Why Ilya Kovalchuk's contract was rejected
by Hawerchuk on Jul 21, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintIlya Kovalchuk signed a 17-year, $102M contract with New Jersey on Monday, which was promptly rejected by the NHL. (Or not so promptly, given that the Devils already had a press conference to announce the signing.)
But it should be pretty clear why the contract was rejected. There are nine existing contracts that 'violate the spirit of the CBA' by de-escalating a player's salary over a number of years to reduce his salary cap hit. Those contracts are:
| End Age | Years | Value | |
| Lecavalier | 38.7 | 11 | 85 |
| Hossa | 41.0 | 12 | 62.8 |
| Keith | 38.5 | 13 | 72 |
| Zetterberg | 39.2 | 12 | 73 |
| Luongo | 41.7 | 13 | 71 |
| Franzen | 39.0 | 11 | 43.5 |
| Pronger | 41.2 | 7 | 34.45 |
| Ohlund | 38.3 | 7 | 25.25 |
| Savard | 38.5 | 7 | 28.05 |
| Kovalchuk | 43.7 | 17 | 102 |
As you can see, Kovalchuk's was the longest of the group, and it took him almost to age 44, two years longer than the other contracts. We can see the progression of these contracts by age:
Everything about Kovalchuk's contract is just a bit more extreme than every other contract that came before it. The length, the end age, the ratio of high-to-low salary - they all looked worse than anything any other team had tried before. Or, more specifically, they made a larger end run around the CBA than anyone had ever tried before:
| AAV | Main AAV | Discount | |
| Lecavalier | 7.7 | 9.8 | 2.1 |
| Hossa | 5.2 | 7.9 | 2.7 |
| Keith | 5.5 | 6.9 | 1.4 |
| Zetterberg | 6.1 | 7.5 | 1.4 |
| Luongo | 5.5 | 7.1 | 1.6 |
| Franzen | 4.0 | 5.1 | 1.2 |
| Pronger | 4.9 | 7.4 | 2.4 |
| Ohlund | 3.6 | 4.5 | 0.8 |
| Savard | 4.0 | 6.4 | 2.4 |
| Kovalchuk | 6.0 | 9.5 | 3.5 |
The NHL saw no problem with Hossa and Pronger signing contracts last season that saved their teams over $2.4M of cap space during the years when they'd likely still be playing. But a $3.5M discount was too much. We'll see what the Devils come back with to get this contract in line with expectations - if history is any guide, a 15-year, $102M contract would be just fine.
77 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Doesn’t is strike you as a bit odd (or more specifically, stupid) that they find circumventing the rules to be ok as long as it’s not too extreme?
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 21, 2010 9:19 AM EDT reply actions
Not really. There’s bound to be gray area and I don’t think the NHL wanted to start voiding contracts left and right. They saw the Hossa deal and fired a shot across the bow, and then the NJD went over the top with the Kovy deal so the NHL finally acted.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I find it neither odd nor stupid. Its frustrating, as a fan, but I find it exactly in line with the NHL’s previous seemingly inconsistent actions, and I can fully understand the NHL’s potential reasoning. First of all, the CBA isn’t clear on what circumvention is, and never will be – it has to be written something loosely to give the NHL the chance to examine scenarios that couldn’t be predicted (though, in hindsight, this seems like a relatively obvious loophole). So, they are going to be very fine lines between what’s considered “circumvention” that, to an outside observer, will seem random, unpredictable and even stupid. The only ways to remove that randomness is to either (1) agree in the CBA to specifics or (2) have the line drawn by a neutral third-party.
