as the Canucks must be one of the most profitable teams in the NHL and have money to spend. I have said it before and I reiterate - I love a deal where I can have Luongo as my goalie for a cap hit of 5.33 for the next 10 years.
If the contract is voided, the Canucks have other goaltending choices still out there - Luongo certainly, but as others have mentioned Niemi is still looking for a home, Nabokov could be lured back if the price was right, etc. They would almost certainly save money on that position for a not-Luongo player, and probably still get at least decent goaltending. I strongly like a deal where I could have Niemi as a starting goalie for a 3 yr/7.5M contract with a cap hit of 2.5.
The only person that stands to lose in this is in fact, Luongo. He would be hard pressed to get a deal anywhere close to what he has now, if the cap hit had to be higher. As the article points out, even the Canucks balked at a 6.4M cap hit. I'm not sure that Luongo even has a lot of possible landing pads, without an interested team having to make one or more moves of their own to accomodate.
One thing I liked about the article - finally someone putting a bullet in the "you don't win cups with expensive goalies" theory... I agree with his reasoning 100%. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 14:53:12
Great article here from todays Vancouver Province newspaper by Jason Botchford. Some interesting stuff in there including the fact that the Luongo deals is supposedly still only "conditionally approved"?
Have a read, it's a great article.....
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Luongo+deal+good+gold/3388660/story.html |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 10:10:23
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
ha! G-Money, nice...
If only you could get him to somehow void Horcoff's deal...now that would be a favour :-)
Unless Beans has a pic or two of G-Money with a goat or something, i think the Oil are stuck with Horcoff!
Well Beans, i guess it could be worse for us Nux fans? He could have let you ref all our games!!!  I can only imagine the reno's to our rink to increase the penalty box size? Or maybe they could just switch and use the players bench for the box and vice versa?
Lol, just saw this, hadn't seen it before but apparently it's the logo on the Canucks new 3rd jersey, to be worn after round two vs Chi-town each year is suppose?
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs545.ash1/31857_421858815070_517515070_5940205_3943131_n.jpg
I think it'll be my new avatar each spring when we get bumped from the playoffs..... |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 09:41:40
ha! G-Money, nice...
If only you could get him to somehow void Horcoff's deal...now that would be a favour :-) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/12/2010 : 09:38:42
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
Exactly! A shot across the bow of the NHLPA by the NHL. I doubt the NHL would actually call back any contracts.
But you never know! Beans, why don't you ask your pal Gary Bettman what he's scheming?
I just got off the phone with G-Money (that's what his friends call him) and he said that all the deals are good except for Luongo's. Actually, he said all the deals were good but I asked him, as a personal favour, if he would call back Luongo's just for fun. He agreed. Sorry Alex and Nux, it's going to be a long season because G-Money also said that if Burrow even looks at a ref the wrong way he is suspended and he said he is calling back Bobby Clarke for one game to Kharlamov one of the Sedin's and Kelser(who he also agreed is overpaid).
He then told me to ask Slozo to ease off. He said that not everything in the NHL is his fault and that he sometimes cries himself to sleep after reading the written beatings that Slozo always gives him. He is a really sensative fellow.
We then agreed on a tee time for the week end and I let him go.
He is a pretty busy guy. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 21:40:40
Exactly! A shot across the bow of the NHLPA by the NHL. I doubt the NHL would actually call back any contracts.
But you never know! Beans, why don't you ask your pal Gary Bettman what he's scheming? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 21:35:00
Ya, I could see this is just the NHL telling the GM's that they can something if they want to.
More than anything else, this arbitration with Kovalchuk and the subsequent "investigations" of the other deals is a very loud and clear message to every NHL GM. That is:
Don't do any more long term/front loaded deals until the issue is negotiated and agree to in the next CBA.
I doubt anything will be called back now, but EVERY one of them in the future will be denied. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 19:59:39
however, it may all be moot. I read another article (on canoe I think) that quoted an anonymous NHL official, that said the NHL has no plans to overturn anything and risk labour strife going into the last year of the CBA. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 19:57:21
The word out of PHI is that they do not feel that the Pronger deal is in the same league as the others - Pronger is an over-35 player, and therefore if he retires before the deal is up the cap hit remains (or something to that effect) - so there is no advantage to PHI in this regard. If that is the case, I would agree with Phili here.
polishexpress - I have been hearing the same rumblings, but I honestly don't believe it. Quite simply, I think getting one of the top 5 goalies in the league for a cap hit of 5.3M per year is a steal. Look at "bonafide #1" goalies (that consistently turn in winning seasons and play >65 games a year for their teams) - he is cheaper than Kipper, Lundqvist, Thomas, Vokoun, Backstrom, Ward, and Miller. He is the same price as Brodeur and Fleury. He is more expensive than players like Quick, Bryzgalov, Hiller - but in those cases the player has yet to prove themselves as durable and dependable, and if they do their next deals will likely be at or exceed Luongo.
