Malkin '100%' coming over next year. RSL club threatens legal action

[jekoh]

Europeans were crowing that Dopita would show North America how hockey was played and that he would easily dominate. He didn't. In that sense, he was a failure.

Well fine but Sushinski was even more of a failure yet you consider him one of those "exceptions". Rosa outscored Sushinski too. I guess he must be a better player then.

Bulis is a failure in the sense that he offensively dominated the Czech league, in front or equal to guys like Hejduk and Elias, while only producing modest numbers in the NHL. People like Zine use players like Bulis as 'proof' that there are many players outside the NHL who would easily beat NHLers. Yet, the examples he gives are players like Bulis, who have proven that they are marginal NHL players.

So what ? "Marginal NHL players" might beat good NHL players... as long as it's not in the NHL. Like in the Olympics for instance.

Also, Jan Bulis is actually sixth in scoring in his team, that's hardly "marginal". If Bulis can be sixth in the team, maybe a no-name like Mikeska could do the same ?

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Then put you money where your mouth is say I have got property valued at over 400k want to bet big mouth? And since when is an option year not count on a contract? Stop blowing smoke and remember that a team may noot have a current history of stopping players but can you state for a fact that it will never happen?

Ok man, I'll put up my vacation house, and suprisingly enough, it is valued at over 400K to.

I have attached a picture of it so you know how serious I am about this.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Ok man, I'll put up my vacation house, and suprisingly enough, it is valued at over 400K to.

I have attached a picture of it so you know how serious I am about this.

oooh, is this a private bet? Me and the missus will put up the Homestead Du Jour if this is all righty with you two.

 

[Zine]

When Europeans come to North America, they come because they want to make it. When NHLers went to Europe, they went because their real job was being locked out and they needed to do something in the mean time. There is no equivalence. If you really think that Pavel Rosa outscoring NHLers is proof that he is as good as them, you are really out of touch with reality.



I really doubt it, especially when we've had the benefit of seeing what their players can do in the NHL. Usually, the Russian stars have had marginal NHL careers and have gone back to Russia (Sushinski, Chistov, Kharitonov, Rosa), are retired NHLers or weren't even drafted. And yes, that says something about them. NHL teams scout players all over Russia and draft them out of every region and team. If you're not one of the 20 or so Russians drafted every year, chances are you'll never be good enough to play in the NHL.

But in any case, who are the tons of players in euro leagues who are better than NHLers ? I can't wait for you to name me some.

Again, you're putting too much emphasis on NHL success. Just because someone's a better NHLer doesn't mean he's the better player - better NHLer perhaps, but not neccessarily a better player. Different styles of play are conducive to different players.
This was evident in the olympics. Ex-NHLers like Hentunen, Kharitonov, Peltonen and even some Swiss players were skating circles around Canada's best.
This is why many NHLers (even some elite NHLers) sucked during the lock-out; it wasn't because they didn't try, it's because they aren't as effective outside of an NHL setting.

I'll continue to say it, the NHL is the best league in the world, but its not the be-all and end-all for talent. Guys like Sushinski, Chistov, Kharitonov, and Rosa ARE BETTER than players like Doan, Bertuzzi, Shanahan, etc. outside of the NHL game. For instance, a Russian GM would be an idiot if he took a Heatley or Lecavalier over Morozov for his team.

So who are the tons of euro league players who are better than NHLers? For a non-NHL style of game, too many to name. It's probably inear 100. Just look at the stats of Euro teams for the lockout and you'll find your answer.

 

[The Old Master]

oooh, is this a private bet? Me and the missus will put up the Homestead Du Jour if this is all righty with you two.

man! your a sharp lookin dude.....but who are the two standing behind you?

 

[clefty]

[Then put you money where your mouth is say I have got property valued at over 400k want to bet big mouth?

hah hah hah

Who ARE these people?

 

[kdb209]

Regarding the issue involving Ovechkin and the one with Malkin are totally different. Ovechkin had an out to play in the NHL when a new season started and Malkin does not. When the Dynamo tried to sue both the caps and Ovechkin, it was thrown out because he had no contractual obligation with that team.