As for what the NHL’s reasoning for rejecting this contract is, suggesting the NHL has some internal “line” of a $1.1 M “savings”, is a bit hard to believe. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this will ever get to an arbitrator – if the Devils are allowed to redraw, they most likely will and take the additional cap hit.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
I’d love to see this go to an arbitrator just because it will shed some light on the boundaries and specifics of the CBA rule. The burdens and presumptions are going to be a huge issue at the arbitration hearing and I’d love to know what they are.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Totally agree. Though the reality is that the CBA is extended through 2011-12…so next summer’s FA is the last chance for this type of contract shenanigans, so it not likely to make a big difference. Totally guessing, but there’s maybe 5 players who would get a contract of this type in next year’s FA class? And how many of those are actually UFAs (who are usually older and the length of the contract is more likely to extend to “retirement”)? Seems like a big waste of NHL time to me, unless they are trying to make a point to the NHLPA.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
You’re right as far as practical importance regarding the upcoming UFAs. The parties might modify the rules in the next CBA but I’m curious how far the NHL’s authority goes to void contracts. I know they have the right to approve them, but is that plenary? There’s got to be some standard they have to meet to void a contract, and I’d like to see that.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
OMG that would be some heckuva legal fight. I dont know the labor relations rules that might apply, but I can imagine it would get super messy. That would be like sports business porn.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
Agreed. And if this does go to arbitration the result is going to provide another battleground for the next CBA. Even if it doesn’t go to arbitration the two sides could very well see the potential for conflict and make it a battle just so they have a little more certainty going into a future arbitration. The NHL sets rules of procedure and evidence for salary arbitration hearings, but has basically nothing regarding voided-contract arbitration hearings.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Is this really something the NHLPA is going to include as a battleground issue?
With player compensation being fixed as a percentage of league revenues, the Kovalchuk contract really does nothing for player revenues except give a paycut of about 1% to each of the players earning league minimum. The days of a Gretzky contract setting the standard and raising everyone else’s income are gone. Now, the size of the pie is set and for the players, it is about who gets a bigger slice.
Considering league min players have so many more votes than the star players, I imagine that the NHLPA will want to prevent these types of contracts in the next CBA, not include them.
I’m not talking about the contracts, I’m talking about the NHL’s ability to void contracts. The CBA is very vague regarding the NHL’s ability to void, so the NHLPA may want more certainty. Is the NHL’s authority plenary? Do they get to void the Kovalchuk deal and make the NJD/NHLPA prove that it wasn’t an attempt to circumvent the cap? That doesn’t seem right. So the NHL probably has some burden to “prove” circumvention, but now we have to talk about what the standard of proof is. Then you get to the issue of what evidence is admissible. Can the NHL simply say “almost nobody plays until 44, and certainly not the highly skilled forwards”? That’s purely circumstantial, but completely logical. The NHLPA is going to want “smoking gun” proof, but the NHL is going to reject that standard. The whole situation is unclear and that’s the potential battle I am talking about.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
From my reading of the CBA, a purely circumstantial argument would be sufficient:
26.13(b)
The System Arbitrator may find a Circumvention has occurred based on direct or circumstantial evidence, including without limitation, evidence that an SPC or any provision of an SPC cannot reasonably be explained in the absence of conduct prohibited by this Article 26. The investigation and findings of the Investigator pursuant to Section 26.10 shall be fully admissible in any proceeding before the System Arbitrator under this Section 26.13.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that explicitly allows circumstantial evidence so basically the Devils would have to offer a reasonable explanation for signing a 27 year old for 17 years. Tough sell.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
“We think his style of play will lend himself to having a long term career. Later in his career we feel he could still be effective as a powerplay-specialist”
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 21, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Easier said than proven. The guy that lasted late into his 30s as a PP specialist was Shanny, and he’s a much more rugged player than Kovy.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
There’s also Gonchar, who’s getting $5.5M to be a PP specialist… at least, based on the playoffs, where he was a pretty shoddy defenseman.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but D routinely play into later years than forwards. It’s a different PP specialist, though Kovy does play the point a lot.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
That was mostly a snarky remark… Gonch will also only be 39 when his contract is up, when Kovy is 39 he won’t even be into his really cheap years yet…
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty certain the burden of proof is on the NHL here.
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 21, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, but it’s not nearly that simple. What standard does the NHL satisfy? They aren’t going to be under the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard; they are probably something closer to a preponderance of the evidence standard which isn’t all that high. If the NHL says “we warned the league with the Hossa deal, the Kovalchuk deal went even further, and considering the fact that fewer than 1% of NHL players play at age 44 and there are 6 years at the league minimum we think it’s an attempt at circumvention.” Depending on the standard that might or might not satisfy the NHL’s burden, and the standard for NJD’s rebuttal is also unclear.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I’m not talking about the contracts, I’m talking about the NHL’s ability to void contracts. The CBA is very vague regarding the NHL’s ability to void, so the NHLPA may want more certainty
I can see that being an issue – good point.
I find it neither odd nor stupid. Its frustrating, as a fan, but I find it exactly in line with the NHL’s previous seemingly inconsistent actions, and I can fully understand the NHL’s potential reasoning.
