Speculation: NJ Appeal?

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

I agree that the league should have came down on these types of contracts a lot earlier than they did. But guys that Kovy contract was GOD awful. It was really really bad.



http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2010/09/devils_fined_3_million_lose_tw.html

Again, to reiterate, the league warned Lou. It's like a copy pulling you over when you're going 90 mph in a 45 and saying "buddy, please, don't want to ruin your life here with this ticket. slow down." Then you turn around and go 90 mph RIGHT in front of the cop.

It was a SEVENTEEN year deal. The cap hit would have been less than 6. It was awful and Lou should have backed off after he was warned. The punishment was warranted, quite frankly, and the Devils are lucky they didn't get charged multiple first round picks.

No, it's not fair that other teams got away with similar deals. But understand the climate of the league during that time (talk of the new CBA doing away with these deals), the warning, and how much MORE ridiculous this contract was than any other in the NHL.

The league warned Lou, we all know that. What does make any sense is the following 2 points...

1- The league warned Lou about what exactly? Where did it say in the CBA you couldn't go over "X" number of years on a single contract? DiPietro got a 15 year deal years ago and no one said a word outside of "Wang's a idiot".

2- Why did the league have their heads in the sand when a handfull of players signed smililar deals with the same objective? What's that all about?

To use your analogy, wouldn't you be pissed if there's 7 cars in front of you going 150 and you're the only one to get a ticket since you're the last car of the pack?

At the end of the day, the blame is on no one else but Lou. He had the opportunity of a lifetime by giving Bettman the middle finger with our 29th overall pick and it's about to blow up in his face if something isn't done to solidify our team.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Kovy's fault - he wanted the 2 extra years to make it the magic number 17 that broke the back.

Had they filed the revised contract for 15 years originally it would have gone through like the others.

Great point . Which was kind of a big slap in the face to the league. "Does this guy even intend on playing this out? He just wants 17 because it matches his jersey? Are you serious?"

The fact of the matter is that this entire situation sucks. I'm pissed off we lost the pick, pissed off other people got similar deals through, and pissed off we ended up losing Kovy after this entire mess.

It doesn't change the fact we deserved a punishment. We can argue the severity until the cows come home but I'm more inclined to agree with the league here. As much as it pains me.

 

[Holtz My Bahls]

I also have a very hard time believing that Lou knew exactly what was going to happen but did it anyway. Seems like a total load of **** that he would just give the middle finger to the league and re-submit the contract. There has to be more to the story, because certain details make absolutely no sense.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

Great point . Which was kind of a big slap in the face to the league. "Does this guy even intend on playing this out? He just wants 17 because it matches his jersey? Are you serious?"

The fact of the matter is that this entire situation sucks. I'm pissed off we lost the pick, pissed off other people got similar deals through, and pissed off we ended up losing Kovy after this entire mess.

It doesn't change the fact we deserved a punishment. We can argue the severity until the cows come home but I'm more inclined to agree with the league here. As much as it pains me.

Who's to say that IK didn't have any intentions on playing out his entire contract. Did Bettman call Miss Cleo to find out his true intentions? I can name several players who played over the age of 40, so I just don't get it.

The number of years was illegal how? Was there anything in the old CBA that written black on white "you can't offer a deal for more then 15 years", like there is in today's CBA?

Making up rules on the fly is nothing short of a joke and Bettman could've warned us 24/7, if it ain't in the rule book, then shut your ****ing mouth and live with the consenquences of your poor judgement when negotiating with the NHLPA and that's that.

 

[Just Win]

Alfredsson has admitted more or less that the Sens circumvented the cap with his last contract year.

Luongo (a pure butterfly goaltender) has a contract until he is 43 years old. In order to play that style until such a high age, he will probably have a couple of hip replacements by then.

Pronger is done. The Flyers even admit it. But somehow they are still allowed to put him on LTIR each season. How is that not circumventing the cap?

And yet we are the only team ever punished for circumventing the spirt of the cap. And instead of giving us a slap on the wrist for a contract we never benefitted from, they cut off an entire arm while doing nothing to everyone else who actually benefitted or still does benefit from those type of contracts.

I really hope Lou will fight this, even if it is just to show what a damn bunch of hypocrites Bettman and Co are.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

The league warned Lou, we all know that. What does make any sense is the following 2 points...

