| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jumbo Joe Rocks
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
410 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2010 : 08:36:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So we have all waited for this now, and the arbitor has until the end of the work day today to make the decision known . . .
. . . can't they get on with this thing already?!?
Anyone have any word of what the decision may be - leaks, rumours?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I read something on a website saying the arbitrator allowed the contract to go through.It was a rumor though.
GO SHARKS GO |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 10:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jumbo Joe Rocks
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
So we have all waited for this now, and the arbitor has until the end of the work day today to make the decision known . . .
. . . can't they get on with this thing already?!?
Anyone have any word of what the decision may be - leaks, rumours?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
I read something on a website saying the arbitrator allowed the contract to go through.It was a rumor though.
GO SHARKS GO
Well I heard from my Gary Bettman (who is my BFF by the way)that the arbitrator rules in favor of the NHL.
I bet one of us will be right.
I wonder how many people will believe that I am friends with Gary B if I get this right!!
 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 14:27:30
|
Although it has not been confirmed to this point, various different websites are indicating that the Arbitrator has ruled in favor of the NHL and Kovalchuk's deal is void.
Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 14:44:20
|
| TSN is reporting it confirmed - the contract is void. Beans, you ARE friends with Bettman! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 14:50:11
|
Yep, me and Gary B are homies.
Now, for my next trick, the NHL will test out no touch icing, not allowing shift changes on off sides, and renewing the glowing puck for the All Star Game.
Seriously, this ruling would not have surprised me either way. In one hand, there are similar deals out there already. On the other hand, none are this long or this front loaded.
First shot across the bow in the upcoming NHL vs NHLPA Collective Bargining Agreement goes to the NHL.
I wonder how quickly the NHLPA will finally set a permenant Leader after losing this arbitration.................... |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 15:21:57
|
And the saga continues.... back to the drawing board.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 15:33:15
|
so - does NJ take another stab at this, or does IK move on to another NHL team? I still don't think he's going back to Russia...
I'm sort of surprised that NJ had not spent this past week trying to work out an alternate deal, just in case the ruling went against them. Or maybe they have been but no dice. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 16:06:42
|
There will be other GM's in the next 12-18 months that will try to do a similar thing. The question is how far is too far??? Hossa's deal, Pronger's Deal, Luongo's Deal, et al are ok, but Kovalchuk's isn't. So where does one draw the line.
The only thing this deal has provided is that Kovachuk can't sign for that, and there will be something clearly established in the next CBA to close this loophole. However, that loophole can not be closed for some time so there definately will be mre GM's trying to do these deals. Arbitration is often without precedent, meaning the ruling is for that specific case, not all cases.
Mark my words, on my rock solid relationship with Gary Bettman, this is not the last of these long front-loaded contracts.
Just for everyone's information, Marian Hossa is also signed until he is 44, the same as what Kovalchuk would have been signed for. Furthermore, Hossa will get paid less than $1 million a season for the final 4 seasons after getting paid almost $60 million($7.5 million/season average) in the first 8 years. Luongo is signed until he is 43, also making less than $2 million a season in the last 4 years and over $6 million in the first 8 years. Pronger is signed until he is 42 making around $500,000 the last 2 seasons, and Zetterberg is signed until he is 41 making $1 million for the final 2 seasons. Franzen is also signed past the age of 41 for $1 million a season in the last 2. Duncan Keith being signed until he is 38 is also getting up there.
Are these really that much different than Kovalchuk's??? The age of the player is the exact same thing, so this really comes down to the NHL felt it was too much money. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 08/09/2010 16:18:46 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 18:11:51
|
There are slight variations in the deals, and it will be difficult to figure out how far is "too far" without simply trying and seeing what sticks.
I did some research into the deals, and pulled out what I think are some key stats:
Kovalchuk:
- total deal size 17yr/102M (cap hit 6M)
- first 50% of the contract: 88.5M (86% of contract)
- first 75% of the contract: 99.8M (97% of contract)
- years remaining after 75% of the deal is done: 4
- age when deal is done: 44
- deviation of max salary from cap hit: 190% (6m hit, 11.5m max)
compare to:
Pronger:
- total deal size: 7yr/34.45M (cap hit 4.9M)
- first 50% of the contract: 29.4M (85% of contract)
- first 75% of the contract: 33M (95% of contract)
- years remaining after 75% of the deal is done: 2
- age when deal is done: 42
- deviation of max salary from cap hit: 155% (4.9m hit, 7.6m max)
Hossa:
- total deal size: 12yr/62.8M (5.2M cap hit)
- first 50% of the contract: 47.4M (75% of contract)
- first 75% of the contract: 59.3M (94% of contract)
- years remaining after 75% of the deal is done: 3
- age when deal is done: 42
- deviation of max salary from cap hit: 151% (5.2m hit, 7.9m max)
Luongo:
- total deal size: 12yr/64M (5.33M cap hit)
- first 50% of the contract: 43.5M (67% of contract)
- first 75% of the contract: 60.4M (94% of contract)
- years remaining after 75% of the deal is done: 3
- age when deal is done: 43
- deviation of max salary from cap hit: 188% (5.33m hit, 10m max)
IK and Pronger have the most paid out during the first 50% of their respective deals, with Luongo a fairly distant fourth. All of them see ~95% of the total deals paid out after only 75% of the contract years are up.
