UPDATE PT.2: Kovalchuk (NHL VOIDS CONTRACT W/NJ)

[cprice12]

And for those who swear up and down that the Blues have never made a FA splash by getting a player in their prime at top dollar, they did. His name was Brendan Shanahan. And the league took a major shit on them for doing it too (remember Scott Stevens, anyone?).

Actually, that's not what I've been saying at all.
I've said more than a few times that "THE BLUES HAVE NEVER SIGNED A UFA COMING FROM ANOTHER TEAM IN HIS PRIME."

Shanahan wasn't a UFA. He was restricted, which is why we lost Stevens...which was my whole point. Signing RFA's and trading for players costs you organizational depth. The best way to get over the hump without damaging the future, is by signing an elite UFA.

Just sayin'.

[Blue Chicago]

So, how does the Hossa contract get through last year but not this one?

[Ruutu15]

I dusted off the good ole' '05 CBA. From page 221,

*SPC=Standard Player Contract

Accounting for New SPCs in Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary. For any newly executed SPC agreed to between a Club and a Player, the Averaged Amount of Player Salary and Bonuses provided for in such SPC shall commence counting against a Club's Averaged Club Salary upon the approval and registration of the SPC with the League. For purposes of determining a Club's Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, a rejected or de-registered SPC shall be treated in accordance with Article 11 of this Agreement.

Article 11...

If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected: (A) because it results in the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does not comply wit h the Maximum Player Salary or (C) because it is or involves a Circumvent ion of either the Club's Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, and:

(Edited for quote spacing, and added article section 11.6, subsection a, subsubsection i, p 42. Also, bolded key parts.)

The NHL has the option of rejecting contracts.

Everyone knows the NHL has the power to reject a contract if it doesn't fit within the CBA. However, I have a strong suspicion that the arbitrator will side with New Jersey in this one, as they should.

Let me first say that I don't like the contract any more than anyone else does. That said, the NHL AGREED to this CBA with the loophole intact (an obvious oversight). They should have made the calculations for the salary cap different. Like I said before, no matter the system, good GM's will find a way to stretch the boundaries. Under the current CBA, New Jersey is not putting themselves over the cap. New Jersey has not offered a player more than the maximum. I honestly don't see what they've done wrong. They've taken a CBA that the NHL has agreed to and have worked within the stated rules, albeit with assistance of a loophole. People may not like it, but the loophole is and has been open to be exploited. There's nothing in the CBA that specifically states that a team cannot do this.

The NHL also investigated Hossa's deal and threatened the Blackhawks with a loss of draft picks. We all saw how well their argument worked that time, and it will be the same outcome with this one.

[Winning Unlimited]

Can you imagine Kovalchuk signing with anyone else now? If he signs in LA, he'll be at a press conference, saying it was his first choice.

[WaukeeBlues]

I dusted off the good ole' '05 CBA. From page 221,

*SPC=Standard Player Contract

Accounting for New SPCs in Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary. For any newly executed SPC agreed to between a Club and a Player, the Averaged Amount of Player Salary and Bonuses provided for in such SPC shall commence counting against a Club's Averaged Club Salary upon the approval and registration of the SPC with the League. For purposes of determining a Club's Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, a rejected or de-registered SPC shall be treated in accordance with Article 11 of this Agreement.

Article 11...

If an SPC or an Offer Sheet is rejected: (A) because it results in the signing Club exceeding the Upper Limit, or (B) because it does not comply wit h the Maximum Player Salary or (C) because it is or involves a Circumvent ion of either the Club's Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, and:

(Edited for quote spacing, and added article section 11.6, subsection a, subsubsection i, p 42. Also, bolded key parts.)

The NHL has the option of rejecting contracts.

Everyone knows the NHL has the power to reject a contract if it doesn't fit within the CBA. However, I have a strong suspicion that the arbitrator will side with New Jersey in this one, as they should.

Let me first say that I don't like the contract any more than anyone else does. That said, the NHL AGREED to this CBA with the loophole intact (an obvious oversight). They should have made the calculations for the salary cap different. Like I said before, no matter the system, good GM's will find a way to stretch the boundaries. Under the current CBA, New Jersey is not putting themselves over the cap. New Jersey has not offered a player more than the maximum. I honestly don't see what they've done wrong. They've taken a CBA that the NHL has agreed to and have worked within the stated rules, albeit with assistance of a loophole. People may not like it, but the loophole is and has been open to be exploited. There's nothing in the CBA that specifically states that a team cannot do this.

The NHL also investigated Hossa's deal and threatened the Blackhawks with a loss of draft picks. We all saw how well their argument worked that time, and it will be the same outcome with this one.

