Hypothetical: the Devils win the draft lottery

[3 Minute Minor]

Let's also add that this cap punishment is a made up penalty.

There was no rule that said that if you do these type of contracts that you will be penalized a draft pick.

Many cap circumvention contracts have been made and none of them faced the threat of penalty.

None as silly as the 17 & 15 year deals offered to Kovalchuk by NJ

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

Ie, they skipped from #68 to #70. So if the Devils were to hypothetically be #8. The draft order would officially go from #7 to #9. Not sure why they just don't renumber, but that's just splitting hairs at that point.

So if the Devils won the lottery, then we would start at #2. So Sam Reinhart could be the first player taken in the draft but the record would say he went 2nd overall.

 

[KevinRedkey]

If they do win, this could technically make Stefan Matteau one of the worst 1st overall pick of all time

 

[Gnashville]

They had a chance for 3 prior years to avoid this. I still do not understand why the 29th pick was that valuable in 2012.

 

[Alklha]

I'm pretty sure the pick just doesn't exist. If it were in the lottery it would essentially compound to the team that finishes last.

e.g. Lets say Edmonton finishes last and has a 40 or whatever % chance at number 1. New Jersey finishes second last and has a 20% chance. If New Jersey wins, and is forced to forfeit their pick, Edmonton get the number 1 pick anyway. This gives them a total of a 60% chance of getting the number 1 pick.

This is unfair to all other teams so presumably the Devils pick will be treated as if it does not exist.

I would imagine that the League lawyers will tell them that the CBA dictates that the Devils should be included in the lottery. It lays down clear odds, and excluding the Devils manipulates those odds. The argument that the pick doesn't exist is wrong, the pick is being forfeited and what draft selection they forfeit should be determined the same way as any other year.

Would the worst team in the League benefit from the Devils inclusion? Yes. So would the team drafting second (they'd have the same chance of winning as any other year, but an increased chance of still picking second). And third. Etc.

 

[octopi]

They had a chance for 3 prior years to avoid this. I still do not understand why the 29th pick was that valuable in 2012.

Yeah, I'm with this.

Maybe they were hoping to contest the rule or thought they could keep contending and could use that pick as an asset. That's all I got.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

None as silly as the 17 & 15 year deals offered to Kovalchuk by NJ

DiPietro, IIRC, was the first player to receive a absurd deal and I don't remember Wang getting up the ass.

So what you're saying is that you can hand out 13 years, but you can't hand out 15? I'd love to see the fine print of the # of years you can sign a player and when I'll actually get that proof, I'll shut my yap about the matter and just agree with the decision.

I'm not talking about the current CBA but the one the Devils were penalised under.

 

[DEVILS ALL THE WAY*]

Yeah, I'm with this.

Maybe they were hoping to contest the rule or thought they could keep contending and could use that pick as an asset. That's all I got.

Lou screwed up BIG TIME when he made that braindead of a call. Now, we're looking at handing in a top #10 pick when we're in massive need of youth since our pipeline is bone dry outside of a couple promising blueliners (Gélinas, Merrill, Severson and Santini).

That should be a fireable offence right there but grand-pa Lou won't get canned, ever, and that's a shame cause he's been mediocre since the cap era.

 

[pld459666]

Such bs imo. They should give them back the 1st especially with Kovy leaving. No reasons an org should be punished twice.


P.S. This is coming from someone who hates the devils.

The league is not punishing them twice.

Kovy bolting back to Russia is not a league sanctioned punishment.

Blame the player for that BS move.

 

[pld459666]

DiPietro, IIRC, was the first player to receive a absurd deal and I don't remember Wang getting up the ass.

So what you're saying is that you can hand out 13 years, but you can't hand out 15? I'd love to see the fine print of the # of years you can sign a player and when I'll actually get that proof, I'll shut my yap about the matter and just agree with the decision.

I'm not talking about the current CBA but the one the Devils were penalised under.

DiPietro's deal did not have years on his contract to articicially reduce the cap hit.

Kovy's did.

THAT said, I think the punishment was a bit extreme. When you build in specific language such as Annual Average Value being tied to actual cap hits, average being the key word, then as a league you would have to have had expected a team to shred the envelope once someone pushed it.

Loungo deal pushed the envelope.

Marian Hossa pushed the envelope

Kovy's contract put the envelope in a shredder

Should the Devils have been punished for signing a contract that was within the scope of the CBA based on the specific language of AAV?

I don't think so.