The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League ruled that Dynamo held the rights to Ovechkin for 05-06 because they matched the monetary terms of the Avangard contract and did not have to match the out clause (http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/was060131.html). In the view of Russian hockey law, his situation was no different from Malkin's current one.

No. There is a fundamental difference between the Ovechkin situation and that of Malkin - The Russian arbiter only has jurisdiction over the Russian league. That only meant that if AO was going to play in the RSL, he had to play for Dynamo.

Ovechkin never signed a contract without an out clause. The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed. No US court would have enforced a non-existant or unsigned contract between AO and Dynamo.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

No. There is a fundamental difference between the Ovechkin situation and that of Malkin - The Russian arbiter only has jurisdiction over the Russian league. That only meant that if AO was going to play in the RSL, he had to play for Dynamo.

Ovechkin never signed a contract without an out clause. The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed. No US court would have enforced a non-existant or unsigned contract between AO and Dynamo.

Why does everyone just blow by the links that I provided giving a pretty definitive likely answer to this question? Do you all have me on ignore so that you can not see those posts? True, it is not 100% certain until and if it is tested in the courts, but still it is pretty clearly the closest thing to an answer that we have right now.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Europeans were crowing that Dopita would show North America how hockey was played and that he would easily dominate. He didn't. In that sense, he was a failure.

Bulis is a failure in the sense that he offensively dominated the Czech league, in front or equal to guys like Hejduk and Elias, while only producing modest numbers in the NHL. People like Zine use players like Bulis as 'proof' that there are many players outside the NHL who would easily beat NHLers. Yet, the examples he gives are players like Bulis, who have proven that they are marginal NHL players.

You're cluelesss.

dopita was a failure relative to expectations.

rosa never outscored sushinki or dopita. stop making stuff up.

bulis is a failure relative to zine's expectation that since he led the czech league, he should be a dominant player.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

You just pointed out the difference in their situations right there.

No, I pointed out the differences in the contractual situations.

Both were still developed by their respective clubs, and that's the reason you're giving for why Malkin should have to do what Metallurg wants.

So what's the difference between your opinion on Ovechkin and on Malkin ? Your position is not consistent.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Again, you're putting too much emphasis on NHL success. Just because someone's a better NHLer doesn't mean he's the better player - better NHLer perhaps, but not neccessarily a better player. Different styles of play are conducive to different players.
This was evident in the olympics. Ex-NHLers like Hentunen, Kharitonov, Peltonen and even some Swiss players were skating circles around Canada's best.
This is why many NHLers (even some elite NHLers) sucked during the lock-out; it wasn't because they didn't try, it's because they aren't as effective outside of an NHL setting.

Yes, and those players you named are exceptions. There's a few of them, not a ton, like you pretend.

I'll continue to say it, the NHL is the best league in the world, but its not the be-all and end-all for talent. Guys like Sushinski, Chistov, Kharitonov, and Rosa ARE BETTER than players like Doan, Bertuzzi, Shanahan, etc. outside of the NHL game. For instance, a Russian GM would be an idiot if he took a Heatley or Lecavalier over Morozov for his team.

This is beyond ridiculous. Heatley and Lecavalier are better than Morozov in every aspect of the game leave perhaps shiftiness.

You are determining that Morozov is a better overall player based on one season of RSL play, versus about half of decade's worth of NHL play in which it is evident that Heatley and Lecavalier are far superior to Morozov.

By your logic, Kovalev or Kovalchuk are inferior to Morozov.

So who are the tons of euro league players who are better than NHLers? For a non-NHL style of game, too many to name. It's probably inear 100. Just look at the stats of Euro teams for the lockout and you'll find your answer.

You see, you don't want to name them, because if I look at the lockout stats, what I'll find is a bunch of guys who happened to have one good season in the Euro leagues but who have been much inferior in 8 years' worth of NHL play. And based on this, you will determine that they are better than NHL stars. Your reasoning is ridiculous.

It's not just about the NHL performance being a much better barometer of talent (since it's the best league in the world), it's about the fact you only have a sample of one year of Euro hockey to compare to 10 years of NHL hockey.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

No. There is a fundamental difference between the Ovechkin situation and that of Malkin - The Russian arbiter only has jurisdiction over the Russian league. That only meant that if AO was going to play in the RSL, he had to play for Dynamo.

