Speculation: NJ Appeal?

[Nemec]

he overslept and missed the fax deadline.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

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.

It's either option A or B...

A) "Status quo"

B) "When you have time on your hands, you use it"

What does that all mean according to our GM, no one knows but Lou. What does it mean from a fans perspective is that's it's a brutal call that will cost us big time.

 

[Holtz My Bahls]

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

Seriously though Lou should've realized the potential of Parise bailing and who knows how long Lou knew about Kovy and his intentions. (I think it was right after the lockout)

 

[Just Win]

he overslept and missed the fax deadline.

Fax? Are you crazy? We don't have such modern equipment.

The pigeon carrier simply did fly the wrong route.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

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

But he didn't. It was a fancy "no comment."

"Nothing in this Opinion should be read as suggesting that either the Club or Mr. Kovalchuk operated in bad faith or on the basis of any assumption other than that the SPC was fully compliant with the CBA."

"Please don't take my decision as a comment that the Devils or anyone did something wrong."

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

Fax? Are you crazy? We don't have such modern equipment.

The pigeon carrier simply did fly the wrong route.

He probably fed his pigeon a **** load of bird seeds and told him to fly above Bettman's property. The pigeon didn't have the force to come back "home" cause he crapped his life and Lou spent the entire day looking for him.

That's the reason why we missed the deadline.
E4

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

But he didn't. It was a fancy "no comment."

So no comment = no ruling, no?

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

So no comment = no ruling, no?

That's not the way the law works. Even in arbitration. One side has a burden. The League's burden wasn't to prove that the Devils intended on circumventing the cap. It was, in essence, to simply prove that they did in fact circumvent the cap.

So you could be found in violation of that bogus rule regardless of your intent to circumvent.

 

[NJDevs26]

Honestly some of Lou's bs like Mogilny/Malakhov, and this phony baloney Sal injury is the reason why the rest of the league wanted to jail us on this. We joke about Loupholes but don't think that wasn't a factor in this selective witch hunt. Lou's not getting out of it.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

That's not the way the law works. Even in arbitration. One side has a burden. The League's burden wasn't to prove that the Devils intended on circumventing the cap. It was, in essence, to simply prove that they did in fact circumvent the cap.

So you could be found in violation of that bogus rule regardless of your intent to circumvent.

And to this day, I still don't know what that proof was that league based their decision upon.

Was it the lenght of the deal, the notion that IK wasn't going to play until he was 44, the drop in money at the end of his contract... what was it?

- If it was the lenght of the deal, there was no rule at the time about handing out a one or 20 year deal.
- If it was the notion that IK wouldn't play until he was 44, where did they get their crystal ball and how much was it cause I want one as well.
- Would you pay a 43 year old player 6.6M$ per? Of course not and that's why there was a dip in money at the back end of that deal and since there wasn't a rule at the time, they took "advantage" of it.

Taking advantage of rule that isn't there is perfectly "ok" cause you're not breaking any law.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

And to this day, I still don't know what that proof was that league based their decision upon.

Was it the lenght of the deal, the notion that IK wasn't going to play until he was 44, the drop in money at the end of his contract... what was it?

- If it was the lenght of the deal, there was no rule at the time about handing out a one or 20 year deal.
- If it was the notion that IK wouldn't play until he was 44, where did they get their crystal ball and how much was it cause I want one as well.
- Would you pay a 43 year old player 6.6M$ per? Of course not and that's why there was a dip in money at the back end of that deal and since there wasn't a rule at the time, they took "advantage" of it.

Taking advantage of rule that isn't there is perfectly "ok" cause you're not breaking any law.

If you want verbatim the quoted portion of the rule and violation I can't give you that because it doesn't exist. You're absolutely right.

I worked in depth for about a month with community policies. By community I mean corporations, universities, businesses etc... All of these places hand out rule books which have an all encompassing rule. You obviously can't legislate everything, but you protect yourself in case someone finds a "Louphole."

So if you work at a corporation or go to a university check your rule book - you'll see "if a person does something that can be perceived against the mission of this university/corporation or against the spirit of these rules."

Is it fair? Rarely ever is. These all encompassing rules suck and will always go to arbitration and then court. But sometimes the big guy wins and sometimes the little guy wins. Lou just didn't fight it.

 

[Holtz My Bahls]

If you want verbatim the quoted portion of the rule and violation I can't give you that because it doesn't exist. You're absolutely right.

I worked in depth for about a month with community policies. By community I mean corporations, universities, businesses etc... All of these places hand out rule books which have an all encompassing rule. You obviously can't legislate everything, but you protect yourself in case someone finds a "Louphole."

So if you work at a corporation or go to a university check your rule book - you'll see "if a person does something that can be perceived against the mission of this university/corporation or against the spirit of these rules."

Is it fair? Rarely ever is. These all encompassing rules suck and will always go to arbitration and then court. But sometimes the big guy wins and sometimes the little guy wins. Lou just didn't fight it.

yet.

 

[Uli Hiemer]

Honestly some of Lou's bs like Mogilny/Malakhov, and this phony baloney Sal injury is the reason why the rest of the league wanted to jail us on this. We joke about Loupholes but don't think that wasn't a factor in this selective witch hunt. Lou's not getting out of it.

yup, i've come accustomed to the ********.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Honestly I wonder if it's even possible to appeal at this point. I haven't read the old CBA in its entirety. I read the NBA and MLB CBAs as a part of a seminar. I know with MLB you have X amount of days to appeal. Did Lou forego the appeal?

 

[Mory Schneideur*]

So far out now, but, a team may be willing to overpay for:

Jagr, Ryder, Zidlicky, Salvador

Is rather keep the first three. Sal can go.

