Kovalchuk's Contract

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 1:11 AM EDT

I just found the details for Kovalchuk's year-by-year salary on capgeek. I'll re-post the table here (click to enlarge):

It's obvious that Lou knows Kovalchuk isn't going to come close to playing out this contract; he gets league minimum salary for the last six years. I think he'll retire in his mid-30's, since his offense will be gone by then and he won't have anything to add to the game. I'd really like to see the NHL throw this contract out, but I'd be shocked if they actually do that. Part of me just can't stomach Kovalchuk getting paid $11.5M for five straight years.

The content expressed in fanposts does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff here at Pensburgh.com. FanPosts are opinions expressed by fans of various teams throughout the league but may be more Pittsburgh-centric for obvious reasons.

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Wow. Thanks for sharing that. Been looking for something for most of the day, but I guess something wasn’t posted until recently.

If I’m Kovalchuk, I’m already making retirement plans for after the 2021 season.

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.

by FrankD on Jul 20, 2010 1:34 AM EDT reply actions

No problem; cap geek is clutch.

And if I were him, I might even think about checking out after the 2018-2019 season. He’ll be 35 then, and I can’t see a Kovalchuk without offense as a positive hockey player.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions

The Hockey News mentions that Lou has likely thought of the 2 or 3 cap amnestys in the life of the contract, as the CBA is likely to be renegotiated about every 6 years. I’m not familiar with cap amnesty. Anyone know what that is?

As for the contract….they need to close the loophole for these long, long contracts that are clearly designed to circumvent the cap. I don’t mind long contracts as a whole, but ones that are not designed to anticipate and reward performance over the life of the contract but instead to simply beat the rules, irritate me. I’m a fan who likes the cap and thinks it helps the game. It may mean that my team isn’t as dominant as I’d like it to be over time, but it means that any game can go either way….that’s how I like my hockey to be played when I watch it :)

by SuMac on Jul 20, 2010 6:56 AM EDT reply actions

I agree. Isnt this part of the reason the NHL had a lockout? To get contracts back under control? I dont like this at all. I think any contract that extends past when a player turns 35 should count against the cap. Not just when they sign after they are 35. This would stop deals like Frazen, Hossa…they cant be good for the league. How long of a deal is it going to take, before the NHL does not approve it? Lets sign Sid and Geno to matching 25yr- $120 million deals in a few years then.

by genomachine-O on Jul 20, 2010 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions

How can the NHL allow this contract?

It makes the cap a joke. Add 6 more years at $550K, taking Kovy to age 50, and the cap hit would be $4.56M.

by phineasfog on Jul 20, 2010 7:01 AM EDT reply actions

My thoughts exactly. But we both know the NHL is going to roll over, even though they know Lou and the Devils clearly violated the CBA by talking about retirement during contract negotiations.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions

legality of the contract

What kind of argument could the NHL use in nullifying the contract? I think the fact that Kovalchuk is 27 and signed a 17 year contract (well past the average age of retirement in the NHL, even for elite players) is evidence enough. With the Hossa/Franzen/DiPietro deal, you could argue that the players meant to see the end of the contract, and therefore avoid the retirement issue.

If the league challenges this, where does the battle go? To an arbitration court, to a U.S. district court, etc? is there a precedent for the post-lockout NHL?

it’s not that I think the NHL will challenge the deal – I just like to play “what if?”

by mcnulty4prez on Jul 20, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t know where it would go, but my guess is it stays within the NHL system.

I think the fact that Kovalchuk is 27 and signed a 17 year contract (well past the average age of retirement in the NHL, even for elite players) is evidence enough.

I’m with you on this.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions

They need to have a maximum length of contract based upon player age. Would take a lot of this crap off the table.

by spookygeek on Jul 20, 2010 8:59 AM EDT reply actions

I think an easier solution would be to have your individual yearly salary as the cap hit.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

It would prevent this loophole, but it could open others, like teams staggering salaries to “load up” in a given year.

Dirk Hoag from “On the Forecheck” had a good suggestion close the loophole — which make no mistake will be one of the top priorities in new CBA negotiations — the minimum annual salary in any contract must be at least 50% of the maximum annual salary.

by King Oskar on Jul 20, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

So … what? We pay Geno & Sid $5M/year, so Gogo and Lovejoy are guaranteed $2.5M? Gogo’s not half the player Sid is! (hehehe ;))

I get the idea, and it has some promise, but I think 50% is a bit much.

Shero gets an A. Burkie gets a checkmark.

by PopRocks on Jul 20, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it means that… if we take the Kovy example… if you’re paid 11.5M one of the years than the minimum you should get within the length of the same contract is 5.75M…

Right?

You have to see it for yourself...

by Bla Razor on Jul 20, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions

yes, that’s how i read the suggestion

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Heh … quantifier ambiguity. Your read makes more sense.

And I don’t like the idea because now I don’t think that 50% is high enough.

Shero gets an A. Burkie gets a checkmark.

by PopRocks on Jul 20, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

i agree.
why not just cut to the chase and require that they all be the same.

if NJ wants to average $6M/year, then they offer X # of years at $6M EACH year.
if Kovy wants a higher salary, he’s not going to get 17 years.

