Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

The Weasel Is At It Again...


29Dryden29

Recommended Posts

This is so ridiculous.... The contracts were signed and approved by the league.

I understand them having a problem with the Kovy contract, it was a tad bit exaggerated.

Like I said in another thread... I feel that after the Isles tried the loophole, then failed miserably-signing a player long term who has yet to complete a season. I don't think bettman counted on other GM's going down that road after the whole depietro affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so ridiculous.... The contracts were signed and approved by the league.

Apparently ( from my understanding of what is being reported) those other deals were approved however the teams were put on notice that the deals could be investigated further. This could get interesting. I'm willing to bet the Hawks just might be happy to see the league void Hossa's deal with their current Cap problems,,, and with rumours of the Bruins trying to move Savard for the same reason,,,they also might be pleased to see that deal overturned. The League could be doing those two teams a favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that after the Isles tried the loophole, then failed miserably-signing a player long term who has yet to complete a season. I don't think bettman counted on other GM's going down that road after the whole depietro affair.

The DiPietro contract doesnt circumvent anything though. It's a 15 year deal that pays 4.5 from start to finish. There is no front loading and there isn't a drop off in dollar amount at all. There was no way that the NHL could target the DiPietro deal. I think we, as fans, try to because of the term. But, the Isles have cap space and managed that deal fine. They did it well within the rules of the CBA and actually don't try to loophole anything. The Hossa, Luongo, Pronger, Savard and even Lecavalier deals have these crazy drop offs in salary at the end, that is the main issue with the deals.

I honestly don't think that the NHL would care if these guys were signed for 15 years paying 4.5 from start to finish. Or, even like Ovechkins deal that is something like 13 years and 123M. Even that deal is one the NHL can't really attack because it pays 9M for the first 6 years and then 10M for the remaining 7. These deals don't leaving us going "hmmmm wait a minute, these guys aren't going to play out the contract". This is for the simple fact that there is too much money being left on the table.

The way Luongo's deal is set out, his last 3 years basically equal what he makes in his 4th last. So really, if he retires 3 years before the contract ends he isn't leaving that much on the table in terms of salary. That's the problem with the contracts that the NHL is now investigating. Which deal started it? I'm not sure, I think maybe the Lecavalier deal. I just looked at the Gomez deal and his goes from 10 in his first year 07/08 then 8 last season and this, then 7.5 next and his last two seasons are 5.5 and 4.5 respectively. Gomez is 30 he will be 34 at the end of his current contract, which isn't too bad. We can't even look at the Gomez deal and say "there is no way Gomez intends to play until 34". Hossa and Luongo on the other hand?

I agree, it's kind of ridiculous to go back on these contracts now after you have approved them. My only point is, there is a significant difference between the DiPietro deal and that of Luongo/Hossa and Co. The NHL shouldn't have let the Luongo and Hossa type of deals go though. They honestly could not stop the NYI and DiPietro's deal because there is nothing wrong with it, other than the length of term. There is nothing in the CBA that sets a limit on contract term. We look at the DiPietro deal and call it crazy, but if we had a Sidney Crosby would we not want to lock him in for 15 years at 4.5 per?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owners are going to be pissed about this.

Uh the owners were the ones who wanted the cap, if anyone doesn't want players getting around it, it's them.

And not sure why Bettman is a weasel, aren't the weasels the players, agents, and GMs who purposely put together deals they had no intention of fulfilling and making a mockery of the cap? Except for Phili's management, who (most likely) tried to exploit it but screwed up since Pronger was too old. I won't feel any sympathy if a contract is voided (I doubt this happens though): they knew they were getting around the cap/

The only mistake Bettman made here was not taking a hard line earlier on.

Like I said in another thread... I feel that after the Isles tried the loophole, then failed miserably-signing a player long term who has yet to complete a season. I don't think bettman counted on other GM's going down that road after the whole depietro affair.

The Isles didn't use any loophole, they just signed a long-term deal, which there's absolutely nothing wrong with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DiPietro contract doesnt circumvent anything though. It's a 15 year deal that pays 4.5 from start to finish. There is no front loading and there isn't a drop off in dollar amount at all. There was no way that the NHL could target the DiPietro deal. I think we, as fans, try to because of the term. But, the Isles have cap space and managed that deal fine. They did it well within the rules of the CBA and actually don't try to loophole anything. The Hossa, Luongo, Pronger, Savard and even Lecavalier deals have these crazy drop offs in salary at the end, that is the main issue with the deals.

Pronger is actually a special case here because the deal started when he was over 35, so the dropoff has no benefit (the Flyers will be stuck with his high cap hit even if he does retire). But the reason the NHL investigated was apparantly the Flyers thought they were exploiting a loophole but screwed up (because he signed the deal when he was 34 but it didn't kick in until he was 35)

This is for the simple fact that there is too much money being left on the table.

It's largely this, but with some deals like Kovalchuk there were other hints: the NMC becoming a NTC near the end of the deal gives NJ the choice to send Kovalchuk to the minors if he refused to retire (where they would pay him the low final year dollars and his cap hit would disappear unless a new CBA change this).

