Devils To Appeal Kovy-Draft Pick Loss?

[guyincognito]

It's toothless because it needs to be in the next CBA in order to be fully enforced. The "punishment" by this clause will depend on how old the player was at the time and how many years are left in the deal.

There is no certainty that it will be in the next CBA. It'll do enough damage without going completely to fruition, though. Especially when teams took "bad" buyouts when not either knowing or paying attention.

 

[JR#9*]

I give up. You have problems reading and analyzing posts here.

Where did I "hope a clause that is resulting in teams actions in losing tens of millions" ? Not only do I have no clue what that means (there's not even a verb in that clause), but I'm pretty certain I said nothing of the sort.

Honestly just going to try my hardest to ignore your posts in this thread going forward. I'll catch up to you the next time Devils-related news is posted somewhere on the internet.

Did you not just post above that recapture may not be a penalty the Devils will face at the end of Kovalchuks contract if he retires early?

And when you say yes then read TSN today about Bryz's 51 million dollar deal being bought out so they won't have it killing them with either him playing as an old man or having millions in dead space as a penalty for frontloading the deal if he retires.

That should explain it for you.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Did you not just post above that recapture may not be a penalty the Devils will face at the end of Kovalchuks contract if he retires early?

And when you say yes then read TSN today about Bryz's 51 million dollar deal being bought out so they won't have it killing them with either him playing as an old man or having millions in dead space as a penalty for frontloading the deal if he retires.

That should explain it for you.

Yes, I bolded the key word in that first sentence for you. Look it up if necessary.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove to me. Just indicates that the Flyers think the benefits of a buyout outweigh the potential cons, both of which I listed above.

You missed a post there though.. it has some nice organized questions for you to answer.

 

[JR#9*]

It's toothless because it needs to be in the next CBA in order to be fully enforced. The "punishment" by this clause will depend on how old the player was at the time and how many years are left in the deal.

There is no certainty that it will be in the next CBA. It'll do enough damage without going completely to fruition, though. Especially when teams took "bad" buyouts when not either knowing or paying attention.

Again, how can a Devil fan call the NHL going after these contracts "toothless"!!!!!

If anyone knows they are serious it should be Devils fans with how hard they came down on you guys.

And do you really think the NHL will just allow teams to blow them off and try to change a clause designed to discipline teams hat all gave these obvious cap circumventing deals?

They would have ZERO credibility if they allowed that to happen which s hy it never old.

And teams that pony up and take the pain of a buyout or teams that never did these outrageous deals would never just allow those who just try and stick it out and try to wiggle out of paying a penalty that they did with either the money or in the latter not having from benefitted from circumventing the cap....wishful thinking to put it nicely...

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

The Devils cheated the system and the cap.They got caught and they got punished.They deserve to lose their 1st and the NHL will be gutless if they rescind the penalty or change it from a 1st to a 2nd.The Devils should blame themselves for not forfeiting their 1st in 2012,now the prospect of losing a top 10 pick in 2014 has them terrified.Lesson learned, don't cheat and don't cry when your caught and punished.

 

[JR#9*]

I'm going to use a numbering system since that may help you understand things, please respond using my numbering system so you can make sure to answer all my questions:

1) Please show me where I said the Devils don't have financial problems
2) Please show me where I said the Devils will be able to petition the league to keep the pick
3) Please show me where I said the league will not include the cap-recapture clause in the upcoming CBA
4) Heck, please show me that you actually have read anything I've posted since every post you make indicates otherwise

I would respond to the other part of your post but it's quite unreadable. A period, apostrophe or two would seriously help there, no joke.

1) a look at your posting history has PAGES ranting of how the NY Post is just on a witch hunt and trying to sell papers...pages!!

2) have you not posted that Lou and the Dvils got railroaded and even an independent arbitrator stated no ill will so Lou should fight the NHL on this??

3)you posted ten times in your last 10 posts that it "may" not have recapture as a part of the net CBA which I've explained 10 times why it has ZERO chance of happening.

4) I say I can't read something if I don't have answers.

 

[guyincognito]

Again, how can a Devil fan call the NHL going after these contracts "toothless"!!!!!

If anyone knows they are serious it should be Devils fans with how hard they came down on you guys.