Ovechkin never signed a contract without an out clause. The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed. No US court would have enforced a non-existant or unsigned contract between AO and Dynamo.

Geez, as jaded_fan said, do you intentionally ignore the facts that are laid out in the multiple links provided by the people WHO HAVE A FREAKIN' CLUE (which you obviously don't) ?

It's very frustrating to have to deal with ignoramuses who basically just make stuff up, like you.

The Russian arbitration committe judged that Ovechkin's out-clause was not valid because Dynamo only had to match the financial terms of the contract in order to keep him. His contract with Dynamo did not have an out-clause. The Russian arbiters judged that he had to play for Dynamo, and that he had no out-clause to go to the NHL.

 

[jekoh]

rosa never outscored sushinki

Yes he did. You can't just deny everything you don't like.

 

[kdb209]

No. There is a fundamental difference between the Ovechkin situation and that of Malkin - The Russian arbiter only has jurisdiction over the Russian league. That only meant that if AO was going to play in the RSL, he had to play for Dynamo.

Ovechkin never signed a contract without an out clause. The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed. No US court would have enforced a non-existant or unsigned contract between AO and Dynamo.

Geez, as jaded_fan said, do you intentionally ignore the facts that are laid out in the multiple links provided by the people WHO HAVE A FREAKIN' CLUE (which you obviously don't) ?

Not to be contrary, but yes, I've read the posted links, and if I don't have a FREAKIN' CLUE, neither does a US District Court judge.

Me: No US court would have enforced a non-existant or unsigned contract between AO and Dynamo.

US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/was060131.html

"This Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition to enforce the tendered Russian hockey arbitration award because the purported underlying contract between Moscow Dynamo and Mr. Ovechkin for 2005-2006 is unsigned. It is as simple and absolute as that."

And as to my contention that "The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed.", judge Summers agrees here too:

"The Court is aware of no alchemical formula that can transform an expired contract, Dynamo's unilateral matching offer, and Ovechkin's signed contract with a third party into a 'definite and seasonable expression of acceptance' by Ovechkin of Dynamo's offer to play for that team for the 2005-2006 season.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Yes he did. You can't just deny everything you don't like.

Pavel Rosa
1998-99 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 29 4 12 16
1999-00 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 3 0 0 0
2002-03 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 2 0 0 0
2003-04 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 2 1 1 2

Maxim Sushinski
2000-01 Minnesota Wild NHL 30 7 4 11

When did Rosa outscore Sushinski ? Yeah, be quiet now.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

And as to my contention that "The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed.", judge Summers agrees here too:

The decision of the US court is irrelevant.

I said "The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League ruled that Dynamo held the rights to Ovechkin for 05-06 because they matched the monetary terms of the Avangard contract and did not have to match the out clause (http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/was060131.html). In the view of Russian hockey law, his situation was no different from Malkin's current one."

I said specifically in the view of Russian hockey law. Did you miss that ? I never said anything about US law. Russian hockey law determined that Ovechkin had the same contractual obligations that Malkin now does to Metallurg - play for them and no NHL escape clause.

"Dynamo claims that its letter to Ovechkin was a "qualifying offer" under PHL rules, meaning that it retained matching rights after Ovechkin signed with Avangard. According to PHL guidelines, a team must only match the term and the financial aspects of the contract; meaning the "out clause" did not have to be matched.
[...]
The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League held a hearing on Oct. 20 and found in favor of Dynamo."

I'm not making a judgement on the fairness on the Russian decision. All I'm doing is stating a basic fact: the decision in Ovechkin's case put him in the same contractual obligations toward Dynamo as Malkin now has to Metallurg.

 

[kdb209]

And as to my contention that "The fact that the arbiter said Dynamo maintained his RSL rights, did not place any contractual obligations on AO above and beyond those in the contract he signed.", judge Summers agrees here too:

The decision of the US court is irrelevant.