That’s the whole stupid and odd part.
I get that there’s bound to be gray area, but when Zetterberg’s contract was signed it wasn’t gray at all. the Wings were using a loophole to circumvent the cap. They should have put their foot down then. The NHL has now drawn their line well past where gray area stops and the rule breaking begins.
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 21, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you on that – but then the NHL would likely have had to stand up and defend its actions in some sort of legal proceedings, perhaps opening up all sorts of labor-contract issues. And the NHL definitely doesnt want to have to do that, so it seems like it waited to the very last second it could.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
which opens itself up to even more labor-contract issues, since they’ve blurred the line so much by letting these contracts go until now.
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jul 21, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Chronologically, the contracts got more extreme as time went on, and the league’s responses got proportionally stronger with them. I can’t find Bettman’s quotes on the Lecavalier, Franzen, and Zetterberg signings, but they were clearly negative, and he advised other teams against signing similar deals. Then came the Pronger and Hossa deals, and the league investigated those to see if they were circumventing the CBA.
I don’t blame Lou or Kovalchuk for trying to push the envelope further, but there’s no way they can be surprised by the league’s reaction.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised, but given that the league was making noise then how hard would it have been to throw someone on this and release a memo that said, precisely, what they considered the line to be.
This just smells like a government agency releasing a new regulatory guideline (think something like “pollute less”) and refusing to detail at all what less signifies. Then being completely befuddled when people don’t stop polluting enough.
Or, put another way:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2000/10/11/
This just smells like a government agency releasing a new regulatory guideline (think something like "pollute less") and refusing to detail at all what less signifies. Then being completely befuddled when people don’t stop polluting enough.
I don’t get this analogy. People knew the league was getting more and more suspicious with each mega contract, so it’s not like this is out of the blue. Sure the Hossa or Luongo deals look fishy, but the Kovalchuk contract blows it out of the water. Everyone who wasn’t a Devils fan not only predicted this, but wanted it to happen because it took ridiculous to a whole different level. No team will ever again, under this CBA try to sign a contract like Kovy’s.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
It’s certainly worse than the aforementioned contracts, but only mariginally so. I really have zero problem with them drawing a line — what I don’t quite understand is why it’s okay for the league to communicate rules in smoke signals. If Hossa and Luongo set the line, how hard is it for Bettman to fire off a memo saying “This is the line, if you cross it, we’re going to kill your dog.” It’s the same principle of how they handle player discipline and it’s absolutely bush league.
My complaints, again, have nothing to do with whether this should be a viable contract — frankly, I’d probably support NBA style max-terms on contracts just to prevent stupid GMs from Islandering their fanbase. This complaint is 100% why is it so damn hard for someone in the league office to communicate the rules?
And, for the record, I’m an Oilers fan so I don’t really have a dog in this race since nobody is ever going to sign for 17 years in Edmonton.
what I don’t quite understand is why it’s okay for the league to communicate rules in smoke signals.
I think you’ve got some unrealistic expectations. In a situation like this where’s the so much on the line and so many different scenarios (I’m talking all player contracts), I don’t think it’d be a good idea to have hard and fast rules that can never be broken. There are a myriad of circumstances that could arise that would make a contract that violates the letter of the law still a reasonable one. The NHL front office can’t predict everything to a tee, so they’d like to leave open the idea of which contracts are bad and which are good. That sort of flexibility has to be there, in my opinion.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Why wouldn’t it be a good idea? We know exactly what the league doesn’t like now, ~95% of the value occuring in eleven years of a seventeen year contract. Let’s construct a rule that includes Hossa, but excludes Kovalchuk:
A SPC may not be signed for a duration exceeding fifteen years or until a player’s 41st birthday, whichever duration is longer. Salary must be paid in such a way that less than 95% of total dollars are paid during the first two-thirds of the contract duration (measured in seasons, rounded down.) Contracts seven years or less in duration are excluded from this clause. The League reserves the right to declare cap circumvention even should contracts abide this rule. Your mileage may vary. Offer not valid in Tennessee.
That rule exempts Hossa, but hits Kovalchuk (even excluding the 15 year clause.) It’s fairly simple and not even remotely restrictive. The next Crosby is free to sign a lifetime deal. Frankly, it’s far too permissive, but that’s what the NHL has allowed and they could’ve saved a day or two of negotiations and awkward conversations by simply writing it down.
