NHL Off-Season Thread 2010

[Oncle Boris]

What the hell is his post about Kovalchuk's gana supposed to mean?

[Oncle Boris]

NHLPA files a grief about Kovalchuk's contract!

[notyoueither]

Niemi awarded $2.75 MM by arbitrator. Hawks walk away and sign Turco for $1.3 MM.

I'm betting Niemi is not so happy with his agent and NHLPA right at this moment.

[-Jrabbit]

It makes me sad, but Chicago fans seem to be taking it well -- the price of the Cup and the mechanics of the salary cap. They couldn't dump Campbell and won't get rid of Sharp, so this was the only option, given the arbitrator's decision. I'd be interested in the views of our various hockey experts on this situation...

Rumor has it that the Sharks will sign Niemi.

[notyoueither]

It was a good move by the Hawks given the cap situation. The bad moves were Campbell, Huet, and screwing up the offer sheets to the RFAs last summer.

Niemi is not really a proven commodity. He has all of 42 regular season NHL starts. His sv% in the playoffs was .910, with .912 in the regular season.

Turco's regular season last year was .913, and the last time he was in the playoffs was .922

Yes, Turco is 35 for the start of the season. However, many goalies can produce at 35, 36, 37 years old. Chicago wants to win another if they can, and Turco is the kind of contract that could help do it. Now all Bowman has to do is find some extremely good value contracts for other UFAs. It won't be easy, but it is possible with the number of players out there still available.

[-Jrabbit]

Well, our top 4 defenders will be back, so this should tell us a lot about how much credit Niemi deserves.

[Flubber]

Rumor has it that the Sharks will sign Niemi.

Sounds like a great move for the Sharks ! I never liked Nabokov as a big-game goalie-- Niemi is cheap and performed when it counted-- Granted its just one season but I like his possibilities

[Flubber]

It was a good move by the Hawks given the cap situation. The bad moves were Campbell, Huet, and screwing up the offer sheets to the RFAs last summer.
.

I agree-- If you have some big "mistake' type contracts (and a LOT of teams have one or more), this is the result.

[-Jrabbit]

The big screw job was the $4million in post-season award bonuses that carry to next year's cap. that really put the squeeze on the Hawks.

But hey, we won the Cup. They can't take that away.

[rah]

Yeah, winning does take the sting out of it.

[notyoueither]

The Calgary Flames have revealed their jerseys for the outdoor game vs Montreal this season. There were not very many of their players available to model them, so they brought in some of their better prospects.

[Asher]

They should've just worn the original, first season jerseys...not invent something that stupid.

[notyoueither]

I'm lovin' it.

[Oncle Boris]

They should've just worn the original, first season jerseys...not invent something that stupid.

+1

[notyoueither]

Kovalchuk contract rejection upheld by arbitrator.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=330008

ARBITRATOR RULES IN FAVOUR OF NHL ON KOVALCHUK'S CONTRACT
THE CANADIAN PRESS
8/9/2010 7:23:51 PM

NEW YORK -- Ilya Kovalchuk is an unrestricted free agent for the second time this summer.

Independent arbitrator Richard Bloch ruled in favour of the NHL's rejection of Kovalchuk's 17-year, US$102-million contract with the New Jersey Devils.

The NHL team released a statement Monday night saying it respects Bloch's ruling and indicated that it still hopes to land the talented Russian.

"While we do not currently have a contract with Ilya Kovalchuk, discussions have resumed and we are hopeful that a contract will be reached that meets with the principles in arbitrator Bloch's award and the NHL's approval," said Devils president and general manager Lou Lamoriello.

Kovalchuk agreed to the deal with the Devils on July 20 but the league ruled later that night that the landmark contract, the longest in NHL history, violated the salary cap.

The NHL Players' Association then filed a grievance disputing the league's rejection.

The NHLPA said in a statement that it was "disappointed with the arbitrator's ruling to uphold the NHL's rejection of the contract between the New Jersey Devils and Ilya Kovalchuk."

The NHLPA added it was "currently reviewing the decision and will have no further comment at this time."

In a brief statement the NHL, deputy commissioner Bill Daly said that Bloch's ruling is "consistent with the league's view of the manner in which the collective bargaining agreement should deal with contracts that circumvent the salary cap."

The league felt the Devils went too far in giving the 27-year-old Russian a contract that would pay $95 million over the first 10 years, but only $7 million over the final seven. That would reduce the cost against the salary cap to a relatively modest $6 million per year.

The final five years would pay only $550,000 per season.

Questions were also raised over the duration. It would end when Kovalchuk is 44, well past retirement age for most players.

However, in recent seasons the league has not rejected similar "front-end-loaded" contracts in which the salary cap hit is diminished by adding extra years at relatively low pay.

Vancouver Canucks goaltender Roberto Luongo has a $63-million, 12-year deal that pays only $7 million over the final four seasons and takes him to age 43. Marian Hossa of the Chicago Blackhawks will be 42 at the end of his $62.8-million, 12-year contract that pays $3.5 million in the last four seasons.