1- The league warned Lou about what exactly? Where did it say in the CBA you couldn't go over "X" number of years on a single contract? DiPietro got a 15 year deal years ago and no one said a word outside of "Wang's a idiot".

CBA negotiations were taking place when we were negotiating with Kovy. How much sense does it make to sign Kovy to this deal when the league is trying to remove these kinds of deals in the future. Remember, you can't retroactively (legally) suspend these contracts. The league clearly didn't want it. Unfortunately, as unfair as it seems, Lou should have listened.

2- Why did the league have their heads in the sand when a handfull of players signed smililar deals with the same objective? What's that all about?

Because at the time it was ok. Then it wasn't. Unfair, sure, but such is life.

To use your analogy, wouldn't you be pissed if there's 7 cars in front of you going 150 and you're the only one to get a ticket since you're the last car of the pack?

At the end of the day, the blame is on no one else but Lou. He had the opportunity of a lifetime by giving Bettman the middle finger with our 29th overall pick and it's about to blow up in his face if something isn't done to solidify our team.

Happens every day. You have no idea how many friends/family ask me this all the time. "Is it legal for a cop to pull me over and ignore the people driving faster?" Or, my favorite, "we were all at the party and I was the only one the cops detained. Everyone else got away. How is that fair?"

It's just life. It's the way the law works. It's upsetting, yes, and I'm upset. But the Devils were the last car ticketed and 29 other cars got away. We should have taken that warning more seriously. Rather Lou should have.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Who's to say that IK didn't have any intentions on playing out his entire contract. Did Bettman call Miss Cleo to find out his true intentions? I can name several players who played over the age of 40, so I just don't get it.

The number of years was illegal how? Was there anything in the old CBA that written black on white "you can't offer a deal for more then 15 years", like there is in today's CBA?

Making up rules on the fly is nothing short of a joke and Bettman could've warned us 24/7, if it ain't in the rule book, then shut your ****ing mouth and live with the consenquences of your poor judgement when negotiating with the NHLPA and that's that.

The rule was there. It was vague and it wasn't specific to what the Devils did, but a rule was there and it was broken. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Unfortunately there's very little that can be said to defend that.

Again. The league as a whole reached a point where they wanted these contracts gone. For obvious reasons. The league was negotiating to eradicate these deals under the new CBA. While this was going on, Lou pulled this stunt. That isn't exactly "good faith" negotiation.

 

[Just Win]

Because at the time it was ok. Then it wasn't. Unfair, sure, but such is life.

All those contracts were signed under the same CBA. Either something is allowed or it is not allowed. This has nothing to to with fair or unfair, it is simply abuse of power by the league and purely arbitrary. This ruling would have no legs in public court.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

All those contracts were signed under the same CBA. Either something is allowed or it is not allowed. This has nothing to to with fair or unfair, it is simply abuse of power by the league and purely arbitrary. This ruling would have no legs in public court.

No it isn't. Selective enforcement of the law isn't an abuse of power. It's exactly that - selective enforcement of the law. Cops do it all the time. Believe it or not sometimes it's ok to speed and other times it's not. Sometimes a cop will let you go 5 or 10 MPH under instructions from his precinct.

If you and I have a business relationship. Let's say you sell me lemons and I make lemonade. We sign a contract which says you exclusively sell me lemons. You're not allowed to sell anyone else lemons.

I notice that, hey, these lemons are the best lemons in the world. My customers all agree. I overcharge for my lemonade and make a ton of money. You get the same fee for your lemons as anyone else. You're upset. I recognize the injustice in all of this and we enter negotiations to rectify the problem. You ask me not to order any more lemons from your lemon farm even though we're still technically under contract.

I turn around and order a million lemons, which I'm entitled to do under this contract and which I pay for, while we're negotiating a new one.

Would you be inclined to say "**** you" and let the contract expire and just not negotiate with me? Or do you continue negotiating because "oh well, you were doing that under the old agreement and it was fair anyway?"

How about if you see the order and you then warn me. "Hey, please, don't do this. Why are you doing this? We're negotiating here. You know this isn't fair."

And then I say "**** you" and do it anyway?

Kovy's contract pissed off the league, the union, and anyone with any interest in labor peace. It was just bad timing all around.

 

[Holtz My Bahls]

Let's not forget that they came up with the severity of the penalty out of thin air too.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Let's not forget that they came up with the severity of the penalty out of thin air too.