Inserting anything in to the CBA would take ages, not a day or two
The league can’t arbitrarily insert language in to the CBA – it has to be negotiated with the NHLPA and that would be a much lengthier process than using a clause that already exists (as shown above).
Perhaps the NHL should have foreseen this coming in advance, but as was shown in the article, only 9 contracts like this have been signed in 6 years, so with this isn’t a huge and pervasive problem that they should have spent much time on considering the dramatic changes they were implementing last round of negotiations.
Of all the questions we’ll probably never have answered, why the NHL decided to attack this contract, this year, might be the most interesting one. Was there really something specific that made this deal go from “stinky” to actual “circumventing” in its mind? Was it to prevent the flood of last-year-before-new-CBA-talks for next year’s FAs? Was it just a power play to feel out where the NHLPA leadership is for the next CBA discussions? Was it something as conspiratorial as Lou Lemonjello trying to sabotage his own owner?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
Another hypothesis – it could be the fact that Kovalchuk was a relatively easy target and you wouldn’t get as much push back in the North American media.
If they stepped in during last season, I think they would have had to go against Luongo. The year before, they would have had to go against Lecavalier. I think both of those players, especially at the time of their deals, are a lot more popular amongst fans, and the media than Kovalchuk. Now that they’ve established the precedent against him, they don’t have to have the first battle against someone very popular.
Now that’s my kinda conspiracy. Heck, if that’s true, the NHL should have written the press release in Comic Sans for the full effect.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
Look at the length of suspensions for various players – there are definitely multiple rule books in place in this league.
That said, I think it’s more of a perfect storm for Kovalchuk than anything else:
- unpopular player
- extreme deal
- follows on the heels of the one-hour LeBron special where there is popular sentiment against “greedy” athletes
- shortly before the next CBA
- no permanent head of the NHLPA
- next year’s free agents have some big names (Chara, Thornton, Richards, Semin, Vokoun, and Carter)
- it’s the Devils, so the local base doesn’t really matter (not a big market like Toronto, not a “sexy” market like LA, not a near bankrupt team, and not a market that seems to fluctuate a lot)
No data to back up those statements, just spitballing.
I would agree with most of these – but the Lebron thing and the unpopular player thing I dont see. The NHL got more press for the Kovalchuk thing than it would have otherwise gotten in an offseason, and the League could have seen that as positive. I dont know where Kovalchuk’s rep for unpopularity comes from.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
My point on the unpopular and LeBron thing is that the NHL would be painted as the good guy in this case, which may not necessarily have been true under other circumstances – a more popular player in a year without the LeBron sweepstakes and we probably don’t see these types of headlines:
Sports Illustrated: “Ilya Kovalchuk and the Devils tried to drive a Brinks truck through a CBA loophole”
CBS Sports: “With labor talks ahead, envelope-pushing Kovalchuk deal forced NHL to act”
Yahoo Sports: “After eye rolling, Lamoriello defends Kovalchuk contract”
Washington Post: “NHL fights back in contract battle by rejecting Ilya Kovalchuk deal with Devils”
In all of these headlines, Kovalchuk is essentially painted as the bad person in this deal (the worst statement against the NHL is that they fought back, which still implicates Kovalchuk as the instigator.
(these are the top screen of results for a google US news search on “Kovalchuk” – there are two others, but one says the NHLPA will issue a statement and the other says the Kings may be back in the hunt, so neither is really relevant to who is the good guy / who is the bad guy)
by Bourque77 on Jul 22, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Didnt realize the headlines we so negative. It would be mildly interesting to see if they would have been different in non-Lebron year, and in a non-crappy-economy year. But Im also not someone who believes that Kovalchuk’s signing doesnt matter to anyone but hockey fans. This maybe just another tactic the NHL is employing in the upcoming public relations war.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
I think it’s mostly just because of when this contract happened, not what’s in it. These deals happened more and more frequently after the Lightning started it, right up until they stopped. I think that’s when the league let all the teams know that they wouldn’t stand for any contract shenanigans.
I also think that 40 is a soft line in the sand for the league. The common theme between the Hossa, Pronger, and Luongo deals is that they take their players past 40. None of the other ones do—except for the Kovalchuk one, of course.
This isn’t me suggesting inserting anything into the CBA. The league feels it has the power to void this contract, it has executed that power and now faces a fight with the NHLPA.