My problem is, if you let this contract stand- where does it end? The answer is that it doesn't. Now, you can sign a 30 year old to a 20 year contract with the last ten years being minimum and the other ten being $12 million? That's circumvention of the salary cap and Kovy's isn't much different.

At least with Hossa, his max salary during his contract was within $2 to $3 million of the cap hit. Kovalchuk? It's not even CLOSE! He's making, for a large part of his contract twice what the cap hit is. This isn't a minor circumvention of the cap, this is a MAJOR circumvention by having a contract that nobody expects him to actually play through and which was only structured SOLELY to bring the cap hit down.

Of the other players that have signed these CBA loophole deals, this is the only where: 1) There is no feasible possibility of the player actually playing through the whole contract and 2) There is a staggering difference in the max salary for the player and the cap hit.

The NHL has to draw the line somewhere and if this deal is allowed, than anything is. I understand the NHL reaped what they sowed on the CBA, but this deal is a mockery and doesn't have the slightest pretense of good faith.

[JWatt (formerly PMS)]

And for those who swear up and down that the Blues have never made a FA splash by getting a player in their prime at top dollar, they did. His name was Brendan Shanahan. And the league took a major shit on them for doing it too (remember Scott Stevens, anyone?).

Actually, that's not what I've been saying at all.
I've said more than a few times that "THE BLUES HAVE NEVER SIGNED A UFA COMING FROM ANOTHER TEAM IN HIS PRIME."

Shanahan wasn't a UFA. He was restricted, which is why we lost Stevens...which was my whole point. Signing RFA's and trading for players costs you organizational depth. The best way to get over the hump without damaging the future, is by signing an elite UFA.

Just sayin'.

Well, first of all, until 2005, you could NEVER sign a UFA in his prime. Players didn't hit UFA until 31. By then they were over the hill and bound to be overpaid and not live up to their contract. Since then, can you honestly say that any top UFA in his prime (Hossa, Kovalchuk, Bouwmeester, Gaborik, Chara) would want to play for the Blues? Those were the only premier UFAs that became available in their prime. Why overspend for mediocrity?

[philco_3]

Maybe the Blues can get back in the race for Kovy...

[WaukeeBlues]

This guy is a selfish POS at this point as far as I'm concerned. The guy wants league maximum and won't stop until he gets it. Unfortunately, sooner or later, someone is going to offer it to him.

[Winning Unlimited]

Suppose the arbiter decides to reverse the salary per year. First five years, Kovy makes $550k. He'd make $11.5M from 38-42 years old. That'd get him to play until 44.

[cprice12]

And for those who swear up and down that the Blues have never made a FA splash by getting a player in their prime at top dollar, they did. His name was Brendan Shanahan. And the league took a major shit on them for doing it too (remember Scott Stevens, anyone?).

Actually, that's not what I've been saying at all.
I've said more than a few times that "THE BLUES HAVE NEVER SIGNED A UFA COMING FROM ANOTHER TEAM IN HIS PRIME."

Shanahan wasn't a UFA. He was restricted, which is why we lost Stevens...which was my whole point. Signing RFA's and trading for players costs you organizational depth. The best way to get over the hump without damaging the future, is by signing an elite UFA.

Just sayin'.

Well, first of all, until 2005, you could NEVER sign a UFA in his prime. Players didn't hit UFA until 31. By then they were over the hill and bound to be overpaid and not live up to their contract. Since then, can you honestly say that any top UFA in his prime (Hossa, Kovalchuk, Bouwmeester, Gaborik, Chara) would want to play for the Blues? Those were the only premier UFAs that became available in their prime. Why overspend for mediocrity?

31 isn't over the hill for a lot of elite players.
- Brett Hull scored 300 goals after he turned 31.
- When Chris Pronger was 31 he dominated and led Edmonton to the finals...and darn near won the cup singlehandedly.
Just sayin'...

And as far as we know, we never even offered contracts to those players you mentioned. My whole point is that you have to at least make an effort. Offer a fair contract and see what happens. If you don't even make an effort, isn't that the definition of not trying?
We desperately need an elite forward, it would have been nice to hear the Blues were at least interested in Kovy. Instead, we were told he wasn't the right player for us at this time. Which is a bunch of bull.
I'm not saying we should have signed him for 15 years at $120 million...it's not fair to demand your team make that extreme of a commitment. But if we would have offered him a 7 year deal for $56 million or so, I think that would have been fair and would have sent a nice message to the fans.
Were we interested in Hossa, Kovy, Bouwmeester, Gaborik, Chara?
Not as far as we know.

All I'm saying is, in general, maybe once every so often...make a serious effort to acquire a UFA when that UFA is the exact type of player we desperately need.

