Devils 1st round draft pick forfeiture

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Related, I'm curious to see what happens with Pronger and the Flyers.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...ever_going_to_play_again___team_confirms.html

The GM openly admitted he's never going to play again. Yet... he's on LTIR.

I was ok dealing with the nudge nudge, wink wink that is his LTIR status. But now Holmgrem openly admitted this. The Devils, whether you believe them or not, always denied they circumvented the cap. Holmgrem is openly admitting he is.

If nothing is done to Philly, I'll be furious. 35+ contract no less.

Sigh.

C&P from the main board thread ...

kdb209 said:
If the team comes out and says Pronger isn't ever going to play again, then why should he be allowed to stay on the LTIR?

How many times must it be said in this thread ...

Because no where in the CBA does it say that a player who has a career ending injury is not eligible for LTIR for the remainder of his existing contract.

There is no explicit or implicit requirement in the CBA that a player on LTIR be "expected" to return.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
I think that it is also pretty clear that the Devils were ok with shedding the rest of Kovy's deal. They can hardly argue for restitution based on something that was actually in their own best interests.

As to the Alfredsson case, I personally think the NHL would have had a pretty strong case for circumvention but decided that they would not pursue further action with respect to any deal signed prior to the new CBA.

They weren't able to pursue it because Alfredsson actually played, so they didn't end up circumventing anything despite their attempt to.
 

Fish on The Sand

Untouchable
Feb 28, 2002
60,203
1,904
Canada
Taking the 1st round pick was overly punitive by the league

The idea was to send a message so nobody would be stupid enough to try it again. I for one feel the Devils were let off easy. I would have made the fine count against their cap space and suspended Lou for an entire season. They got off easy if you ask me.
 

Colin226

NJ Devils STH
Jan 14, 2011
6,933
2,218
Central NJ
Just curious but what would be stopping the Devils from, lets say, trading the pick (if it's top 10) to one of the teams in a conference final and then forfeiting the later 1st round pick? Could probably get somewhat of a decent return for a high draft pick.. I've heard some people say the pick is automatically gone because it's the final year when they had to forfeit one, which I've never actually seen or read from any legit hockey writer, but technically why couldn't this kind of move have been done in previous years? Let's say in year 1 the Devils traded picks with Boston in May during the conference final for a prospect and a 2nd round pick.. So they'd have moved to draft position #30 after Boston won.. Why couldn't they then go "okay we forfeit our 1st round pick" and then have gotten some return out of it? I never saw anything saying they had to forfeit the 1st round pick that they were originally given, just that it had to be a 1st
 

Doan Jidion*

Guest
There's no pick for them to trade. It doesn't exist. You're not trading the right to a pick that will ultimately be forfeited. There's just not a pick.

ETA: As for it having to be theirs, I take it that it's a similar principle to RFA compensation, where you can't tender an offer sheet with the understanding that despite having sent away your own second-round pick already, you'll rustle up a draft pick from someone else and send them that.
 

Gardner McKay

RIP, Jimmy.
Jun 27, 2007
25,417
13,804
SoutheastOfDisorder
I hope the NHL reinstates their pick especially with Kovy leaving.

If the pick is re-instated it should be the last pick in the 1st round. :laugh:

Just curious but what would be stopping the Devils from, lets say, trading the pick (if it's top 10) to one of the teams in a conference final and then forfeiting the later 1st round pick? Could probably get somewhat of a decent return for a high draft pick.. I've heard some people say the pick is automatically gone because it's the final year when they had to forfeit one, which I've never actually seen or read from any legit hockey writer, but technically why couldn't this kind of move have been done in previous years? Let's say in year 1 the Devils traded picks with Boston in May during the conference final for a prospect and a 2nd round pick.. So they'd have moved to draft position #30 after Boston won.. Why couldn't they then go "okay we forfeit our 1st round pick" and then have gotten some return out of it? I never saw anything saying they had to forfeit the 1st round pick that they were originally given, just that it had to be a 1st

As others have said, any trade involving the Devils pick will most likely be vetoed and it has to be their pick.
 

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,097
12,757
Illinois
At the risk of comparing apples and oranges, folks saying that the Devils should get their pick back because Kovy jumped ship makes about as much sense as if someone said that a speeding ticket should be ripped up if the car that you sped in was later stolen from you.

Getting kicked in the teeth down the road doesn't negate the original infraction.
 

njdevil26

I hate avocados
Dec 13, 2006
13,770
5,077
Clark, NJ
Circumvention includes the attempt and/or intent to circumvent. It was enough that they made a significant effort to circumvent

Devils fans agree the contract was ridiculous. The problem we have is that many teams have gotten away with their own form of circumvention beforehand and the league decided to come down on the Devils... and no other team since. Something that everyone needs to remember is that the Devils did not violate any written rules. Bettman and Daly maintained that the Devils violated the "spirit" of the salary cap.