And do you really think the NHL will just allow teams to blow them off and try to change a clause designed to discipline teams hat all gave these obvious cap circumventing deals?

They would have ZERO credibility if they allowed that to happen which s hy it never old.

And teams that pony up and take the pain of a buyout or teams that never did these outrageous deals would never just allow those who just try and stick it out and try to wiggle out of paying a penalty that they did with either the money or in the latter not having from benefitted from circumventing the cap....wishful thinking to put it nicely...

You don't read. So there's no point in replying to your points. I'd just repeat the same post over again. Look back up at the post you replied to and think. Not in this little world where the JA11 signal gets fired up and you come running in, but in a world of CBAs and how they work. Look at the 2005 CBA and how you get to a season like next year which is just random voodoo economics. Things change and sides give up on things. What is in one CBA may not be in the next.

 

[Kane One]

I don't see how this is double jeopardy. The cap benefit recapture technically isn't a "punishment." The Devils, and 29 other teams agreed to it in the CBA. The Devils were only punished once. Not twice.

 

[DevilChuk*]

1) a look at your posting history has PAGES ranting of how the NY Post is just on a witch hunt and trying to sell papers...pages!!

2) have you not posted that Lou and the Dvils got railroaded and even an independent arbitrator stated no ill will so Lou should fight the NHL on this??

3)you posted ten times in your last 10 posts that it "may" not have recapture as a part of the net CBA which I've explained 10 times why it has ZERO chance of happening.

4) I say I can't read something if I don't have answers.

1) A look at your post history has indicated that 98 of your past 100 posts have been about the Devils In fact, I couldn't find a single page in your post history where the Devils weren't mentioned.. I wonder who's biased and obsessed here..

And if you read my posts about the NY Post, I've been quite clear about the situation the Devils are in.

2) Wait, so where did I say they would petition the league again? I asked for A and you gave me.. C? Umm.. okay..

3) Right.. "will" does not equal "may" .. if you need me to point out the difference in these two words, I will oblige.

 

[DevilChuk*]

I don't see how this is double jeopardy. The cap benefit recapture technically isn't a "punishment." The Devils, and 29 other teams agreed to it in the CBA. The Devils were only punished once. Not twice.

Well, they were punished twice but for two different contracts. Doesn't really matter though since the NHL isn't the US government and can punish a team however many times they want for a single infraction.

If you want to call the cap-recapture a tool to eliminate cap-circumvention (basically a retroactive penalty), fine.. but either way you're talking about the NHL making two distinct rulings that can/will hurt the Devils. Absolutely nothing wrong with that though. The Devils deserved what they got.

 

[Kane One]

Well, they were punished twice but for two different contracts. Doesn't really matter though since the NHL isn't the US government and can punish a team however many times they want for a single infraction.

Then what's the reasoning behind the belief that the Devils will or could win? Saying that other teams had these contracts before the Devils isn't a good enough reason for this to be overturned three years later, IMO.

If you guys want something changed, I think the only fair thing to do is to grandfather the cap benefit recapture rule for contracts signed before this CBA.

 

[JR#9*]

You don't read. So there's no point in replying to your points. I'd just repeat the same post over again. Look back up at the post you replied to and think. Not in this little world where the JA11 signal gets fired up and you come running in, but in a world of CBAs and how they work. Look at the 2005 CBA and how you get to a season like next year which is just random voodoo economics. Things change and sides give up on things. What is in one CBA may not be in the next.

I don't read????

I just listed TEN times why the NHL wont just "give up" n this clause

I listed why the. NHL can't allow this and why the other teams won't allow it so check that out cause you may have missed it...a few times.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Then what's the reasoning behind the belief that the Devils will or could win? Saying that other teams had these contracts before the Devils isn't a good enough reason for this to be overturned three years later, IMO.

Well you'd have to ask someone who believes that.. I've said several times in this thread that not only do I think the Devils have absolutely no legal right to challenge the penalty but that the NHL would never take it back.

They SHOULD be able try (IMO, one of the qualms I have with the situation) but even if they were allowed to, it won't happen.

Also, the cap-recapture clause will likely (and should, it does eliminate circumvention) be grandfathered into the next CBA. It's just not a definite and it is still very possible some players like Kovalchuk actually fulfill their contract.. or, as I pointed out, the cap penalty is not really inhibitory based on the cap in the future.

