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

[saillias]

Originally Posted by FakenHaken

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.

Nobody tell him!

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by Locke

It was kind of arbitrary before.

I haven't been watching the NHL for that long; gave them the benefit of the doubt I suppose.

[FAN]

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.

All else being equal I would certainly not trade the #10 overall for #29 and #30 overall. But it's hard to view the situation like that. There was obviously some sort of calculated gamble there and I bet Lou didn't think the Devils would be drafting in the top 10 the next few years after getting to the Cup finals.

With that mindset, if the Devils really liked Matteau then waiting made sense. The 2014 draft is not considered a strong draft and between drafting Matteau (given that the team liked him) and getting two extra years of development and a midround pick in 2014, it's not inconceivable that the Devils could have made the right choice.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Stupid

I haven't been watching the NHL for that long; gave them the benefit of the doubt I suppose.

Being Arbitrary and being fair are not the same thing.

Another poster said it pretty well, GMs kept pushing it and pushing it until eventually the Devils were the ones to cross the imaginary line-in-the-sand.

Well, that line in the sand is arbitrary, and it just isnt fair but they were the first ones to cross it. What can you do? If you have an imaginary line then someone has to be the first poor schmuck to unknowingly cross it. Its got to be someone.

[sureLoss]

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
As a sidenote to the Devils draft pick news from today, should NJ miss the playoffs, Devils will remain in draft lottery. (con't)...

Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun
If Devils win lottery for example, the team that was No. 2 would then move up to No. 1 and so on as NJ gets slotted 30th...

[Geeoff]

It was BS that the Devils ever got penalized in the first place. The Kovalchuk contract was completely within the rules. The NHL only changed the rules after. The NHL was in their right to veto the contract but penalizing the Devils was harsh.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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

Except, of course, that we would have lost our pick as compensation for signing O'Reilly. Completely, totally and utterly different situation than New Jersey being stripped of a pick for cap circumvention. Or, as another poster put it, let it go, man.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

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

Completely different and in line with the rules outlined by the CBA, unlike this Devils case.

I surprised there are people that are actually upset about this. Devils kinda got jobbed by the NHL in the first place since they allowed the contract.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

It was BS that the Devils ever got penalized in the first place. The Kovalchuk contract was completely within the rules. The NHL only changed the rules after. The NHL was in their right to veto the contract but penalizing the Devils was harsh.

Actually, it wasn't within the rules at all. The rules gives the league wide discretion to determine what is cap circumvention. The Devils didn't push the envelope on that one. They shoved right past it and out of the post office.

And yes, penalizing the Devils was harsh. That's the point. You can't properly enforce your salary cap without being harsh towards blatant cheaters.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Troubamaker

So how did the Canucks not get penalized for his contract? was it signed before rules were put in place?

Canucks were in constant contact with NHL during Luongo negotiations, the Devils was a surprise

why the Devils was first sent back, Canucks were auto approved

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...

NJ is paying recapture for the next 15 years

I think 250k a year

[Stupid]

Originally Posted by Locke

Being Arbitrary and being fair are not the same thing.

Another poster said it pretty well, GMs kept pushing it and pushing it until eventually the Devils were the ones to cross the imaginary line-in-the-sand.

Well, that line in the sand is arbitrary, and it just isnt fair but they were the first ones to cross it. What can you do? If you have an imaginary line then someone has to be the first poor schmuck to unknowingly cross it. Its got to be someone.

Fair enough, learned something.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I surprised there are people that are actually upset about this. Devils kinda got jobbed by the NHL in the first place since they allowed the contract.

They rejected the first contract. They allowed a revised contract but the Devils were being punished for the first one.

[Alberta_Beef]

I think with now having recapture penalties on top of the previous punishment it became too harsh. I am fine with them drafting 30th

[19Yzerman19]

The notion that they can't trade the pick is sort of hilarious. "Hey Lou, Burke here. I know you can't trade the pick, but if you use it to take (player) we'll give you X for him."

[Jacks]

For all the folks who think NJ was treated unfairly, here is the contract that was rejected by the NHL and deemed to be cap circumvention.

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...l_numbers.html
2010-11: $6 million
2011-12: $6 million
2012-13: $11.5 million
2013-14: $11.5 million
2014-15: $11.5 million
2015-16: $11.5 million
2016-17: $11.5 million
2017-18: $10.5 million
2018-19: $8.5 million
2019-20: $6.5 million
2020-21: $3.5 Million
2021-22: $750,000
2022-23: $550,000
2023-24: $550,000
2024-25: $550,000
2025-26: $550,000
2026-27: $550,000 - 44 years old

[Ped]

The whole thing was bs from start to finish.

The cap-circumvention contract was disallowed so why was there a need to punish the Devils in the first place?