Wouldn't be the first time though. They came up with Scott Stevens as compensation for Shanny out of thin air too. I mean, it was requested by Lou, but there really wasn't precedent.

Sometimes you need to establish precedent. (NFL's Bounty situation etc...). It happens. It sucks but it happens. We were the subject of their precedent.

 

[The Devil In I]

Dear ****ing lord. All these traffic enforcement analogies, none of them work. Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for cops to catch everyone that is speeding, pull them over, and ticket them.

The league does not have to chase down GMs and pull them over, unable to pull over anyone else while they're dealing with that one GM.

The leagues job is to ensure an even playing field for all teams. Letting most teams get away with circumvention, and then arbitrarily choosing to curb stomp another team that circumvents the cap (AND THEN making an agreement to not reject any other contracts as long as they can stomp the **** out of the Devils!) is absolute horse ****.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Dear ****ing lord. All these traffic law analogies, none of them work. Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for cops to catch everyone that is speeding, pull them over, and ticket them.

The league does not have to chase down GMs and pull them over, unable to pull over anyone else while they're dealing with that one GM.

The leagues job is to ensure an even playing field for all teams. Letting most teams get away with circumvention, and then arbitrarily choosing to curb stomp another team that circumvents the cap (AND THEN making an agreement to not reject any other contracts as long as they can stomp the **** out of the Devils!) is absolute horse ****.

That's a fair point. And if the league did that under the climate where everyone was signing these deals I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the Devils did this during labor negotiations, during a time where the league was trying to remove these deals period. Which is why they warned the Devils. Because Kovy signing this deal was clearly against the CBA that was being negotiated.

Poor analogies aside, it sucks that we were the guinea pigs. It does. And it sucks that we were the ones that were punished. But it's not as black and white as comparing the Kovy deal to other deals because it's not the same thing. It's just not. No matter how much you try and look at it in a vacuum it wasn't negotiated in a vacuum. It was negotiated during a very unfortunate and unlucky time for us and for Lou.

 

[Just Win]

Wouldn't be the first time though. They came up with Scott Stevens as compensation for Shanny out of thin air too. I mean, it was requested by Lou, but there really wasn't precedent.

Sometimes you need to establish precedent. (NFL's Bounty situation etc...). It happens. It sucks but it happens. We were the subject of their precedent.

There also never was a team signing two RFA's in consecutive offseasons to such big contracts. Shanny was worth numberous 1st rounders (i think 5 first rounders or something crazy like that back then) as compensation which the Blues didn't have since they already did give away all their 1st as compensation for Stevens the previous offseason. Stevens was simply the closest thing worth the compensation. Awarding him as compensation was actually the most logical choice. Nothing in the Kovalsuck ruling had to do wih logic.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

CBA negotiations were taking place when we were negotiating with Kovy. How much sense does it make to sign Kovy to this deal when the league is trying to remove these kinds of deals in the future. Remember, you can't retroactively (legally) suspend these contracts. The league clearly didn't want it. Unfortunately, as unfair as it seems, Lou should have listened.

You basically proved what everyone here is saying in a single quote/sentence... It wasn't "illegal" at the time and if Bettman was working to modify that loophole, then that's his problem but at the time, there was no rules saying otherwise.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

There also never was a team signing two RFA's in consecutive offseasons to such big contracts. Shanny was worth numberous 1st rounders (i think 5 first rounders or something crazy like that back then) as compensation which the Blues didn't have since they already did give away all their 1st as compensation for Stevens the previous offseason. Stevens was simply the closest thing worth the compensation. Awarding him as compensation was actually the most logical choice. Nothing in the Kovalsuck ruling had to do wih logic.

I disagree on the lack of logic though. I think when you have situations where there is no precedent the ruling is subject to heavy criticism (Stevens, Kovy). I'm sure the Blues think losing Stevens was absolute, total BS too.

We were on the right side of one and the wrong side of the other.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

You basically proved what everyone here is saying in a single quote/sentence... It wasn't "illegal" at the time and if Bettman was working to modify that loophole, then that's his problem but at the time, there was no rules saying otherwise.

No it's not just "his problem." It's the league's problem. It wasn't only Bettman trying to rid these contracts from the league. It was the owners too. The owners were sick and tired of these deals more so than Bettman.

Technically the specific act wasn't illegal. However, the "spirit of the contract" violated a vague, inconspicuous rule that the league warned Lou they would use if he kept trying to force the issue.