 

[None Shall Pass]

Honestly I wonder if it's even possible to appeal at this point. I haven't read the old CBA in its entirety. I read the NBA and MLB CBAs as a part of a seminar. I know with MLB you have X amount of days to appeal. Did Lou forego the appeal?

I'm going to guess there isn't a "hard" deadline, for a few reasons:

1. The penalty wasn't defined under the CBA. It was chosen randomly.
2. The period of penalization isn't over yet. As we still haven't forfeited the pick yet. Technically, we have to, but literally, it isn't forfeited yet.
3. There was not anything to appeal. The contract was denied, new different contract approved, and penalty applied. Arbitrator said no one acted in bad faith. Both sides agreed.

So either he can still appeal or there's legally nothing to appeal. Not enough public details available.

 

[Mory Schneideur*]

They should just let us keep the pick. There's so many shenanigans that go on in this league, the Team didn't really do anything blatantly wrong, it was very grey. Give it back or convert it to a 2nd or something.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

I'm going to guess there isn't a "hard" deadline, for a few reasons:

1. The penalty wasn't defined under the CBA. It was chosen randomly.
2. The period of penalization isn't over yet. As we still haven't forfeited the pick yet. Technically, we have to, but literally, it isn't forfeited yet.
3. There was not anything to appeal. The contract was denied, new different contract approved, and penalty applied. Arbitrator said no one acted in bad faith. Both sides agreed.

So either he can still appeal or there's legally nothing to appeal. Not enough public details available.

Well the issues we explored were Bounty Gate (NFL) and the JDA/Steroids (MLB). In one you have instances of no precedent and no systematic process and in the other you have a system of limited precedent and a very systematic process. In the NFL's case, there were no set time limits to notify the league of an appeal, so players filed lawsuits. It forced the NFL to enter the entire situation into arbitration.

In MLB, you have strong deadlines across the board. Appeal in X days, first hearing in X days, last day to present evidence X days from that.

Like I said above, the rule that the Devils were disciplined under is an all-encompassing, global rule. It allows for the league to discipline a team for violating rules they forgot to include in the CBA basically.

Now, I'm positive the NHL has an arbitration process to deal with disputes. Is it formal? Is it informal? If it's formal the deadline is gone. If it's informal the Devils will have to do what the Saints and Saints players did - sue the league.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Is rather keep the first three. Sal can go.

why would you keep any of them at the deadline if we're out of it?

 

[Colin226]

I'm going to guess there isn't a "hard" deadline, for a few reasons:

1. The penalty wasn't defined under the CBA. It was chosen randomly.
2. The period of penalization isn't over yet. As we still haven't forfeited the pick yet. Technically, we have to, but literally, it isn't forfeited yet.
3. There was not anything to appeal. The contract was denied, new different contract approved, and penalty applied. Arbitrator said no one acted in bad faith. Both sides agreed.

So either he can still appeal or there's legally nothing to appeal. Not enough public details available.

There is a bit of a discrepancy here on this.. I thought the same thing as you, but in a thread in the Business of Hockey section on here people were telling me that the pick is just gone, it no longer exists and there are essentially only 29 first-round picks this next year.. I haven't actually seen or heard a reliable source acknowledge this, but they seemed adamant about it over there

If we haven't yet automatically lost that pick, then I brought up a scenario wondering if it would be possible for Lou to swap a 1-10 pick for the first-round pick of a team in, say, the conference finals (as well as for other picks either this year or next).. Then we forfeit that 1st round pick, but still get something out of it in the additional picks the other team gave us in order to move up.. This also gives that other team a lower pick, so it's win-win

Is the ruling that we must forfeit our pick? All I recall it saying was we had to forfeit a 1st in one of the next 4 years.. I realize that you could argue we automatically lose our pick this year because it's the final year of that penalty, but then what would have stopped us in previous years? Why would the League be so strict as to it needing to be our specific pick? And if this trade scenario is legal, could this be what Lou is waiting for?

 

[TaiMaiShu]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1520027


Here's my thread in the business forum. Not much new info though but yes, it has to be our first.

 

[Colin226]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1520027


Here's my thread in the business forum. Not much new info though but yes, it has to be our first.

Right I remember the thread, but again, it's a bunch of people saying it has to be our first with no one (to my knowledge) actually citing the ruling or even someone in the media to confirm.. Are you saying that, if in any of these years we swapped first-round picks with another team, than it automatically would have voided our ability to forfeit our pick for that year? Just seems unreasonable that we have to forfeit our specific first and it hinders us from making moves in the process (albeit a small likelihood we would have made a move involving swapped firsts)

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

Right I remember the thread, but again, it's a bunch of people saying it has to be our first with no one (to my knowledge) actually citing the ruling or even someone in the media to confirm.. Are you saying that, if in any of these years we swapped first-round picks with another team, than it automatically would have voided our ability to forfeit our pick for that year? Just seems unreasonable that we have to forfeit our specific first and it hinders us from making moves in the process (albeit a small likelihood we would have made a move involving swapped firsts)

I'm going to hunt down the old CBA and the decision and really read it again. If it's another semantics issue subject to a "Louphole" I wouldn't bother considering it. Lou won't risk pissing the league off again. Might cost us Gelinas

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

It has to be our pick. Pretty sure thats been proven many times before.

 

[Colin226]

I'm going to hunt down the old CBA and the decision and really read it again. If it's another semantics issue subject to a "Louphole" I wouldn't bother considering it. Lou won't risk pissing the league off again. Might cost us Gelinas

"New Jersey must now forfeit Schneider, Gelinas, Merrill, their next 5 first-round picks, Dinosaur BBQ, the big metal statue outside the Rock, utlilize Bryzgalov in net for more than 80% of games, and fans may no longer use escalators in the arena."

Nooooooo