I posted this earlier:

Three things annoy me about the penalty:
1) The Devils never benefited from the cap circumvention as Kovy did not play 1 game under the rejected contract. Other teams did (and are) benefited from cap circumventing contracts with no penalty.
2) The NHL blackmailed the NHLPA into sacrificing the Devils by holding a gun to the other dubious contracts, ultimately leading to the NHLPA relinquishing their right to appeal the NHL's penalties. Ridiculous that the Devils would not even be allowed (unless this process is possible) to appeal the penalty.
3) The impartial arbitrator ruled that he found no ill will on the Devils part and no intent to circumvent the cap. Well.. yea..

The Devils absolutely deserved punishment (other teams likely as well but the NHLPA let the Devils take the bullet.. not something as a fan I can agree with but from the PA's POV, it was a smart decision). That doesn't mean the process occurred without any wrong or that the penalty may have been excessive.

 

[Kane One]

Well you'd have to ask someone who believes that.. I've said several times in this thread that not only do I think the Devils have absolutely no legal right to challenge the penalty but that the NHL would never take it back.

They SHOULD be able try (IMO, one of the qualms I have with the situation) but even if they were allowed to, it won't happen.

Also, the cap-recapture clause will likely (and should, it does eliminate circumvention) be grandfathered into the next CBA. It's just not a definite and it is still very possible some players like Kovalchuk actually fulfill their contract.. or, as I pointed out, the cap penalty is not really inhibitory based on the cap in the future.

Fair enough.

But it should have been grandfathered into this CBA. By the next one, it will already be too late.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Fair enough.

But it should have been grandfathered into this CBA. By the next one, it will already be too late.

What do you mean? It just made its appearance into this CBA.. it IS an active clause right now.

Also, check out my edit above.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Cap circumvention. Busted. Suck it up.

This. No way should the NHL go back on itself, it'll look terrible.

 

[guyincognito]

I don't read!!!

I just listed TEN times why the NHL wont just "give up" n this clause

I listed why the. NHL can't allow this and why the other teams won't allow it so check that out cause you may have missed it...a few times.

The NHL couldn't accept an unlinked cap either, and here we are. And the PA couldn't except a cap of any kind, linked or unlinked, and here we are. Two years of voodoo math and "make whole" funds and all kinds of whacky crap to get back to a linked cap because winding down to 50% would hurt player earning potential.

You cannot assume a CBA negotiation. I don't expect it to be in the next CBA, I don't think the PA is going to take it because it has a potential to harm their earning potential when the younger guys start coming due. I don't understand why they accepted it in the first place other than them not understanding it. Which would make sense because it took a few days for people to make heads or tails of it.

How the hell they work themselves back from what happened in the past? I guess more voodoo math.

 

[Kane One]

What do you mean? It just made its appearance into this CBA.. it IS an active clause right now.

Also, check out my edit above.

What I mean is that contracts signed before this CBA shouldn't use the cap benefit recapture rule. I'm aware that the Devils didn't benefit from the contract as of yet, but let's use Richards as an example. If he retires, the Rangers would receive a penalty. What I'm saying is that Richards should be allowed to retire with the Rangers receiving no penalty.

 

[DevilChuk*]

The NHL couldn't accept an unlinked cap either, and here we are. And the PA couldn't except a cap of any kind, linked or unlinked, and here we are. Two years of voodoo math and "make whole" funds and all kinds of whacky crap to get back to a linked cap because winding down to 50% would hurt player earning potential.

You cannot assume a CBA negotiation. I don't expect it to be in the next CBA, I don't think the PA is going to take it because it has a potential to harm their earning potential when the younger guys start coming due. I don't understand why they accepted it in the first place other than them not understanding it. Which would make sense because it took a few days for people to make heads or tails of it.

How the hell they work themselves back from what happened in the past? I guess more voodoo math.

If I had to guess, I would think the PA would agree to some sort of modulation of the clause. Like, if a player plays X% of his contract, no penalty would be incurred. Obviously, I would think they'd also want to make it so the cap-penalty doesn't apply towards the cap floor.. which I think it does right now and is absolutely absurd

Talk about a cap-ceiling circumventing contract becoming a cap-floor circumventing penalty!