Look it sucks. It does. But you need to protect the interests of the league before you protect the interests and fairness of the Devils. They were trying to prevent a lockout (which they failed in doing). Those contracts were a big sticking point in negotiations. The players loved them, the owners hated them.

 

[mugs]

The league warned Lou, we all know that. What does make any sense is the following 2 points...

1- The league warned Lou about what exactly? Where did it say in the CBA you couldn't go over "X" number of years on a single contract? DiPietro got a 15 year deal years ago and no one said a word outside of "Wang's a idiot".

2- Why did the league have their heads in the sand when a handfull of players signed smililar deals with the same objective? What's that all about?

To use your analogy, wouldn't you be pissed if there's 7 cars in front of you going 150 and you're the only one to get a ticket since you're the last car of the pack?

At the end of the day, the blame is on no one else but Lou. He had the opportunity of a lifetime by giving Bettman the middle finger with our 29th overall pick and it's about to blow up in his face if something isn't done to solidify our team.

If you're bringing up Rick DiPietro, you don't even understand what cap circumvention is.

There is no question we tried to circumvent the cap. The only thing we can really complain about is that the punishment was harsh compared to all of the other teams who weren't punished at all.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

No it's not just "his problem." It's the league's problem. It wasn't only Bettman trying to rid these contracts from the league. It was the owners too. The owners were sick and tired of these deals more so than Bettman.

Technically the specific act wasn't illegal. However, the "spirit of the contract" violated a vague, inconspicuous rule that the league warned Lou they would use if he kept trying to force the issue.

Look it sucks. It does. But you need to protect the interests of the league before you protect the interests and fairness of the Devils. They were trying to prevent a lockout (which they failed in doing). Those contracts were a big sticking point in negotiations. The players loved them, the owners hated them.

I don't care if it was Bettman, the owners, the guy selling hot dogs or the ****ing CIA who didn't want any part of those deals. At the end of the day, when you're working under a certain CBA, those are the rules from day #1 until the CBA expires, nothing more and nothing less.

You don't hand out a rulling with the notion that the rules are about to change when the ruling you're going with haven't even been determined, let alone approved.

What kind of logic is that? That's something you'd see from your girlfriend, not a ****ing business.

 

[Just Win]

You basically proved what everyone here is saying in a single quote/sentence... It wasn't "illegal" at the time and if Bettman was working to modify that loophole, then that's his problem but at the time, there was no rules saying otherwise.

And using that warning the league did send out as argument, doesn't work either. It was still the same CBA. If they would have changed the CBA when they did send out the warning, it would be a different situation, but since they didn't, that warning means nothing.

 

[Just Win]

I disagree on the lack of logic though. I think when you have situations where there is no precedent the ruling is subject to heavy criticism (Stevens, Kovy). I'm sure the Blues think losing Stevens was absolute, total BS too.

We were on the right side of one and the wrong side of the other.

There was no precedent to the Kovalchuk contract? The league had no problem allowing similar contracts to Hossa or Luongo.

It was the league's fault for not closing that loophole in the CBA, not ours.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

If you're bringing up Rick DiPietro, you don't even understand what cap circumvention is.

There is no question we tried to circumvent the cap. The only thing we can really complain about is that the punishment was harsh compared to all of the other teams who weren't punished at all.

I brought up DiPietro cause someone else brought up the fact that we gave IK too many years, wich is why we got screwed, since the 15 year deal got approved.

What I understand is that you're coming out of left field with a bogus response. You should stay on the main board, that seems more like your type of croud.

 

[Richer's Ghost]

If you're bringing up Rick DiPietro, you don't even understand what cap circumvention is.

There is no question we tried to circumvent the cap. The only thing we can really complain about is that the punishment was harsh compared to all of the other teams who weren't punished at all.

which is why the arbitrator stated otherwise even though ruling in favor of the league?

 

[Jossipov]

Honest question, but was there ever a reason given for not forfeiting that 29th?

I mean someone in the media had to have asked Lou that question at some point and maybe I missed it.

 

[SeidoN]

Honest question, but was there ever a reason given for not forfeiting that 29th?

I mean someone in the media had to have asked Lou that question at some point and maybe I missed it.

possible theories

- a 2 year developed player in 2014 is better than a freshly drafted guy
- Lou had no intention of being a sucky team, we still had Zach and Kovy
- forfeiting 29th means you dont have the nuts to say you can win a Cup
- we really liked someone who we thought might drop