 

[Faustus]

DiPietro, IIRC, was the first player to receive a absurd deal and I don't remember Wang getting up the ass.

So what you're saying is that you can hand out 13 years, but you can't hand out 15? I'd love to see the fine print of the # of years you can sign a player and when I'll actually get that proof, I'll shut my yap about the matter and just agree with the decision.

I'm not talking about the current CBA but the one the Devils were penalised under.

DiPietro's actual salary was $4.5 million for the entire contract. Completely different. The first Kovalchuk contract had him making $1 million/year for the final 7 years of the deal. Plus, Kovalchuk would have been 44 by the time that contract ended.


I don't know why you brought up DiPietro. His contact was horrendous, but it wasn't cap circumvention.

 

[Bjindaho]

I believe that NJ should lose a first as punishment (because they committed the offense). On the other hand, because of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the player they violated the CBA to get, I think the league should allow them to forfeit a 1st round pick (instead of theirs). The point of the lottery is competitive balance yet Jersey is going to be punished for trying to offer an illegal deal to a guy who bailed on the NHL and put Jersey in the lottery.

 

[Bjindaho]

DiPietro's deal did not have years on his contract to articicially reduce the cap hit.

Kovy's did.

THAT said, I think the punishment was a bit extreme. When you build in specific language such as Annual Average Value being tied to actual cap hits, average being the key word, then as a league you would have to have had expected a team to shred the envelope once someone pushed it.

Loungo deal pushed the envelope.

Marian Hossa pushed the envelope

Kovy's contract put the envelope in a shredder

Should the Devils have been punished for signing a contract that was within the scope of the CBA based on the specific language of AAV?

I don't think so.

The easy fix for this would have been to negotiate that any multi year deal that goes beyond 35 has a cap hit of the highest salaried season

 

[Alklha]

DiPietro, IIRC, was the first player to receive a absurd deal and I don't remember Wang getting up the ass.

So what you're saying is that you can hand out 13 years, but you can't hand out 15? I'd love to see the fine print of the # of years you can sign a player and when I'll actually get that proof, I'll shut my yap about the matter and just agree with the decision.

I'm not talking about the current CBA but the one the Devils were penalised under.

The idea that something has to be expressly written down to be against the rules is wrong. That is exactly why the CBA has rules written giving the NHL the right to reject any contract they want and for the NHLPA to be able to challenge if they do.

The Devils knew the contract would get rejected, the League had made clear statements to all teams (hence the Canucks working with the League to get the Luongo deal done). The Devils were just stupid enough to think that an independent arbitrator would think a 17 year contract, taking a player to 44 and paying him 3% of the contracts value in the last 6 years wasn't an attempt to circumvent the cap.

These catch-all clauses are there because there is an acceptance on both sides that they might not have thought of all possible ways to cheat the system.

 

[KevinRedkey]

People are complaining about this?

The Devils chose to draft Stefan Matteau instead of giving up that pick (29th overall). If they win the draft lottery and lose 1st overall because of it, it is their fault 100%.

 

[jimslob]

IIRC the Devils did try to forfiet the 29th pick but got the paperwork in a day late due to a misunderstanding on the deadline date.

Also, I believe the Devils submited the original contract to the League for review, were told it was cap circumvention and would be rejected.

They signed it anyway for some reason, possibly to force the NHL's hand,hence it was rejected and the penalty assesed.

BTW I am a Nucks fan and have no particular feelings about the Devils.

 

[SH15]

I hope they end up losing 1st overall. Looks good on them. Those back diving contracts are such a joke. Teams kept pushing further and further until it went too far. Plus selecting Matteau at 29 instead of passing with the arrogance that they could appeal their way out of it. Oh God let it be # 1 please.

EDIT: If ^^^ is right about the paperwork being a day late to forfeit 29 then I take back my arrogance comment. I've heard Lou was quite confident he could appeal his way out of this mess.

 

[friction]

The only fair way to do this mathematically is to give the Devils the correct percentage of the N number of combinations and to just do a redraw if one of their numbers is picked.

This keeps the odds the same for all teams above and below the Devils' pick.

 

[Brodeur]

IIRC the Devils did try to forfiet the 29th pick but got the paperwork in a day late due to a misunderstanding on the deadline date.

There was some confusion on the Devils' end about the deadline (24 hours vs 48 hours of the Cup conclusion), but they later came out and said that they had decided to keep the pick a few weeks beforehand.