I just looked at the Gomez deal and his goes from 10 in his first year 07/08 then 8 last season and this, then 7.5 next and his last two seasons are 5.5 and 4.5 respectively. Gomez is 30 he will be 34 at the end of his current contract, which isn't too bad. We can't even look at the Gomez deal and say "there is no way Gomez intends to play until 34". Hossa and Luongo on the other hand?

Not all front-loaded deals are shifty. Generally speaking, it is advantageous to receive money up front (can buy stuff, can invest it, etc.). Others legitimately take into account a player in their prime (assume they'll be worth less later on). It's only really a problem when the deal is going into years where almost all non-Chelios players will be retired. That's why the NHL originally put the "over-35 rule" in place, but they didn't anticipate guys so young signing deals that went well past they were 35.

That all said, if Gomez retired midway through the contract, his contract would have in fact exploited the cap. However, unless he has a dream to retire at 32, this was never the intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh the owners were the ones who wanted the cap, if anyone doesn't want players getting around it, it's them.

And not sure why Bettman is a weasel, aren't the weasels the players, agents, and GMs who purposely put together deals they had no intention of fulfilling and making a mockery of the cap? Except for Phili's management, who (most likely) tried to exploit it but screwed up since Pronger was too old. I won't feel any sympathy if a contract is voided (I doubt this happens though): they knew they were getting around the cap/

The only mistake Bettman made here was not taking a hard line earlier on.

The Isles didn't use any loophole, they just signed a long-term deal, which there's absolutely nothing wrong with.

Um the owners let the GMs sign the deals so they can't be too upset about it. Bettman is a weasel because he is destroying our game. also I am certain it is Bettman and Daly that are re opening the contracts that Lou and Pronger and Hossa and Savard signed and have been in place now for about a year for most of them. I am sure the owners didn't ask him to look into those contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um the owners let the GMs sign the deals so they can't be too upset about it.

I could say the same thing about contracts pre-lockout: the owners let the GMs sign them; yet they were willing to flush a year of hockey down the drain to change things.

Yes, 1 or 2 owners may be upset at an individual deal being voided, but collectively owners are heavily in favour of a cap: why would they be upset that Bettman is trying to enforce that cap properly?

Bettman is a weasel because he is destroying our game.

I'm not a fan of everything he's done, but this is a little over dramatic.

also I am certain it is Bettman and Daly that are re opening the contracts that Lou and Pronger and Hossa and Savard signed and have been in place now for about a year for most of them. I am sure the owners didn't ask him to look into those contracts.

Impossible to say, but I'd say it's highly likely the owners have been complaining about this loophole. Again, they are the ones who wanted the cap, why would they not want it enforced? Bettman would get paid whether their was a salary cap or not: it's the owners money he's trying to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bettman is a weasel because he is destroying our game.

Statements like this make me think some sports fans shouldn't be entitled to an opinion sometimes.

I am certain it is Bettman and Daly that are re opening the contracts that Lou and Pronger and Hossa and Savard signed and have been in place now for about a year for most of them. I am sure the owners didn't ask him to look into those contracts.

The System Arbitrator ordered it from what I see:

Arbitrator Richard Bloch upheld the NHL’s rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102-million (all currency U.S.) contract on Monday, nullifying his July 20 pact with the New Jersey Devils and making the Russian star an unrestricted free agent once again.

In his ruling, Bloch wrote that Kovalchuk’s contract “has the effect of defeating or circumventing the salary cap provisions” of the NHL’s collective agreement.

Bloch also noted that several other long-term contracts are under investigation for circumvention, listing deals given to Vancouver Canucks netminder Roberto Luongo, Boston Bruins centre Marc Savard, Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Chris Pronger and Chicago Blackhawks winger Marian Hossa as raising similar red flags to Kovalchuk’s rejected contract.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1667233/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements like this make me think some sports fans shouldn't be entitled to an opinion sometimes.

The System Arbitrator ordered it from what I see:

Arbitrator Richard Bloch upheld the NHL’s rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102-million (all currency U.S.) contract on Monday, nullifying his July 20 pact with the New Jersey Devils and making the Russian star an unrestricted free agent once again.

In his ruling, Bloch wrote that Kovalchuk’s contract “has the effect of defeating or circumventing the salary cap provisions” of the NHL’s collective agreement.

Bloch also noted that several other long-term contracts are under investigation for circumvention, listing deals given to Vancouver Canucks netminder Roberto Luongo, Boston Bruins centre Marc Savard, Philadelphia Flyers defenceman Chris Pronger and Chicago Blackhawks winger Marian Hossa as raising similar red flags to Kovalchuk’s rejected contract.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1667233/

You are injecting some speculation as am I on who asked for them to be investigated. He stated there were others being investigated not that he requested it or even that Bettman/Daly requested it. I am damn sure the owners and GMs of those clubs didn't request it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so ridiculous.... The contracts were signed and approved by the league.

I understand them having a problem with the Kovy contract, it was a tad bit exaggerated.

Like I said in another thread... I feel that after the Isles tried the loophole, then failed miserably-signing a player long term who has yet to complete a season. I don't think bettman counted on other GM's going down that road after the whole depietro affair.

I see this from the other angle... i'm happy that the NHL is finally getting something done about those contracts. better later than never

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...