Since then, the contracts of Brad Richards, Zach Parise, and Ryan Suter could be considered as a "spirit" violation as well.

Parise and Suter:
Year 1: $2 million base salary + $10 million signing bonus = $12 million
Year 2: $2 million base salary + $10 million signing bonus = $12 million
Year 3: $6 million base + $5 million signing bonus = $11 million
Years 4-8: $9 million base
Year 9: $8 million base
Year 10: $6 million base
Year 11: $2 million base
Years 12-13: $1 million base


Richards:
2011-12 season: $12 million ($10 million signing bonus, $2 million salary)
2012-13 season: $12 million ($8 million signing bonus, $4 million salary)
2013-14 salary: $9 million
2014-15 salary: $8.5 million
2015-16 salary: $8.5 million
2016-17 salary: $7 million
2017-18 salary: $1 million

2018-19 salary: $1 million
2019-20 salary: $1 million

These contracts do the exact same thing that the Kovalchuk one did but using huge signing bonuses in the beginning and steep drop-offs in the end.

This whole thing was personal from the beginning. Bettman told Lou to hold off on the press conference and Lou went ahead and had one anyone probably trying to make the League look dumb if they decided to reject the deal.

Oh yeah how about Shea Weber's deal? This was created by the Flyers awesome management team:
2012-13 $1,000,000 $13,000,000
2013-14 $1,000,000 $13,000,000
2014-15 $1,000,000 $13,000,000
2015-16 $1,000,000 $13,000,000
2016-17 $4,000,000 $8,000,000
2017-18 $4,000,000 $8,000,000
2018-19 $6,000,000
2019-20 $6,000,000
2020-21 $6,000,000
2021-22 $6,000,000
2022-23 $3,000,000
2023-24 $1,000,000
2024-25 $1,000,000
2025-26 $1,000,000


Then the Flyers/Pronger deal. I personally don't think you should be allowed to announce that a player is never going to play again... at the same time hiding a cap circumventing deal that is also a 35+ contract on LTIR so management can make other horrible signings.

Basically the argument for us Devil fans is that we got hosed by the league AND the player... and other teams have been allowed to put out comical contracts and make ridiculous moves and not have anyone think twice about it.
 

njdevil26

I hate avocados
Dec 13, 2006
13,770
5,077
Clark, NJ
The only way the Devils will have a first round pick this year is if they don't get their **** together and become a seller at the deadline. They can snag a late 20s pick for a team looking to add Jagr.

To add something else. I am so tired of hearing everyone bash Lou for not giving up the 29th pick. At the time, the team just went to the finals AND at the time of the draft had Parise, Kovalchuk, and Clarkson still on the team. Parise had given an indication to the Devils that he was staying as well which is well documented before the Suter thing happened. Lou also tried to sign Suter who was adamant about NOT coming East.

How is Lou supposed to know three star players would disappear? If I'm him... I'm thinking what's the point in ditching the pick? The Devils are going to be picking in the 20s the following year anyway. Parise was supposed to stay, Kovalchuk was not supposed spend half the season in Russia and then come back, suck, and dislocate his shoulder before bolting back to Russia... Clarkson was acting like he'd do Lou's laundry and wash his car if he wanted him to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,097
12,757
Illinois
Well, I think that it's more of a matter of recognizing that, regardless of other factors, the odds of them ending up with a worse first round draft pick than 29th was prohibitively low. Worst case scenario, they gave up 29th, went on to win the Stanley Cup, and ended up with a 30th pick overall, meaning that they kept one pick that was slightly worse.

Odds all indicated that by keeping 29, they were forfeiting a pick likely in the lower 20s, if not upper teens, even if all went well. That can be judged in hindsight, as just about everyone was questioning their decision as it was happening, well before it seemed like they could be a lottery pick team.
 

PensBandwagonerNo272*

Forgot About Sid
Sep 10, 2012
12,530
9
I would think that the only way the Devils get back their 1st is if there is a unanimous vote in favor of by all team owners.

And no, I don't see that happening.
 

JVR21

Registered User
Jan 27, 2010
9,053
335
Then the Flyers/Pronger deal. I personally don't think you should be allowed to announce that a player is never going to play again... at the same time hiding a cap circumventing deal that is also a 35+ contract on LTIR so management can make other horrible signings.