Initially that felt like a bit of a PR spin, but they had been going through the usual motions during the playoffs and bringing in prospects for extra testing. In particular, Tom Wilson tweeted that he was in New Jersey for post-combine meetings with the Devils. I might have to check when Wilson tweeted that, but I thought it was at the point when the Devils knew they'd be picking #27-30.

Edit: Here's Tom Wilson's tweet from June 4: https://twitter.com/tom_wilso/status/209621664240123904

June 4th, the Devils were in LA for game 3. So they knew they'd be picking #29 or #30, but were still having their scouting staff in New Jersey bring in prospects for pre-draft stuff.

 

[Alklha]

The only fair way to do this mathematically is to give the Devils the correct percentage of the N number of combinations and to just do a redraw if one of their numbers is picked.

This keeps the odds the same for all teams above and below the Devils' pick.

That doesn't keep the odds the same at all.

There is no logical reason to exclude the Devils from the draft lottery. The pick will be marked down in draft history as forfeited, and it is correct that they should determine the position of the pick in the exact same way as any other year,

 

[Gnashville]

I would imagine that the League lawyers will tell them that the CBA dictates that the Devils should be included in the lottery. It lays down clear odds, and excluding the Devils manipulates those odds. The argument that the pick doesn't exist is wrong, the pick is being forfeited and what draft selection they forfeit should be determined the same way as any other year.

Would the worst team in the League benefit from the Devils inclusion? Yes. So would the team drafting second (they'd have the same chance of winning as any other year, but an increased chance of still picking second). And third. Etc.

Why not just give the 14th position? that way they are in the lottery and the odds are the same. Having the Devils in a top 5 position gives unfair odds to the team in the 1st position.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I hope they end up losing 1st overall. Looks good on them. Those back diving contracts are such a joke. Teams kept pushing further and further until it went too far. Plus selecting Matteau at 29 instead of passing with the arrogance that they could appeal their way out of it. Oh God let it be # 1 please.

EDIT: If ^^^ is right about the paperwork being a day late to forfeit 29 then I take back my arrogance comment. I've heard Lou was quite confident he could appeal his way out of this mess.

Being late merely shows another form of incompetence in the process. Once handed the punishment they should have known every facet of the ruling.

Nobody excused when Tallon completely fubared all the Hawks RFA deals, that is a part of the job.

Honestly that makes this already epic failure even worse on the Devils part and Lou's part if true.

I do believe they thought they would be able to appeal this, they were wrong it was a bad calculation and they will pay the penalty.

 

[Alklha]

Why not just give the 14th position? that way they are in the lottery and the odds are the same. Having the Devils in a top 5 position gives unfair odds to the team in the 1st position.

It isn't unfair odds. The argument to exclude the Devils from the lottery is because it increases the odds of the worst team getting the 1st overall pick, but it isn't that simple. It also increases the chances of all the teams that finish below the Devils in the standings of retaining their draft position.

The purpose is to punish the Devils, but a by-product of that is that some teams gain a higher draft pick. Saying that some teams shouldn't be eligible for that by-product advantage, when the draft lottery rules are laid out very clearly in the CBA, is unfair.

 

[Gnashville]

It isn't unfair odds. The argument to exclude the Devils from the lottery is because it increases the odds of the worst team getting the 1st overall pick, but it isn't that simple. It also increases the chances of all the teams that finish below the Devils in the standings of retaining their draft position.

The purpose is to punish the Devils, but a by-product of that is that some teams gain a higher draft pick. Saying that some teams shouldn't be eligible for that by-product advantage, when the draft lottery rules are laid out very clearly in the CBA, is unfair.

How so? Say the Devils finish 5th then all of the team below them shift up (6th team becomes 5th, 7th becomes 6th ect) and the Devils are slotted 14th.

 

[Alklha]

How so? Say the Devils finish 5th then all of the team below them shift up (6th team becomes 5th, 7th becomes 6th ect) and the Devils are slotted 14th.

Huh? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

There is no logical reason to move the Devils down to 14th, and even if you did they would still be eligible for the lottery and the first overall pick (0.5% chance). Excluding them still manipulates the odds of the lottery.

The lottery is there to determine the draft order, nothing else. The Devils pick goes down in the history books as forfeited so the pick that is forfeited should be determined the same way as any other year.

Excluding the Devils on the basis that it increases the chances of the worst team in the League picking first is the League saying that teams shouldn't gain a drafting "advantage" from a team forfeiting a pick. Which is impossible to do unless we are talking about the last overall.