A child of five can see that a 27-year-old man signing a 17-year contract will have long since retired by the time that deal hits its expiry date. Which is as good a reason as any for NHL commissioner Gary Bettman to declare the deal null and void, meaning Kovalchuk remains a free agent and the next deal he signs will have to have at least a toehold on reality.

I’m going to have to take a shower after posting this because it makes me feel absolutely filthy to agree with Lil’ Gary’s minions. But NJ paying $3M for the last six years of Kovalchuk’s contract is an absolute farce.

There is absolutely no doubt that the intent of this contract is to have Kovalchuk retire after 12 years (at the age of 39) having earned over 96% of his 102 million dollar contract.

At least the somewhat-similar Zetterberg, Franzen and Hossa contracts included payouts that were within the realm of reason. But if anyone thinks that Kovalchuk would continue playing for six years (from the age of 39 to 44) at 750k per year, they’re beyond delusional.

Now, let me see if I can find that English Leather Soap-On-A-Rope I’ve been saving for a special occasion. I’ve got to get the stench of agreeing with Lil’ Gary’s minions off of me as soon as possible.

Posted by OlderThanChelios on 07/20/10 at 11:35 PM ET

I’m with OTC on this one (easier to say that than, “I’m with the league”).  I was somewhat sickened by the length of Z’s, Franzen’s, and Hossa’s contracts.  I remember when 7 years felt like a long contract.  In my mind that’s about as long as they should go.

It’s just poor management.  What if a player gets hurt and can only play half the speed they used to for the rest of their careers?  What if they get complacent and lose their passion for playing because they’re awash in cash for the foreseeable future?  I mean look at the Rick DiPietro deal and you’ll see what I’m talking about.  You need to keep a bit of an insurance policy against handcuffing your team for years.  You need to keep a fire under your players’ feet.  A contract like this might get you a great player locked up for their prime, but it also might lock your team out of playoff contention for a decade.

I personally could care less about whether managers find a way to circumvent the cap - in my eyes if they’re playing within the rules of the agreement and they find a way to make their team a winning one by being a little clever, more power to them.

But this tomfoolery had to end, and I’m glad it is at that end.

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 07/21/10 at 01:05 AM ET

Yeah, buts its Gary’s system that’s flawed. Its BS he can just come in and nullify a contract. This should have been the last front loaded contract. Then everyone should have got together to figure out how to stop this from happening in the future.  But to nullify a contract…screw you Gary.

Posted by callmedrw on 07/21/10 at 07:36 AM ET

The ‘line in the sand’ is pretty obvious tbh - when a player is earning league maximum, AND league minimum, in the same contract, something exceptionally dodgy is afoot.

Hossa earns a max of $7.9m for example, which goes down to about $1m towards the end. Still dodgy, but not a difference of over $10m. The long-term deals for Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Richards are a different kettle of fish, meanwhile, because those players have played their entire careers so far for one organisation and can therefore be said to have a legitimate interest in signing (very) long-term. Frankly, these kind of contracts are only really reasonable in these cases.

Posted by fcjbencard on 07/21/10 at 08:18 AM ET

If you’re sickened by these lengthy contracts, blame the owners. Do not forget, this is their CBA, with very few concessions given to the players.

With that said, it appears Princess Gary is within his rights to veto a contract, if for nothing more than because he feels like it. Sure, arbitration can take place and override a decision as described in 11.5 and 11.6, but here’s the rule:

11.3 Validity and Enforceability.
Except as expressly set forth in Section 11.5 below, no SPC shall be valid or enforceable in any manner whatsoever unless and until it has been filed with Central Registry and approved by the League or the Arbitrator.

Except as expressly set forth in Section 11.6 below, no Player will be permitted to play in
an NHL Game or be entitled to receive his Paragraph 1 Salary or any other rights or
benefits pursuant to an SPC unless and until he has executed an SPC with a Club, and
such SPC has been approved and registered by the League or approved by the Arbitrator.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, a Club may, simultaneously
with filing an SPC with Central Registry, request Waivers on the Player whose SPC is
being filed.