I said "The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League ruled that Dynamo held the rights to Ovechkin for 05-06 because they matched the monetary terms of the Avangard contract and did not have to match the out clause (http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/was060131.html). In the view of Russian hockey law, his situation was no different from Malkin's current one."

I said specifically in the view of Russian hockey law. Did you miss that ? I never said anything about US law. Russian hockey law determined that Ovechkin had the same contractual obligations that Malkin now does to Metallurg - play for them and no NHL escape clause.

"Dynamo claims that its letter to Ovechkin was a "qualifying offer" under PHL rules, meaning that it retained matching rights after Ovechkin signed with Avangard. According to PHL guidelines, a team must only match the term and the financial aspects of the contract; meaning the "out clause" did not have to be matched.
[...]
The Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League held a hearing on Oct. 20 and found in favor of Dynamo."

I'm not making a judgement on the fairness on the Russian decision. All I'm doing is stating a basic fact: the decision in Ovechkin's case put him in the same contractual obligations toward Dynamo as Malkin now has to Metallurg.

The decision of the US court is irrelevant. ???

That's why AO is playing for the Caps now.

And that may very well be the deciding factor whether Malkin plays in Pittsburgh next year.

I was just pointing out he fundamental difference between the AO and Malkin cases - AO did not have an enforcable signed contract with Dynamo, Malkin does (as far as I know, barring the alleged 2 week repudiation clause of Russian labor law).

Is this situation really any different than that of Alexander Korolyuk. Under the terms agreed to by Korky in the CBA negotiated between the NHL and the NHLPA, the Sharks excercised their rights and took him to arbitration. An arbiter awarded a 1 year deal for $1.2M. Korky did not sign the arbitration contract. There was nothing the Sharks could do to prevent him from playing in Russia this season - there was no agreed to contract between Korolyuk and the Sharks to enforce. The arbitration award is only enforceable if and when Korky ever returns to the NHL - if he ever wants to play in the NHL again, he will have to play out that 1 yr deal before he can ever become a free agent.

Similarly in the case of an RFA who's original team matches an offer sheet, which similar to the AO situation, they have only to match principal terms (money and duration) and not other terms (No trade clauses, out clatses, etc), the mere act of matching is not a signed contract. It merely encumbers the players options to play in the NHL. It would not prevent a player from playing overseas.

And what is "russian hockey law"???

The "Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League" is not a judicial organization. It is a private civil organization, empowered to make arbitration decisions as authorized by agreements among the teams of the Russian Professional Hockey League and between teams and players as spelled out in their Standard Players Contracts. It has no force of law above and beyond what is spelled out in Russian civil law regarding contracts.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

The decision of the US court is irrelevant. ???

Yes, it's not relevant to determining what was the status of Ovechkin and Malkin's contractual obligations to their clubs according to Russian hockey law (rules/regulation).

Your interpretation of Ovechkin's obligations to Dynamo is according to US law. But according to the Russian arbitration committee, Ovechkin did owe a year to Dynamo and did not have a clause that let would let him play elsewhere. This is pretty unambiguous. The arbiters said that by virtue of matching the contract, Ovechkin had a valid contract with Dynamo that did not include an out clause.

Nobody has to accept an arbitration contract. Show me an example of an NHL RFA who signed with another team and was matched by his team. Is he free to simply reject this contract afterward ?

 

[kdb209]

The decision of the US court is irrelevant. ???

Yes, it's not relevant to determining what was the status of Ovechkin and Malkin's contractual obligations to their clubs according to Russian hockey law (rules/regulation).

But AO and Malkin's "contractual obligations to their clubs according to Russian hockey law (rules/regulation)" is just that - obligations under the rules/regulations of agreements among the teams and between teams and players. They do not necessarily have the force of law, and may not be enforcable outside of the Russian Hockey League - as the AO ruling has shown.

Your interpretation of Ovechkin's obligations to Dynamo is according to US law. But according to the Russian arbitration committee, Ovechkin did owe a year to Dynamo and did not have a clause that let would let him play elsewhere. This is pretty unambiguous. The arbiters said that by virtue of matching the contract, Ovechkin had a valid contract with Dynamo that did not include an out clause.