For a team that will always spend at the cap, and have more money than they know what to do with, this deal makes sense. They can afford the 10M, then 7.6M for the next several seasons, and they will enjoy the low cap hit as well so they can get players to fill in around him. In 5 years time, what will the cap be? 65M? 70M? Who knows. But Luongo's deal will continue to count for 5.3 of it.
Honestly - if the deal were to be voided, I do not know what the Canucks would do, and they would not be happy IMO. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 18:36:44
Another point, the NHL would not be voiding contracts a year in, I doubt they would be so confrontational, but rather, they could attack extesions, such as the one that kicks in for Marc Savard and Roberto Luongo this year. I read somewhere(can't remember where though), that those have yet to be "registered" for the coming season. On the other hand, I heard, that the Hossa deal has been registered for this year. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 18:31:01
Another reason why Vancouver might be more cooperative has been suggested by some online journalists on TSN and ESPN is that GM Gillis might be happy to have the the Luongo contract voided, especially with the current trend towards "affordable" goaltending winning cups, and more expensive goaltenders being a burden than a blessing under the cap.
Here's a clip from Scott Burnside of ESPN NHL:quote:
"And here's another element to further entangle this already dark forest. In an effort to "punish" teams like Vancouver, Chicago, Boston or Philadelphia for having signed players to deals that may subvert the CBA, does the NHL actually find itself in the curious position of rewarding some of those franchises by letting them out of contracts that are turning out to be onerous?
The Bruins have been actively shopping Savard this offseason, while the Canucks are staring at a dozen years of Luongo, who has proved to be an expensive asset seemingly incapable of raising his game in the playoffs.
Vancouver GM Mike Gillis and Boston GM Peter Chiarelli may secretly be praying for a little league justice to ease their burden. Potentially ironic?
Just a little."
Source: http://espn.go.com/nhl/blog/_/name/nhl/id/5455767/will-there-fallout-kovalchuk-ruling |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 17:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The interesting piece of this is it's the NHL fighting itself really. It's the ownership is a few areas (Philly, Vancouver, Chicago) vs the rest??
I heard today that Vancouver and Chicago are being completely cooperative while Philly is being very combative. I don't blame them.
[/quote]
Did they say what they meant by "cooperative"? My guess is that the Canucks and Blackhawks prob feel like i do in that there's no way the league can void a contract it's already ok'd! Then again, nothing should or would surprise me all that much when it comes to the decision making in the NHL!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 13:41:50
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I also can't believe the nerve of the NHL in this regard . . . are they really saying they might revisit contracts that have already been approved, and then reject them - or require them to be modified?!? It is beyond all comprehension of what I take a signed and approved contract to me!
If weasely Bettman is able to actual do this, I can now understand why the owners keep him around . . . it would almost negate the stupidity of Phoenix and Hamilton/southerm Ontario.
Well, almost.
I really can't see Bettman and the NHL pulling a rabbit out of their hat here without a major player revolt, but who knows now?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
The interesting piece of this is it's the NHL fighting itself really. It's the ownership is a few areas (Philly, Vancouver, Chicago) vs the rest??
I heard today that Vancouver and Chicago are being completely cooperative while Philly is being very combative. I don't blame them. |
| n/a |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 04:55:47
I also can't believe the nerve of the NHL in this regard . . . are they really saying they might revisit contracts that have already been approved, and then reject them - or require them to be modified?!? It is beyond all comprehension of what I take a signed and approved contract to me!
If weasely Bettman is able to actual do this, I can now understand why the owners keep him around . . . it would almost negate the stupidity of Phoenix and Hamilton/southerm Ontario.
Well, almost.
I really can't see Bettman and the NHL pulling a rabbit out of their hat here without a major player revolt, but who knows now?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 16:21:29
Alex - to clarify, I think the Canucks would sign Luongo for a year @ 6M-ish - just for some stability next year and a chance to work out something longer, as a voiding now would be very sudden for everyone. At this point, there are enough expendable pieces on the team that this could be done with no movement to the core.