Henrik Zetterberg and Johan Franzen of the Detroit Red Wings and Chris Pronger of the Philadelphia Flyers are among those with similar contracts. In length, the Kovalchuk deal tops New York Islanders goalie Rick DiPietro's 15 years and Alex Ovechkin's 13 with the Washington Capitals.

None is as long or tapers so sharply at the end as that signed by the flashy Kovalchuk, the biggest name on the free agent market this summer.

Kovalchuk's deal was slated to pay $6 million in each of the next two seasons, jump to $11.5 million for five seasons, and then drop to $10.5 million, $8.5 million, $6.5 million and $3.5 million for one year each before slowing to $750,000 for 2021-22 and then $550,00 through to 2027.

The high-scoring winger reportedly rejected a $101-million, 12-year contract offer from the Atlanta Thrashers before he was traded to New Jersey in February.

Kovalchuk was drafted first overall by the Thrashers in 2001 and has 338 goals and 304 assists in 642 career NHL games. Last season, he had 41 goals and 44 assists.

Tapered contracts arose after a salary cap was instituted following the lockout that wiped out the 2004-05 season. Next season's cap is $59.4 million per team.

[snoopy369]

Only the NHL could screw up salary caps that badly. I mean, sure, the NBA has some ... abusable ... elements. But not even thinking to institute a no-salary-decrease element?

[Asher]

Luongo's 12-year contract is now under investigation. Ruh oh.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/L...778/story.html

[-Jrabbit]

The Hossa deal, too.

[snoopy369]

Not a big shock, but I wonder if they can really justify arguing with contracts that are over a year old?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd be fine with that. Nix the deal and get Luongo for less this year and cheaper too.

[-Jrabbit]

You think they will reward the teams who did these gimmick contracts with a lower cap number?

[snoopy369]

All they can do (if they can do that) is void the contracts, and perhaps penalize the teams with fines or perhaps lost draft picks (according to the vancouver link above). So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

[Ben Kenobi]

So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

I don't see why. What they did was legit at the time. All the league can do is void the contract, they can't impose retroactive penalties. The only team that will get penalised are the Devils.

If the contract is voided, then the Canucks de facto have a lower cap hit. Then they have to resign Luongo.

Besides there are other 10 year contracts.

[notyoueither]

I don't think any team with a current deal will be penalised.

No doubt there is a memo circulating around the league that the same may not be true in future.

The league needed to establish that these sorts of retirement contracts with throw-away years at the end (tails) are circumvention. Now they will not have to lay the smack-down, because a GM would have to be insane to try to continue using the same closed loophole.

The reason they may wish to go back and look at existing contracts is because they may have felt they needed to wait for an egregious example in order to win in arbitration. They let the Kipprusoff contract go, then Hossa, Luongo, Savard, et al. Kovalchuk's seems tailor-made for the league to win in arbitration. I'm not shocked that it was New Jersey that cooked it up.

[Asher]

All they can do (if they can do that) is void the contracts, and perhaps penalize the teams with fines or perhaps lost draft picks (according to the vancouver link above). So in that sense, if Luongo would agree to a shorter contract at a lower cap hit, then perhaps they would get a lower cap number - but that seems unlikely.

What are you and Ben smoking? I know you said "if", but still.

The reason Luongo's cap hit is so "low" ($5.8M) is because of the contract tomfoolery. Forcing him to renegotiate will just means he'll likely end up with a higher cap hit on a shorter term (6.5-7mil/year over 6 years instead of 5.8mil/year over 12).

[snoopy369]

I am not smoking anything. Ben was suggesting, I believe, that Luongo might accept a lesser contract (ie, for less money per year, even after you take into account the tomfoolery). I find that highly unlikely, but it's not technically impossible.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason Luongo's cap hit is so "low" ($5.8M) is because of the contract tomfoolery. Forcing him to renegotiate will just means he'll likely end up with a higher cap hit on a shorter term (6.5-7mil/year over 6 years instead of 5.8mil/year over 12).

There's as many possibilities as contracts. I don't know what Gillis plans, he could offer Luongo 5.8 plus extra performance bonuses.

[Asher]

Performance bonuses count towards the cap if hit. Given Luongo's performances as of late, I doubt he'd be eager to sign up for those.

Luongo's the only game in town in Vancouver and it's too late to find another starting goaltender for next season. He's got Gillis by the balls if the contract is voided.

[Ben Kenobi]

Performance bonuses count towards the cap if hit. Given Luongo's performances as of late, I doubt he'd be eager to sign up for those.

Given that he was willing to sign a 12 year contract, I really don't see him all that inclined to go elsewhere.

Luongo's the only game in town in Vancouver and it's too late to find another starting goaltender for next season. He's got Gillis by the balls if the contract is voided.

Those statements are contradictory. If he really didn't contribute all that much to the team last year, he has zero leverage.

The Canucks did fine without him. They've got nhl calibre goaltenders on the farm. This is Luongo's best chance at a cup.

[Asher]

Given that he was willing to sign a 12 year contract, I really don't see him all that inclined to go elsewhere.

Of course he'd sign a 12-year contract for that kind of money. ****, $10M alone next year.

He's not doing it for the love of the city, he's doing it for the guaranteed money.

Those statements are contradictory.

No.