But the decisions of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League are only enforcable under the governing body of civil contract law. It doesn't matter what an arbiter says if it's decision is not binding on parties not subject to the arbitration agreements, and absent a valid, signed, enforcable contract between the parties, it is not.

And again, the decisions of the Arbitration Committee is not law. It is not a judicial organization (at least I have not seen anything that says it has any governmental authority). It is a private civil organization, empowered to make arbitration decisions as authorized by agreements among the teams of the Russian Professional Hockey League and between teams and players as spelled out in their Standard Players Contracts. It has no force of law above and beyond what is spelled out in Russian civil law regarding contracts

Nobody has to accept an arbitration contract. Show me an example of an NHL RFA who signed with another team and was matched by his team. Is he free to simply reject this contract afterward ?

"Nobody has to accept an arbitration contract", yet that is exactly what you are saying AO had to do. As for the RFA example, it was a hypothetical, but quite a valid one in my opinion. And given the small number of RFA offer sheets actually given in the past decade, it's not surprising that the situation hasn't come up. But if he did, yes he is free to simply reject the contract awarded, as long as he never wants to play in the NHL again.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

But AO and Malkin's "contractual obligations to their clubs according to Russian hockey law (rules/regulation)" is just that - obligations under the rules/regulations of agreements among the teams and between teams and players. They do not necessarily have the force of law, and may not be enforcable outside of the Russian Hockey League - as the AO ruling has shown.

But the decisions of the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Hockey League are only enforcable under the governing body of civil contract law. It doesn't matter what an arbiter says if it's decision is not binding on parties not subject to the arbitration agreements, and absent a valid, signed, enforcable contract between the parties, it is not.

And again, the decisions of the Arbitration Committee is not law. It is not a judicial organization (at least I have not seen anything that says it has any governmental authority). It is a private civil organization, empowered to make arbitration decisions as authorized by agreements among the teams of the Russian Professional Hockey League and between teams and players as spelled out in their Standard Players Contracts. It has no force of law above and beyond what is spelled out in Russian civil law regarding contracts

"Nobody has to accept an arbitration contract", yet that is exactly what you are saying AO had to do. As for the RFA example, it was a hypothetical, but quite a valid one in my opinion. And given the small number of RFA offer sheets actually given in the past decade, it's not surprising that the situation hasn't come up. But if he did, yes he is free to simply reject the contract awarded, as long as he never wants to play in the NHL again.

Everything you say makes sense, but you're relying on an American legal interpretation of their contract status, whereas I'm saying that their Russian situation was similar.

"Under PHL regulations, a team that extends a valid qualifying offer retains "matching rights" to a player if the player signs a contract with another team. If a former team matches the financial aspects of the second contract, then the former team and the player automatically become parties to a binding contract, and the player must play for the former team."

So basically, according to PHL regulations, "matching" a contract doesn't just give you the right to sign the player, it automatically makes the player and club parties to a binding contract. This is not like the CBA then.

"Although Ovechkin had not signed a 2005-2006 contract with Dynamo, the Arbitration Committee nevertheless found a valid contract between Dynamo and Ovechkin for the 2005-2006 season [...]. As part of the award, the Arbitration Committee enjoined Ovechkin from working for any professional hockey club other than Dynamo until April 30, 2006."

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2006/Sullivan/2005-CV-2245~14:45:59~1-18-2006-a.pdf

I can not be absolutely certain that Russian law (the actual court system) would find that there was a contract, but the above info seems to indicate that there was a valid contract between Ovechkin and Dynamo. In this respect, his situation was not different from Malkin's.

 

[Zine]

Yes, and those players you named are exceptions. There's a few of them, not a ton, like you pretend..

If there's just a few of them then how do you explain Canada losing to Switzerland? How about the US tying Latvia? Russia beating Kazakhstan only 1-0?
How about last year's WC when Canada (with many olympians) could only beat Ukraine by 1 goal and Latvia by 2.

These teams were comprised of some of the best talent the NHL could offer. What's the deal with them barely beating teams like Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Latvia (who don't even have many euro league stars)?
Do you have an answer? DING DING DING.....that's right, it's a different game than the NHL.
Obviously the players on Canada are much better, but it just goes to show how a player's level of dominance can diminish when playing a different of style game.