We've never gotten it done...ever.

[Winning Unlimited]

The Blues had to have some interest in Kovalchuk to determine that Kovy wasn't the right player for the team.

[DaDitka]

Were we interested in Hossa, Kovy, Bouwmeester, Gaborik, Chara?
Not as far as we know.

Well if you recall, in an interview last year JD claimed they took a hard run at Gaborik, but I find it quite interesting that we heard NOTHING about this until half way through last season.

[Winning Unlimited]

In a few years, the new hip thing to do in the NHL will be to play half-way through long term contracts, give cap relief with long term injury reserve, and then retire.

[Hallplante]

I posted in response to bad information (sound familiar?). Turns out that the arbitrator can only accept or reject the contract, nothing else. The arbitrator does not have authority to modify the contract or craft any compromise.

Suppose the arbiter decides to reverse the salary per year. First five years, Kovy makes $550k. He'd make $11.5M from 38-42 years old. That'd get him to play until 44.

[glen a richter]

It's simple really, you can sign a guy to whatever kind of retarded contract you want, BUT the salary cap hit for each year will be equal to the highest salary the player makes in any year during the course of that contract. So Kovy's highest pay-year would have been 11.5 mil, right? That becomes the cap hit for all 17 years regardless of whether he plays, retires, or anything else. AND if they trade him, they assume half of that cap hit for the duration of the contract.

The first part would deter any GM from doling out such a dumbass contract.

Also, any contracts that are deemed by an independent board to circumvent the salary cap in this way can be voided by the league.

Getting rid of this kind of loophole could cost us another season, but it might actually be worth it.

[Hallplante]

The simplest solution would be to have the salary cap figure equal the actual salary.

That would allow for yearly fluctuations to accommodate teams' budget interests. That would eliminate the incentive for front- or back-loaded contracts for the purpose of cap circumvention.

Easy to understand, administer and enforce.

[kodos]

I thought there was a maximum amount of money a player could make in a year? Is there?

[kodos]

The simplest solution would be to have the salary cap figure equal the actual salary.

That would allow for yearly fluctuations to accommodate teams' budget interests. That would eliminate the incentive for front- or back-loaded contracts for the purpose of cap circumvention.

Easy to understand, administer and enforce.

Couldn't they then sign a guy to one year at 25 million and four at 1 million per? Just tank the first year and then reap the rewards for the next 4?

[Hallplante]

Yes, as long as they can absorb a $25 million cap hit that first year, and that salary does not exceed the CBA mandated maximum salary. [Current maximum is about $11 million per year.]

Couldn't they then sign a guy to one year at 25 million and four at 1 million per? Just tank the first year and then reap the rewards for the next 4?

The simplest solution would be to have the salary cap figure equal the actual salary.

That would allow for yearly fluctuations to accommodate teams' budget interests. That would eliminate the incentive for front- or back-loaded contracts for the purpose of cap circumvention.

Easy to understand, administer and enforce.

[DaDitka]

I thought there was a maximum amount of money a player could make in a year? Is there?

20% of the cap. With a 59 mill cap (or more by then) 11.5 would be OK

The lockout was resolved when the NHLPA agreed to a hard salary cap based on league revenues, with the NHL implementing revenue sharing to allow for a higher cap figure. The NHL salary cap is formally titled the "Upper Limit of the Payroll Range" in the new CBA. For the 2005–06 NHL season, the salary cap was set at US$39 million per team, with a maximum of $7.8 million (20% of the team's cap) for a player.

Revenues for the six Canadian teams have all increased significantly since the lockout, and due to the fact the US dollar fell to relative parity with its Canadian counterpart, league-wide revenues measured in U.S. dollars have been inflated accordingly.

As a result of these factors, the cap has been raised each year to its current figure of $59.4 million for the 2009–10 season, with a cap of $11.88 million for a player. The CBA also contains a "Lower Limit of the Payroll Range", which is the minimum that each team must pay in player salaries. The lower limit was originally set at 55% of the cap, but is now defined to be $16 million below the cap, therefore the 2009–10 minimum is $43.4 million. The difference between the salary cap and a team's actual payroll is referred to as the team's "payroll room" or "cap room".

Each year of an NHL player contract, the salary earned contributes to the team's "cap hit". The basic cap hit of a contract for each year it is effective is the total money a player will earn in regular salary over the life of the contract divided by the number of years it is effective. This, in theory, prevents a team from paying a player different amounts each year in order to load his cap hit in years in which the team has more cap room. Teams still use this practice, however, for other reasons. Performance bonuses also count towards the cap, but there is a percentage a team is allowed to go over the cap in order to pay bonuses. A team must still factor in possible bonus payments, however, which could go over that percentage.