He's never going to play again because of a serious injury...
 

tmg

Registered User
Jul 10, 2003
2,734
1,250
Ottawa
Well, I think that it's more of a matter of recognizing that, regardless of other factors, the odds of them ending up with a worse first round draft pick than 29th was prohibitively low. Worst case scenario, they gave up 29th, went on to win the Stanley Cup, and ended up with a 30th pick overall, meaning that they kept one pick that was slightly worse.

Odds all indicated that by keeping 29, they were forfeiting a pick likely in the lower 20s, if not upper teens, even if all went well. That can be judged in hindsight, as just about everyone was questioning their decision as it was happening, well before it seemed like they could be a lottery pick team.

And the prevailing logic is that, barring an outlandishly talent-laden year like 2003, a pick today is worth more than an equivalent-numeric pick the following year. Most teams wouldn't trade their 29 this year for a guaranteed #20 next year - beyond the top 15 the pick valuations become so scattershot that getting a little earlier in the draft doesn't offset the fact that you're getting the new player into your system one year later than if you had used the earlier year's pick. Most GM jobs have a finite duration (LL being an exceptional case) - a pick that doesn't get to the bigs before your GMship ends is a pick you'll wish had come earlier to be able to help you keep your job by helping your team succeed sooner.
 

Doan Jidion*

Guest
The Weber contract is just as awful as the Kovalchuk contract, if not worse, and if the Flyers had signed him to it in unrestricted free agency, I'm sure they'd have been charged with cap circumvention. However, because Nashville could only match the terms of the deal as per the CBA, they certainly couldn't be hit with circumvention charges.

I also suspect Nashville could have given him the contract in unrestricted free agency without penalty, but shh.
 

njdevil26

I hate avocados
Dec 13, 2006
13,770
5,077
Clark, NJ
The Weber contract is just as awful as the Kovalchuk contract, if not worse, and if the Flyers had signed him to it in unrestricted free agency, I'm sure they'd have been charged with cap circumvention. However, because Nashville could only match the terms of the deal as per the CBA, they certainly couldn't be hit with circumvention charges.

I also suspect Nashville could have given him the contract in unrestricted free agency without penalty, but shh.

The NHL could have blocked the offer sheet. I'm sure they get to take a look before it's submitted.
 

njdevil26

I hate avocados
Dec 13, 2006
13,770
5,077
Clark, NJ
I would think that the only way the Devils get back their 1st is if there is a unanimous vote in favor of by all team owners.

And no, I don't see that happening.

Then I hope the league puts that up to a vote. It will sure get voted down which is fine. But then I'd like to see the individual GM's explanations for voting it down. That would be a comedy show.
 

Betamax*

Guest
Then I hope the league puts that up to a vote. It will sure get voted down which is fine. But then I'd like to see the individual GM's explanations for voting it down. That would be a comedy show.

Well, it's pretty simple ... with NJD having their 1st round draft pick taken away, it effectively gives the 29 other teams a competitive advantage over them. Teams generally don't like to help other teams out unless they can yield some sort of utility in return.
 

Kane One

Moderator
Feb 6, 2010
43,101
10,625
Brooklyn, New NY
njdevils26, why are you bringing up those contracts after Kovalchuk? After the Kovalchuk fiasco, they made the "Kovalchuk rule," which allowed that drop-off.
 

The Devil In I

Registered User
Jun 28, 2005
4,179
1,121
Chicago
I don't think the penalty should be reversed (though I would like it to be)...but I do think it'd be fair enough to extend the time frame they have to forfeit it over another year or so. The "1 out of the next 4 years" part of it was to give them time to prepare for when they would like to forfeit it. Lou was going for the last year, seemingly, because of the logic that the earlier first 3 round picks would be ready for the NHL sooner than the one from the 4th year.

But by using that logic, they got screwed at the worst possible point. There's no way to prepare for your best player just deciding to leave. It's the decision of 1 player completely handicapping a team.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
So did many other teams. That's what everyone is forgetting here.

Nobody is forgetting that and yes I agree these other teams should have been punished too.

The Devils just pushed the limits and the NHL decided this is enough, time to make an example. I guarantee if they gave kovy the same term/structure as the hossa deal they wouldn't have been punished.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
I don't think the penalty should be reversed (though I would like it to be)...but I do think it'd be fair enough to extend the time frame they have to forfeit it over another year or so. The "1 out of the next 4 years" part of it was to give them time to prepare for when they would like to forfeit it. Lou was going for the last year, seemingly, because of the logic that the earlier first 3 round picks would be ready for the NHL sooner than the one from the 4th year.

But by using that logic, they got screwed at the worst possible point. There's no way to prepare for your best player just deciding to leave. It's the decision of 1 player completely handicapping a team.

Well maybe Lou shouldn't have bet the farm on a single horse.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->