With that said, I’d think they have a good case for the arbitrator. I don’t think this contract violates any of the explicit rules about SPCs nor does it violate any of the explicit circumvention rules.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/21/10 at 09:03 AM ET

So you’re telling me that both the NHL rulebook and now the CBA are merely suggestions? What’s stopping Chicago from maintaining a roster over cap now?

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 07/21/10 at 09:25 AM ET

I totally disagree with the NHL. They have a deal in place with the players and this deal falls within those rules. this is no different then what Detroit and Chicago did. This was done for the same reason it’s just a longer deal

Posted by jtssrx on 07/21/10 at 11:08 AM ET

Apparently, Kovalchuk’s contract is the defining line between blatant and too blatant salary cap circumvention. One could argue that the last third of the contract is unprecedented in terms of blatantness. Regardless of the outcome, I think it’s a good idea to have the cap circumvention waters tested.

It’s a pity that this semi-precedent wasn’t challenged earlier with teams like Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, Philadelphia, and perhaps one or two more, exploiting the loophole.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/21/10 at 11:11 AM ET

The long-term deals for Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Richards are a different kettle of fish, meanwhile, because those players have played their entire careers so far for one organisation and can therefore be said to have a legitimate interest in signing (very) long-term.

Posted by fcjbencard on 07/21/10 at 08:18 AM ET

I have to agree there.  In addition to these contracts not going from ceiling to floor, not having such a large disparity from year to year, and being realistically within a player’s career scope (Kovalchuk’s expiring at age 44, for contrast), there should be a special clause or consideration in the books for “lifers”.  If a player has been under the sole employment of one team their entire career and wishes to continue that track, it should be the right of the club and the player to ensure that.  Sort of a means of retaining the equity the team and player invested in.

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 07/21/10 at 12:12 PM ET

Apparently, Kovalchuk’s contract is the defining line between blatant and too blatant salary cap circumvention. One could argue that the last third of the contract is unprecedented in terms of blatantness. Regardless of the outcome, I think it’s a good idea to have the cap circumvention waters tested.

It’s a pity that this semi-precedent wasn’t challenged earlier with teams like Detroit, Chicago, Vancouver, Philadelphia, and perhaps one or two more, exploiting the loophole.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/21/10 at 11:11 AM ET

The only thing that’s a pity (if you take the NHL side of this argument, which you certainly seem to) is that the NHL was not thorough enough in reviewing this part of the CBA that not only they signed off on, but are almost 100% responsible for.

The PA offered at least two deals with major concessions to the owners in an effort to save the now lost season. Instead, the NHL stood by their version until the players had to agree to avoid losing another season of salaries (obviously, with teams in non-hockey markets losing money, it is easier for the NHL to sit out indefinitely than it is for the players).

It would be one thing if the CBA was truly a collaborative effort between the NHL and PA, but we all know it wasn’t. If it had been a real collaboration, I’d say that yes, within reason, these contracts circumvent the purpose of the cap, and “gentlemanly” should be disallowed and discouraged by both the NHL and the PA. All the cards were in the league’s hand—they could’ve held out longer and demanded more restrictions, like an NBA-style max contract, or some other control that limits the lengths of deals.

This might be a “loophole” based on the league’s intent, but functionally it is not a “loophole” but “the rules.”

As well, like I have pointed out, it was well within Princess Gary’s rights to reject this contract. The rules say so. But the rules also say the PA can file a grievance if the SPC does not violate an explicit rule in the CBA for which it can be rejected. And that appears to be the case here.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/21/10 at 12:34 PM ET

The only thing that’s a pity (if you take the NHL side of this argument, which you certainly seem to) is that the NHL was not thorough enough in reviewing this part of the CBA that not only they signed off on, but are almost 100% responsible for.

Most moderately complicated agreements don’t cover every imaginable problem, and the CBA is no exception. However, there’s a relevant article 26 for dealing with potential contractual circumvention where you specify the rules for an investigatory process, joint decision between the parties for that infraction, or - if necessary - the involvement of a system arbitrator to resolve the issue. There’s a process, not an authoritarian ruling. You can always have secret desires for something better.

My only minor point was that the very first suspicious contract should have been investigated, and preferably rejected, to establish the rules through either joint discussion or system arbitration as described in the CBA. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the outcome would be different.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 07/21/10 at 06:07 PM ET