 

[DevilChuk*]

What I mean is that contracts signed before this CBA shouldn't use the cap benefit recapture rule. I'm aware that the Devils didn't benefit from the contract as of yet, but let's use Richards as an example. If he retires, the Rangers would receive a penalty. What I'm saying is that Richards should be allowed to retire with the Rangers receiving no penalty.

Oh, so you wanted last CBA's contracts to be grandfathered in.

That's usually how it works, the NHL clearly wanted to get rid of these examples AND punish teams who took advantage of the loophole here though.

What they should have allowed is the possibility to renegotiate 1 contract (instead of the additional buyout). I'm not sure if many players would have been up to this but a Richards may have if it meant he would get more money in the long-run (money in the bank from the years played under his current contract + additional money from his new contract with an overall salary higher than the remaining money on his original contract).

As in,

Richards has banked 24M already and only 36M over 7 years remaining on his contract. Rangers come to him with a new 7 year deal totaling 40M and a 5.7M cap hit. Both sides would be happy. Rangers pay a little extra (i.e. a "penalty") but are given a one-shot chance to fix cap-circumventing contracts. Obviously, they already benefited from two years of it.. so maybe the NHL could have instead only penalized teams for those years. The system as is is stupid because it's going to lose good players their jobs because teams are scared about something ten years down the road and you're penalizing teams for following (explicit after the Kovalchuk amendment) rules regarding contract structure.

 

[guyincognito]

What I mean is that contracts signed before this CBA shouldn't use the cap benefit recapture rule. I'm aware that the Devils didn't benefit from the contract as of yet, but let's use Richards as an example. If he retires, the Rangers would receive a penalty. What I'm saying is that Richards should be allowed to retire with the Rangers receiving no penalty.

Why is that? The rule was created to claw back Kovalchuk and Richards style contracts. Not for anything that's signed in the future, there are now clear guidelines.

If they grandfathered the pre-2013 CBA contracts, there would be no point in having this clause. It's also a nice FU to the teams/players who all ran into contracts before the old CBA expired.

I think it's a good idea, the problem is that CBA's aren't infinite and alot of the punishment comes due after this CBA (likely) expires. So it's really subject to future negotiation after we find out what kind of damage it does and whether it hurts player earning power.

 

[DevilChuk*]

There just needs to be a better way to do that, though, because the current system doesn't help anyone but the NHL's agenda. It hurts the players and hurts the teams regardless of the path they choose.

Using Richards as an example:

Rangers punished for 2 years of cap circumvention. Using the cap recapture system, that's 6.67M cap hit per year but the NHL could allow teams to defer the cap hit for a few years or use a different system for PAST cap circumvention.

Going forward, Richards' contract is considered as only the remaining years with the same pay structure (9M, 8.5M, 8.5M, 7M, 1M, 1M, 1M) thus a 36M deal over 7 years. New cap hit is thus 5.14M. No circumvention. Player retains his salary. Team retains their pay structure. If he retires early, do the cap-recapture penalty based on this deal. So if he retires at the 1M years, he'd have earned 33M with a cap hit of 20.56M and a per year penalty for 3 years of 4.15M.

I.e. treat it as two different contracts so you don't have this weird middle-ground where you want to avoid the penalty for cap circumvention you've already gotten away with while also worrying about POTENTIAL future cap circumvention. It's unnecessary and doesn't help either party.

Or something like cap hit starting next year is calculated without the years of a contract <X% of the total.. i dunno, SOMETHING that doesn't have the weird sort of "mortgage your future or not based on past sins that you cannot reverse without paying exorbitant amounts of money" type thing.

 

[jhoops89]

If it's a high pick that they'll have to give up next year, then what happens to the pick? Does the team after them get two picks or is there an extra pick at the end or what?

 

[DevilChuk*]

If it's a high pick that they'll have to give up next year, then what happens to the pick? Does the team after them get two picks or is there an extra pick at the end or what?

Why would the team after them get two picks? Does that make any sense at all to you?

It just doesn't exist. No extra pick. Only 29 picks in the first round instead.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

As far as the double penalty, fine overturn it and give Kovy back his original contract, then it can be "punished", the contract he has is league approved, this one was not hence the penalty on it.