But long-term, if they could not get Luongo for a cap hit around what he's going to be now, they would likely look elsewhere. The whole advantage to the contract was that the yearly cap hit was manageable. IE, if the contract was forced to be straightlined, there is no way that the Canucks would take a cap hit of 7.6M per year for a goalie - which is what he is slated to be paid in years 2-7 of that contract.
I am pretty sure that no team in the NHL wants to commit 7.6M of cap space to a goalie.
If they were to walk away from Luongo after the voiding, I have to think that they would make a strong play for Niemi at some good number, and see which one of Schneider and Niemi worked out. I don't think they'll go into next season with Schneider as the starting goalie. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 16:13:05
Still find it hard to believe the NHL can even consider voiding these contracts, especially Hossa's due to the fact he's played a year of it already! Think of all the player moves Chi has done in the past few months and imagine what they would have done differently had they not had Hossa's deal in place.
The Canucks would likely do what nuxfan said and get Luongo resigned somehow but i guess their other option (one which some fans here would prob prefer) would be to go with Schneider and leave Luongo to be signed by another team. His struggles in the playoffs have a lot of fans questioning him.
Still can't see these contracts being voided. IMO, the NHL is just flexing it's muscles and saying "be careful from here going forward" or something to that matter. Where's that guest with the inside info from Seabrook or whoever it was? Surely they must have heard through Chicago as to how realistic the possibilities of Hossa's being tossed are??? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 12:11:38
In regards to Hossa, I'm not so much worried about CHI as Hossa. The NHLPA would have a very legitimate case of contract infringement on its hands - how does standard contract law apply when a contract was signed, approved, and has started - only to have the 3rd party that initially approved the contract void it based on no actual written rule?
It is debatable as to how CHI, or other teams, would see a ruling that voided contracts. These contracts were signed for a reason - in the case of the 4 teams, they all have the money to pay the actual dollar amounts, and in return get a very good player at a very reasonable cap hit. The only one that might see it favourably would be BOS, and only because of the health questions that now surround Savard. In the case of Luongo, I'm pretty certain that Orca Bay are happy to pay him 10M this season (they are awash in money), as long as they can get him at a very team-favourable cap hit.
Vancouver is over the cap by 2.6M. If the Luongo deal were voided, they would be close to 3M under the cap, and have that money to play with. Further, Salo's injury is going to get him off the books until Christmas, which would add another 3.25M to the kitty - bringing the total under cap to 6M. Further, VAN could make more room by simply waiving and buying out Salo and/or Bieksa, or other players that they don't want - they would sacrifice a fair bit to have Luongo back at least for next year. VAN could resign him at 6M or so without problem, although for how long is debatable. As much as other teams would be interested, most teams already have their starting goalie set, and those that don't... there are not a lot of teams willing to commit a 6 or 7M cap hit to goaltending anymore. Even if that goalie were Luongo.
Is LAK ready to throw 7M at Luongo, thus turning their backs on Quick and committing a ton of money to a goalie when they have a lot of valuable RFA's coming up for renewal next year? Would Luongo want to go to CBJ or ATL, both of whom have cap money but are not cup conteders?
One would imagine that if the NHL were to void the contract suddenly that they would give some exclusive window to VAN to allow them to renegotiate, before declaring a UFA - but hey, who knows, we're in uncharted territory here. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 10:59:40
As much as Hossa is a key piece of the Chicago puzzle, I don't think they would be as upset or have as much to lose if the contract is voided as Philly and Vancouver does.
What will Van do?? My information says they are already $2.6 million over the cap and if Luongo's deal is done, they would have $3 million to sign him while staying under the cap. How quickly would a team like CJB or LA jump all over that!!
What about Philly, who is also over the cap and would be in tough to resign Pronger??
This could get VERY ugly. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 10:28:46
Me too Beans - I hate guaranteed contracts. However, I suspect the NHLPA will fight to the death to preserve them - wouldn't you?
Agreed, some of the deals I mentioned are less offensive than others. I was just illustrating that there are an awful lot of them out there already, this practice is not new. Reopening Hossa's deal would techically make any of these deals fair game.
I read on Sportsnet that the NHLPA has proactively said they will fight any move to de-register any of the 3 contracts in question. We shall see how this goes. |
|
|