I’m suggesting the league should’ve announced guidance on how it planned to apply the power after the Hossa contract stink. The worst possible outcome of this path is exactly what we see today: the NHLPA would disagree and we’d see a fight over the power. The difference is, we’d have gone into this year’s FA period with a reasonably clear picture of what the league could and could not do.
This isn’t me suggesting inserting anything into the CBA. The league feels it has the power to void this contract, it has executed that power and now faces a fight with the NHLPA … I’m suggesting the league should’ve announced guidance on how it planned to apply the power after the Hossa contract stink.
I don’t see how what you’re saying is any different than the NHL claiming that it would re-negotiate the CBA.
the fight the NHL is picking is much easier to win than the one you suggest.
Here, the NHL has to prove that the Kovalchuk contract is voidable – that’s it, nothing more.
With what you suggest, the NHL would have to prove that all permutations of contracts that fall outside the scope of their chosen definition are voidable. That’s an incredible hard battle to fight and win and presents limited upside in the case of victory (they would have prevented 1 contract from being signed).
I find it strange that you think the NHL can assert that one contract is voidable due to an ill-defined power in the CBA and win that fight without defining that power.
I’m not sure we know exactly what the league doesn’t like about this contract.
And when you start applying strict rules that aren’t supposed to be violated to the negotiation process for NHL contracts, there are plenty of lawyers who bring up examples or instances where these rules would appear to create some injustice. I agree that more explicit language would be nice, but this is a complicated issue.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Still not sure why Pronger keeps getting mentioned as a comparable. Sure, his current cap hit is much lower than his salary, but the Flyers will make that up in later years. As a 35+ deal, they don’t get out of the last few years of cap pain even if he retires.
All the other deals will result in team’s taking a smaller cap hit than they’re paying in salary over the life of the deal. Pronger’s won’t, and in fact will likely end up being more (since if he retires they’ll be taking a cap hit despite paying him nothing). That just seems like cap management, not circumvention.
(Of course, I still think the Flyers were trying to do a cheater deal and just misread the CBA, but that doesn’t really matter…)
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Jul 21, 2010 10:11 AM EDT reply actions
when pronger wants to retire, he will get traded to a team near the salary floor, and he will then retire with them.
If that were to happen, I would hope Philly has to forefeit some good assets (prospects, 1st rounders) in the deal. It’s still going to cost them.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Jul 21, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
And by the time Pronger retires PHI might actually have prospects and/or first rounders to trade, though I wouldn’t be on them having a 2nd round pick.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Jul 21, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
why would it? the NHL salary floor is higher than the NHL salary cap was 5 years ago. if you don’t think a team at the salary floor wouldn’t LOVE to have a guy like pronger eating up cap space for them, you might not be aware of just how much teams like atlanta and florida are losing every year. those teams would trade assets for such a contract.
They’d trade assets for nothing? Maybe they’d trade one of their own bad contracts for it, but they wouldn’t trade anything that’s actually worth money to them.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
They are trading to raise their cap without spending any actual cash. Keep in mind, late in the deal you’re taking a $5M cap hit, but only paying out $500,000. If you’re a cash strapped team, that can help you get to the salary floor without having to actually pay out the full amount of cash necessary to get to the floor.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Or just moderately overpaying for a player that’s still near his prime. To use this year’s examples, why would you trade for a decrepit Pronger to take on a 4.9 cap hit when you could just overpay for Michalek and get him to sign 4.9. He’ll be much closer to living up to that cap hit.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Well in that particular case, the team that takes on Pronger only receives the cap hit – they don’t have to pay actual salary out because he’s either a) retired or b) making 500k per year.
Exactly. A broke owner would have $4.4M or so reasons to sign Pronger over Michalek.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, that has zero value league wide. If you’re trading assets…. WHICH ARE WORTH MONEY, then you are losing MORE money by trading them for a worthless asset like a retired/geriatric Pronger.
Pronger at 42 likely has close to negative value when you consider the cap hit.
And until we see one of these floor teams trade for a player like Pronger (there have been others) I won’t believe it will happen.
The best case scenario for Philly: waive Pronger, some team like that picks him up. A trade would involve Philly losing assets to compensate for the negative value, just like the Malakhov trade to SJ.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Jul 22, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the point is that the “value” in Pronger’s contract is that a team gets closer to the cap floor without paying more cash. So you wouldn’t need the same dowry that Malakhov carried because there is independent value; he’s not simply a salary dump that will hurt the target team.