I suspect that in the end, the IK deal crossed a line that other contracts had pushed up against. The line is arbitrary for sure, but the NHL chose this one to call foul, and it won. Some things that might have factored into the decision:
- the sheer absurdity of having >97% of the contract paid after only doing 75% of the deal. Yes, you can argue that the others are also near that amount, but the fact that there are 5 years left on the deal after 75% of the deal is done might have just been too much.
- Kovy's max salary under the deal deviates nearly 200% from the cap hit, which is far more than Pronger or Hossa. Only Luongo's deal comes close to that deviation, but in Luongo's defense, that max salary is only attained in the first year of the deal, at which point it drops down to a very respectable 6.7M (or about 130% of the cap hit)
- the sheer length dwarfs any other front-loaded deal, and perhaps the arbitrator just thought that they could not possibly be bargaining in good faith that far into the future.
- the age that this ends is high - 44. Pronger and Hossa are both at 42, which is at least believable. Luongo is at 43, but goalies tend to be more durable than forwards, and I can see Lu playing into his very late 30's at least.
Beans - I agree, we'll see more attempts at these sorts of deals this summer. At least teams know where the breaking point is now... |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 19:17:17
|
| I really think the league shat the bed on this one. They surely should have known these contracts were going to continue to spiral out of control and should have stepped up much sooner and somehow put a stop to it! I know they have/had a deal in place with the PA but there must have been something they could have done to prevent stuff like this from occuring. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 20:16:37
|
Don't get me wrong Gents, I am a pro-NHL guys and I completely fault players and agents any time salaries get so absurdly out of hand. I don't fault a guy trying to make his team better by any means possible but I do fault the guy taking advantage of a situation to get rich. Agree or not, that is my stance.
Nuxfan, nice numbers. I see the point, but the end of the day I am a simple guy. The deviations from the salary cap and the percentage paid out vs time have a ton of validity and I can see the difference between the Kovalchuk deal.
However, at the end of the day, all these deals are very comparable. All these players(Pronger, Luongo, Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa) have deals they will never finish or will be bought out well before they are done. I don't like the double standard that says as long as it's not absurdly absurd, they deal is ok. Completely absurd is good, but absurdly absurd is against the rules.
The one thing I think we are all finding common ground on is that this will definitly be an issue dealt with in the new CBA. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 21:01:02
|
I agree with you too Beans - the difference between absurd and *really* absurd is subjective and hard to nail down. The NHL got this one and won. One wonders what the outcome would have been if the NHL had challenged one of the others. The Zetterberg deal is OK IMO - the ones that really stand out are Pronger/Hossa/Luongo.
I suspect IK will eventually settle on a deal that looks more like one of those 3. The NHL would have a harder time stopping that, after they had let 3 others go thru.
The owners know this loophole will be closed soon - next summer should be an interesting one with all the potential large deals to be handed out. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 21:38:51
|
I was surprised about the outcome here, but I shouldn't have been . . . I mean, how hard is it to convince one arbitrator?
BTW, they never really mentioned it much in many newscasts, who was the abitrator, what was their background?
Big question now is whether Kovie still tries to get it done with NJ . . . my thought is yes, but are there any new teams that might poke their noses in now? I wonder.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 22:59:23
|
ok, NOW this is getting interesting...
There is an article in the Vancouver Sun, indicating that the NHL is still currently looking at 4 contracts, in light of the ruling against Kovy: Pronger, Hossa, Luongo, and Marc Savard. The article is Luongo-specific, but does mention that in his ruling, Bloch mentioned all 4 of the above contracts, and compared the Kovy deal to them.
MG has confirmed that the NHL is studying Luongo's deal, but won't say more.
Now, this could get messy. In the case of Luongo, he signed the extension 12 months ago, and the extension kicks in in 30 days. The Canucks have made several business decisions based on the fact that the NHL accepted the contract 12 months ago. Further, if the deal were overturned, it would effectively make Luongo an instant UFA, as his last contract expired at the end of last season, with no recourse to the Canucks. The other players and teams would likely be in the same situation. I would imagine that the teams in question would have a grievance against the NHL - although as there is nothing in the CBA regarding this sort of action, I'm not sure what that grievance would be founded on.