This is beyond ridiculous. Heatley and Lecavalier are better than Morozov in every aspect of the game leave perhaps shiftiness.

You are determining that Morozov is a better overall player based on one season of RSL play, versus about half of decade's worth of NHL play in which it is evident that Heatley and Lecavalier are far superior to Morozov.

Agreed, a decade's worth of NHL play has proven that Vinny & Heatley are better - but only in terms of NHL play. Morozov is, however, a better euro league player. I had an online subscription and was able to see many Ak Bars games last year and Heatley was average at best (notice how frequently Heatley underproduces in international play too). He is not nearly as good outside of the NHL. Vinny was fairly mediocre, certainly not as effective as he is with Tampa.
It goes beyond stats....anyone seeing those games could tell you Morozov was better, just go to the Russian board and ask.

By your logic, Kovalev or Kovalchuk are inferior to Morozov.

No, not Kovalev. But on international ice, Morozov tends to be more effective than Kovalchuk. Ilya's speed is much easier to contain on the big ice, and his passing skills don't make up for it. Too bad Morozov has issues with the Russian coach, if people got to see him they'd be suprised how good he is.

You see, you don't want to name them, because if I look at the lockout stats, what I'll find is a bunch of guys who happened to have one good season in the Euro leagues but who have been much inferior in 8 years' worth of NHL play. And based on this, you will determine that they are better than NHL stars. Your reasoning is ridiculous.

It's not just about the NHL performance being a much better barometer of talent (since it's the best league in the world), it's about the fact you only have a sample of one year of Euro hockey to compare to 10 years of NHL hockey.

You're trying to have it both ways. You're saying 1 year of Euro hockey is not a big enough sample to compare against 10 years of NHL hockey.
Yet, you rip on Sushinsky, Dopita, Kharitonov, etc. - who've all, essentially, been in the reverse situation.
After years of dominating past, present and future NHLers in Euro leagues and international competition...you're judging them based on only 1-2 years of NHL play?

You seem ignorant to the fact that different styles of hockey suit different players.
A player being more dominant in the NHL for longer only means that; it does not mean they'll be better outside the NHL. This isn't rocket science.


As for the list of players you wanted, I'll use Oleg Saprykin as a benchmark - an average NHLer (scoring rank 319). He's easily in the top 500 of NHLers. Among forwards better than him currently playing in the RSL:

Kaigorodov
Malkin
Chistov
Zinoviev
Morozov
Nepryaev
Taratukhin
Tkachenko
Kuryanov
Antipov
Svitov
Popov
Mozyakin
Semin
Mirnov
Kharitonov
Sushinsky
Simakov
Grigorenko
Trubachev
Korolyuk

This isn't my sole oppinion either. These are the players picked above Saprykin (and many other NHLers) for the Russian preliminary olympic list. I'd personally add a lot more too.
Notice, this is just the Russian league.....not included are better forwards in the SEL, DEL, SM Liiga, Czech. A lot more than just 10, huh.

 

[kdb209]

Everything you say makes sense, but you're relying on an American legal interpretation of their contract status, whereas I'm saying that their Russian situation was similar.

"Under PHL regulations, a team that extends a valid qualifying offer retains "matching rights" to a player if the player signs a contract with another team. If a former team matches the financial aspects of the second contract, then the former team and the player automatically become parties to a binding contract, and the player must play for the former team."

So basically, according to PHL regulations, "matching" a contract doesn't just give you the right to sign the player, it automatically makes the player and club parties to a binding contract. This is not like the CBA then.

"Although Ovechkin had not signed a 2005-2006 contract with Dynamo, the Arbitration Committee nevertheless found a valid contract between Dynamo and Ovechkin for the 2005-2006 season [...]. As part of the award, the Arbitration Committee enjoined Ovechkin from working for any professional hockey club other than Dynamo until April 30, 2006."

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/2006/Sullivan/2005-CV-2245~14:45:59~1-18-2006-a.pdf

I can not be absolutely certain that Russian law (the actual court system) would find that there was a contract, but the above info seems to indicate that there was a valid contract between Ovechkin and Dynamo. In this respect, his situation was not different from Malkin's.