But I do agree with you, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I see the idea here, but apparently Sheldon Souray wasn’t worth anything, so i don’t know how much even a much more floor-friendly contract would be worth (though probably something.)
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Tyler Ennis: Freed from Portland!
But Souray is owed a lot of money in real salary, unlike the Pronger hypothetical.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
While that’s true, he could have saved a floor team $900k per season for two seasons. The Oilers tried to give the “asset” (a $1.8M disparity in cap and cash over two years) away, and there were no takers. The Pronger case is just a more extreme version.
by Scott Reynolds on Jul 23, 2010 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting. Hadn’t thought of that.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Jul 21, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right. I only mention it as a comparable because the Flyers didn’t actually know it was a 35+ contract when they signed it. (They thought the clause meant 35+ at the time you signed the contract, not 35+ on July 1st of the season the contract kicks in.) They wanted it to be a loophole contract.
What makes Kovalchuk’s contract different is that you can carve off the last 6 years of the contract, and nothing materially changes. 97% of the total contract is earned by the end of the 11th year. The extra 6 years do not serve any purpose other than to deflate the cap hit.
So basically you have a 11 year $98.5MM contract with a $9MM cap hit masquerading as a 17 year $102MM contract with a $6MM cap hit. The manipulation is just so much more blatant and material than the previous contracts. If Ilya can tag 6 empty years to a legitimate contract to bring the cap hit down, what’s stopping people from tagging on 10 empty years? Or 20?
That and the salary floor is $525K in 2011-2012. What do you imagine it will be in 17 years? $550K will probably be 1/3 of the salary floor. Ilya’s contract essentially commits to paying him a salary that won’t be permitted by the league over a period of 6 years. It’s a shame contract.
Good points, but the reality is that none of this really matters. The CBA is up in 2 years – there’s only one more FA summer left. All of this will be shut down in the next CBA. If the NHL wanted to make a point, without having to actually make a clear argument to the world to prohibit a few annoying contracts next year, it probably accomplished that. The Devils and Kovalchuk will redraft, flatten the salary curve a bit with a few more bucks toward the end, and the hard questions will never be answered.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
That and the salary floor is $525K in 2011-2012. What do you imagine it will be in 17 years? $550K will probably be 1/3 of the salary floor. Ilya’s contract essentially commits to paying him a salary that won’t be permitted by the league over a period of 6 years. It’s a shame contract.
If I’m the NHL, this is the red flag to me. Given that the league minimum salary has never decreased, and in fact has increased 350% over the last decade, its comical to presume that the last 5 years of the contract will comply with the minimum salary requirements 12 years from now.
To me, that’s where the Devils took this from Hossa’s contract which deserves a response along the lines of “you’re really pushing it, knock this garbage off” to Kovalchuk’s which gets a response of “you’re not even trying to make this look legit.”
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
If you are a top tiered player, are you not trying to get your 30 year contract/extension next year before the loophole is closed?
I think the NHL was trying to avoid a total gong show by putting an end to this as quickly as possible. If Ilya’s contract was kosher, than so is every other contract with X amount of empty years tagged to the back end. Without some clear guidance from the league, I would have totally expected Mickey Mouse BS next year.
you’re probably right. deal. From the UFAs, you basically have Joe Thornton, Alex Semin, and Andrei Markov. The other big name UFAs are all in early-to-mid 30s, so would not likely get super-long deals, or would fall under the 35+ rule. The RFAs, on the other hand, are huge – Stamkos, Doughty, Weber, Parise just to start.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
How are agents paid?
We all know that agents are the ones advising players for most of these deals – does anyone know how they structure their commissions? Typically, I think agents get x% of the dollars the player earns. However, with the clawback and everything that is included in the NHL CBA, do agents usually get a percentage of what the player signed for, what his after clawback compensation was, or something else?
I think the agents will be a key driver behind any NHLPA response, so I’m wondering where there incentives lie.
The agents get a percentage (usually 1%) of what the player actual receives in compensation before taxes. Thus, if the player loses 10% of his salary to escrow, the agent loses 10% of his fee.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
by iwearstripes on Jul 21, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Food for thought.
Has any NHL player ever signed a contract that would pay him $25,000 over the league minimum for 5 years? I have no idea where to find that information, but my guess would be no. That alone is suspicious.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