The NHL has to approve all contracts. There was no need to punish the Devils to set an example because the NHL has final say whether the contract is allowed or not. All they had to do was say "No, and we're not going to allow these types of contracts so don't waste time negotiating them," and there would have been no more.

Similarly, the Luongo, etc contracts - the NHL okayed them so why come back later with this cap circumvention stuff? If you don't think the contract is toeing the line then don't allow it. Once you allow it how can can you come back later and give conditions?

Years ago I think it was the Leafs tried to give Ken Baumgartner iirc a contract with incentives based on PIM and the league just said no. No pick forfeiture. Why couldn't they just do that here? "Hey we're not allowing this contract so you must wasted your time, and we're going to punish you for it even though we didn't allow it."

The NHL looks bush league on this whole business from start to finish.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Jacks

For all the folks who think NJ was treated unfairly, here is the contract that was rejected by the NHL and deemed to be cap circumvention.

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...l_numbers.html
2010-11: $6 million
2011-12: $6 million
2012-13: $11.5 million
2013-14: $11.5 million
2014-15: $11.5 million
2015-16: $11.5 million
2016-17: $11.5 million
2017-18: $10.5 million
2018-19: $8.5 million
2019-20: $6.5 million
2020-21: $3.5 Million
2021-22: $750,000
2022-23: $550,000
2023-24: $550,000
2024-25: $550,000
2025-26: $550,000
2026-27: $550,000 - 44 years old

And how old is Teemu Selanne? Like I said, it somehow crossed some invisible line of acceptability. How many other contracts would have been invalidated by the new rule they put in place AFTER the Devils were penalized?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And how old is Teemu Selanne? Like I said, it somehow crossed some invisible line of acceptability. How many other contracts would have been invalidated by the new rule they put in place AFTER the Devils were penalized?

But Teemu has made nearly 10M in the last 3 years.

Kovalchuk would have made 1.65M in his final 3.

There's other incentives to keep playing than just money but it's pretty obvious when the contract was "done."

And Howe played until he was 51, would you be happy with say Suter getting 11 more years at 550K tacked onto his contract so it finished when he was the age of 51? It would give him a cap hit of less than 4.5M despite him making 10M on average for the first 8 years but hey if Teemu played when he was 43 making Kovalchuk's contact fine Howe playing until he was 51 should allow everyone to have had 25 year contracts. Right?

You're looking for excuses, the Devils very clearly broke a rule in the CBA (going against the spirit) as everyone, including the independent arbiter, knew. They were punished for doing so. There's some room to use the childhood "but Mr. Bettman, Mike also did it" excuse but just be thankful that the NHL decided to reduce the punishment.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And how old is Teemu Selanne? Like I said, it somehow crossed some invisible line of acceptability. How many other contracts would have been invalidated by the new rule they put in place AFTER the Devils were penalized?

LOL one player out of 1500 constitutes a valid argument? That contract was blatant in its circumvention with a whopping 5 years at 500k at the back end. It was a slap in the face to the NHL and it's no wonder they stepped in and those comparing it to Kippers deal are out to lunch as he had one season only one season where his salary dropped and it was still $1.5 million in his last season. We are talking about the last six years of a deal under $1 million.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ped

The whole thing was bs from start to finish.

The cap-circumvention contract was disallowed so why was there a need to punish the Devils in the first place?

The NHL has to approve all contracts. There was no need to punish the Devils to set an example because the NHL has final say whether the contract is allowed or not. All they had to do was say "No, and we're not going to allow these types of contracts so don't waste time negotiating them," and there would have been no more.

Similarly, the Luongo, etc contracts - the NHL okayed them so why come back later with this cap circumvention stuff? If you don't think the contract is toeing the line then don't allow it. Once you allow it how can can you come back later and give conditions?

Years ago I think it was the Leafs tried to give Ken Baumgartner iirc a contract with incentives based on PIM and the league just said no. No pick forfeiture. Why couldn't they just do that here? "Hey we're not allowing this contract so you must wasted your time, and we're going to punish you for it even though we didn't allow it."

The NHL looks bush league on this whole business from start to finish.

Few points:
1. The league had to punish the Devils because of how obvious their attempted cap circumvention was. Disallowing the contract is not an effective deterrent against such blatant attempts at cheating.

2. While the NHL had registered Luongo's contract, the league had reserved the right to re-investigate it. That became moot when the league and players negotiated their addendum to the CBA. Also, the Kovalchuk contract wasn't just worse than Luongo's, it was worse by a considerable margin. This argument is kind of like complaining that a cop should have let someone doing 150 on Deerfoot go because they didn't get the guy doing 125.

3. The Baumgartner example is irrelevant. There was no salary cap, there were no rules against cap circumvention and there were no set penalties in the CBA of the time.