NHL revises Kovalchuk circumvention penalty. Devils will get 2014 30th overall pick

[Sylvanfan]

I always figured that the Devils must have felt they had a case here as they kept delaying the forfeited pick as long as they possibly could. Buying themselves time for the league to ultimately change their mind.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GGG

Kovolchuks first contract, the one the devils were penalized for, went until he was 44 and had 6 cheater years on the back end of it. Whereas Luongos went to 42 and has 4 cheater years on the back end of it.

Kippers was the first and there were many after but it wasn't until Kovolchuk that the league stepped in and said that it was cap circumvention. It was just how blatent these contracts were getting. After the Kovolchuk first contract the PA and the NHL agreed that 40 would be the cap on these cheater contracts. Weber and Paraise signed the last of the deals.

A key point is what happened with Kovolchuk's second contract that was accepted and terminated has nothing to do with the issues surrounding the first contract except that the ruling might show a pattern of favour for the league.

The fact that Kovy left or stayed should have no bearing on the punishment. If NJ hadn't signed Kovy to the second deal they still would have been punished for attempting to circumvent the cap.

I do agree that the punishment for the Kovy deal was too harsh given that the NHL continually let each contract get worse without trying to set a standard. I think the 3rd, 20 spots, plus the fine is still quite a harsh penalty for pushing the letter of the law. I look at this as the same as the ROR fiasco that there is no way the NHL would have forced ROR to go through waivers on the flames because it would be too punishing for trying to find loopholes through the CBA.

But was there an actual rule in the CBA about punishing teams that tried to circumvent the cap? And what the punishment would be (picks, money etc). Let's keep it in mind that all deals need NHLs approval so anything fishy could always be stopped with a "thanks for trying" note.
Also keep in mind what age Selanne, Hasek and Cheelios reached.

[killer_carlson]

only way this makes sense is if there is an allegation by NJ that the NHL could have done more to stop Kovalchuk from playing in the KHL.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

only way this makes sense is if there is an allegation by NJ that the NHL could have done more to stop Kovalchuk from playing in the KHL.

Except that there is almost nothing the NHL could have done to stop Kovalchuk from playing in the KHL. The league could have suspended him and then tried to force the IIHF to honour that suspension. But I think Lamourello extremely happy to get out from under that contract.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The league could have suspended him and then tried to force the IIHF to honour that suspension.

What could the league suspend him for? He filled his retirement papers... unless the NHL is going to try and tell players when they can and cannot retire they couldn't suspend him for anything.

[GreenLantern2814]

So... Does this mean Vancouver is off the hook for Lu? If I were them, I'd refuse to pay the full recapture penalty in the wake of this...

[Hugh Jahrmes]

Pocket post

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

What could the league suspend him for? He filled his retirement papers... unless the NHL is going to try and tell players when they can and cannot retire they couldn't suspend him for anything.

Given Kovalchuk has obviously not retired, one could argue that he filed the papers fraudulently in a brazen attempt at escaping/violating his contract.

However, you're missing the point. I was responding to the thought that the league might be bending over backwards for the Devils because New Jersey thinks the league could have done more to stop Kovalchuk from bolting. You're only arguing my point that there was very little the league could have done.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

So... Does this mean Vancouver is off the hook for Lu? If I were them, I'd refuse to pay the full recapture penalty in the wake of this...

Different rules entirely. Plus, the Canucks aren't an unstable franchise in need of frequent bail outs.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Red

But was there an actual rule in the CBA about punishing teams that tried to circumvent the cap? And what the punishment would be (picks, money etc).

Yes. Articule 26.13 of the 2005 CBA. Subsection C.i(money) & C.iii (picks) governs club punishment. http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're only arguing my point that there was very little the league could have done.

I know... I wasn't trying to be argumentative, I completely agree with your greater point. I just don't see any grounds that the NHL could use to suspend him given the rules and don't think that New Jersey could even try to claim that with a straight face.

[Devils'Advocate]

Teams were pushing the envelope with these contracts.... People were pointing out that they were ridiculous. The boundary was pushed, time and again. Then, once it was pushed over some invisible line in the sand the league pounced, and arbitrarily punished the Devils. And after trying, convicting and punishing the Devils, the league THEN made the rule that the Devils broke! I, though obviously biased, am peeved that there was any punishment at all. The Devils are lousy this year and could well have had the #10 pick and instead get #30.

IMO, it is bush league to punish someone for breaking a rule that didn't exist yet. If anything they should have (a) nipped this practice in the bud when it first started and (b) immediately created a rule when GMs started using the practice. Not wait until the practice gets worse and then punish just one guy.

[Stupid]

Way to pull the turd back in, NHL.

This is bogus. Lost respect for NHL and their 'penalties'. Seems totally arbitrary now.

[FAN]

This is to help ease the pain of Lou's stupidity for not giving up the first round pick in 2012.

Harsh penalty or not, the Devils are being rewarded for not having paid the penalty early.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Stupid

Way to pull the turd back in, NHL.

This is bogus. Lost respect for NHL and their 'penalties'. Seems totally arbitrary now.

It was kind of arbitrary before.

[Ashasx]

Imagine if we lost our first round pick last year after the ROR thing and then this.

[sureLoss]

An interesting POV:

Would you trade #10 overall for #29 and #30 overall?

Essentially what is happening to the Devils after not forfeiting the 29th overall pick in 2012.

[FakenHaken]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

An interesting POV:

Would you trade #10 overall for #29 and #30 overall?

Essentially what is happening to the Devils after not forfeiting the 29th overall pick in 2012.

Please hide this from Jay Feaster. I hear they have their eye on someone they think could slide to 29 to pick up an additional pick at #30.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Imagine if we lost our first round pick last year after the ROR thing and then this.

let it go man

[sun]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Imagine if we lost our first round pick last year after the ROR thing and then this.

I think this goes to show that there are grey areas. I still don't think that pick would have been forfeited (but let's not reopen that can of worms).