Thanks for the pointer to Judge Sullivan's decision. I've only read excepts from it in news reports.

For now, I'll accept your contention that the Arbitration Committee found that a valid binding contract existed between AO and Dynamo, but I'm not as certain a Russian court would have agreed had it been litigated there, but that is a moot point.

Any decision on the validity of the arbitration and its effect on AO's eligibility to sign and play with the Capitals - ie any possibility of injunctive relief or damages - would be decided by the US courts.

Also keep in mind that the Russian arbitration hearing was unchallenged - neither AO, his lawyers, or agent showed up to argue the case, effectively yielding the decision to Dynamo - hardly the venue for an impartial decision. His agent attended purely as an observer and took no part in the proceedings. This was absolutely the correct legal thing to do - even recognizing the proceedings would have given weight to Dynamo's claims that AO agreed to and was bound by arbitration.

One could make an argument that your contention, that from an RHL (but not necessarily a Russian court) point of view the obligations of AO and Malkin are the same, might be true, but it would be a pointless argument, since any practical decision would not be made by the RHL, but by US courts, which made the correct decision (in both the legal and moral sense).

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm amazed at the number of legal and other decisions I've read since I started to hang out at the BoH board during the lockout. I now know more than I ever cared to about the non statutory exemption of CBA terms to challenge under anti trust laws and the reasoning behind the arbiters decsion in the Yashin case.

 

[jekoh]

Pavel Rosa 29 4 12 16
Maxim Sushinski 30 7 4 11

Rosa did outscore Sushinski. Can you f-ing read ?

 

[Kirk Muller*]

If there's just a few of them then how do you explain Canada losing to Switzerland? How about the ... blablabla Latvia is so good blablabla

No, this sample is even smaller than the one year of lockout European play. Canada and the US didn't do well, but other teams lead by NHL stars like Sweden and Finland won. It may be a slightly different game (how different from last season's NHL to this season's though?), but the Euros in the NHL are entirely familiar with it.

You're trying to have it both ways. You're saying 1 year of Euro hockey is not a big enough sample to compare against 10 years of NHL hockey.
Yet, you rip on Sushinsky, Dopita, Kharitonov, etc. - who've all, essentially, been in the reverse situation.
After years of dominating past, present and future NHLers in Euro leagues and international competition...you're judging them based on only 1-2 years of NHL play?

Yes, because the NHL is the place where talent is best judged, not some second tier league in Europe. And Sushinski and Dopita have only dominated NHLers during this one year.

You seem ignorant to the fact that different styles of hockey suit different players.
A player being more dominant in the NHL for longer only means that; it does not mean they'll be better outside the NHL. This isn't rocket science.

What makes a good hockey player, whether in Europe or North America, is always the same: skating, hockey sense, puck skills, athletic ability, endurance and work ethic. NHLers are better in every aspect. They need time to adapt to different rules and different rink sizes, but in the end, those with superior talent prevail. When Europeans come over to NA, some take a few months to adapt, but in the end, they perform well when they adapt their hockey skills to the new context and style of play.

Perhaps I underrate the difference in styles, but it's pretty certain that you completely overrate it, if you actually believe that Morozov is a better player than Kovalchuk because he got 5 more points than him last year (in 5 more games).

Kaigorodov no
Malkin Yes
Chistov Not yet
Zinoviev Not yet
Morozov No. supremely talented, but ultimately useless
Nepryaev no
Taratukhin no
Tkachenko no
Kuryanov no
Antipov no
Svitov no
Popov no
Mozyakin no
Semin no
Mirnov don't make me laugh
Kharitonov no
Sushinsky yes
Simakov no
Grigorenko no
Trubachev no
Korolyuk no, he sucks

There, I win.

 

[Kirk Muller*]

Rosa did outscore Sushinski. Can you f-ing read ?

Okay, then I guess we're both right.

Rosa did score more points. But Sushinski did score more goals.

In the end, what's your point again? oh yeah, that pavel rosa is one of the top players in the world. good luck convincing me of that.