In the case of Hossa, its even messier - he has already played 1 year of the contract that the NHL is investigating - what happens if they overturn it? Can they overturn it once it has kicked in? Can he turn around and then sue the NHL for contract violation?
Gonna be an interesting month... |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 02:09:43
|
@ nuxfan:
I can't see the NHL going back on the Hossa, Luongo, etc.. contracts now that they have already been approved. I believe it's far too late. The contracts would be in ink by now, and signed by the NHL, etc..
IF they did somehow, go back on them.. I think we would see an instant NHLPA lockout in the NHL. As, you mentioned teams have already made financial decisions around these contracts, players have already played out (in some case), time of that contract, and without that player and players agents consent, i don't think the NHL can do anything about it now.
Far too late in my opinion. I believe the NHL had to disapprove of the contract, before 'approving' it to begin with. Like, the Kovy deal. It has all been signed now.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 08:58:31
|
This new information does not surprise me. Perhaps the NHL's legal team was really on the bubble with the other deals (Pronger, Hossa, etc) so they did not want to risk the fight. However, now they have won the Kovalchuk deal, they may want to revist other deals.
That being said, I can't see how the NHL can say a contract is void after it has been participated in (Pronger, Hossa). However, if Loungo's deal has not been started yet, his may still be open season. But it's a stretch.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 09:45:48
|
The only deal that has started so far is the Hossa deal - the other 3 were extensions that kick in starting this coming season. Pronger played the previous season under the last year of his previous contract. I would agree that overturning Hossa's deal would be far more difficult at this point.
They would not bother investigating them if they didn't have the power to revoke/deregister them. I suspect there is a clause in any NHL contract that stipulates the deal must adhere to the rules of the CBA blah blah blah, or something to that effect - which would give the NHL the authority to void a deal - does anyone know for sure? I'm not sure how that meshes with contract law outside of the NHL.
I would agree that the deals that have not started yet are easier for the NHL to act on - although to do so this long after they were initially approved would probably lead to another showdown and possibly some labour strife. However, if they reopen the Hossa deal, then that sets a precedent for a lot of other deals - this practice of front-loading deals for a low cap hit started as far back as 2007. Look at:
- Danny Briere (cap hit of 6.3, first year 10M, next 2 years @ 8M, final year @ 2M)
- Mike Richards (cap hit 5.75, max salary at 8.4M, tails down to 3M per year at the end)
- Kipper (cap hit 5.8M, max @ 8.5M, tails to 1.5m in final year)
- Duncan Kieth (cap hit 5.5, max @ 8M for 3 years, tails to 2.1 in final year)
- Zetterberg (cap 6M, max 7.5M, tails to 1m per year in final 2)
- Franzen (cap 3.9M, max 5.2, tails to 1m per year in final 2)
- Horcoff (cap 5.5M, max 7M, tails to 3m in final)
- Heatley (cap 7.5, max 10M, tails to 5 in final)
- Lecavailer (cap 7.7, max 10M for 6 seasons, tails to 2.5 over final 2)
- Ohlund (cap 3.6, max 5.5, tails to 1m in final)
That sets a big precedent. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 09:55:30
|
Horcoff and Heatley's deals are not nearly as dramatic as the others. I have no issue with the drop at the end of the deal, reason being there are 2 edges to that sword. No one is saying anything about a contract like Halak's where the biggest value of the deal is actually at the end of the deal.
I have been listening to some sports talk radio this morning and one thing that was brought up was the NFL structure where the cap hit is the actual value of the deal for that season as well as any bonus paid. However, the biggest kicker to that is no NFL contract is a guaranteed contract. You get released, the contract is over and you are a UFA.
I love that idea. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 10:25:20
|
Well, if Hossa's is voided, they must have to give back that cup, right?
I agree nuxfan, teams have made many business related decisions since these contracts were accepted, i can't see how the league could go back and "unapprove" of these deals.
Will be interesting, but i have a feeling they'll "grandfather" these and bring in some new regulations for the future...... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 08/10/2010 12:13:08 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 08/10/2010 16:22:46 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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!!! |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
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 |
Edited by - polishexpress on 08/11/2010 18:32:45 |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - polishexpress on 08/11/2010 18:37:24 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 08/12/2010 09:39:20 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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 :-) |
Edited by - nuxfan on 08/12/2010 09:43:13 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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..... |
Edited by - Alex116 on 08/12/2010 10:11:39 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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%. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Ilya Kovalchuk - Signs with Devils 