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

It would prevent this loophole, but it could open others, like teams staggering salaries to "load up" in a given year.

that’s a good point.

what about requiring that, whatever the length, the annual salary be the SAME?

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I say now that Im against this kind of contract, but in a few years Im hoping theirs a chance that Sid and Geno can both sign similar contracts…….

by genomachine-O on Jul 20, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions

the important thing is a level playing field.

if the Pens do it for Crosby and Malkin when that is std. operating procedure, that’s fine, but its not a competitive advantage.

teams like New Jersey and Detroit and Chicago are gaining a competitive advantage by circumventing a loophole in the CBA.

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

teams like New Jersey and Detroit and Chicago are gaining a competitive advantage by circumventing a loophole in the CBA.

and the NHL actually did something about it!!!

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the players might draw a line

in the ~~sand~~ ice over anything that they perceive as suppressing salaries. They almost unanimously feel like they were beaten like a rented mule last time around. Now, they have Donald Fehr hanging around. He likes strikes. I don’t care whether labor or management pulls the plug, I’m not ready for another work stoppage. Additionally, I’m not sure that the league as we know it could survive going dark for any significant period again this soon.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Jul 20, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions

the players definitely won’t be in favor of anything that suppresses salaries…
…unless it means they get to have a job
playing hockey—at whatever salary—is a LOT better than their 2nd best career options

quite a few teams are already struggling financially
the biggest expense for any franchise is players salaries
so there needs to be some sanity there
if multiple franchises went under—either b/c of strike or b/c of payrolls out of control—that would be bad for all parties involved

by Diomedes7 on Jul 20, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

you dont think a lot of players would like to have contracts that span their entire careers like this? Why? Wouldnt you like to have guaranteed income from now until you retire? Kovi would have never had to worry again about a contract. Even if he gets injured, if he only plays 200 games over then length of that deal…hes getting paid.

by genomachine-O on Jul 21, 2010 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions

There’s a lack of flexibility involved in contracts like this. That’s one reason I could see players not liking them.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 21, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

it only benefits a few players — the Kovalchuks, Zetterbergs, and Prongers.
the other 95% of the players…it doesn’t help them at all.
It hurts them b/c without cap sanity, smaller market teams will go under (Phoenix, Nashville, etc).
that reduces jobs.

by Diomedes7 on Jul 21, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

It would prevent this loophole, but it could open others, like teams staggering salaries to "load up" in a given year.

I’m not sure how this would work. Mind providing an example?

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the idea is that

a team like the Islanders who are sitting at about 36 mil in payroll right now sign player X (my favorite by the way) at 30 mil over five years. In 2010-11 they pay him 22 mil and then 2 mil per season for the term of the deal. Thus, they would take a 22 mil cap hit this year (still keeping them under the cap), but only two mil per season the rest of the way, effectively getting a 6 mil per year player for a 2 mil cap hit for the following four years. At least that’s the way I interpret the concept.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on Jul 20, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Yea but it evens out, because they’ll have a $22M cap hit for a $6M dollar player. A contract like that automatically guarantees you won’t be a serious contender for that year, so if a team wants to do something that stupid, go for it. I also doubt most players would be OK with the structure.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 20, 2010 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Meaning, though, that while you’re bad you’re paying Sid a ton of money, and when you expect to get good you pay him a million so that you can load up your roster. Smart GMs like Poile would have a ball with that.

Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!

by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions

That example though would be such a blatant violation of the CBA that I don’t think there’d be any question about nullifying it, even if there is no explicit rule in the CBA.

Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com

by GoPens! on Jul 21, 2010 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Actually I have issues with contracts for more than 4 years at a time. There’s no way to prepare for injuries or your game going to hell so I think 4 years can give guys their due whilst allowing teams to protect themselves.

Is it October yet?

Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.

by Alighieri on Jul 20, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

I kind of like the idea of possibly naming say 3 “franchise” players and then allowing them to exceed the contract length limit (i.e. Sid, Geno, Staal) and everyone else has to follow the max length, but 4 seems kind of short.

by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions

4 is short. 5 or 6 should be ok. the contract should count against the cap even if the player retires. Put a lower limit for that. Like if player retires under age 32 it wont count, retire over 32 it will regardless of the age the player signed the contract.

Let's go Pens!

by nut1976 on Jul 20, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions

That sounds good, but I’d also like a chance for a team to file that their guy had a freak injury and had to retire over 32 and get special approval. Who knows when the next (knock on wood) Bertuzzi on Moore incident will occur?

by red army line on Jul 20, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think it should count against the cap if the player isn’t playing on the team. It doesn’t make any sense. I know why they do it but i don’t like it, why should a team have to pay for a player if he’s not suiting up.

by JasonGoPens on Jul 20, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions

paying players who aren’t suiting up IS the deterrant to contracts like Kovy’s. By making teams feel the years of the contract, you’d have less teams cutting into the loopholes.

I’d also proposed a scaled pay change system. So the drop off from one year to the next cannot be more than say 20%… Either way, I’m angry that a team which I used to respect as much as the Devils & Lou would end up circumventing the cap like this.

Is it October yet?

Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.

by Alighieri on Jul 20, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions

i kinda had an idea like that for the salary cap… Was gonna post it on my blog in a few days… Something similar to the MLS designated player rule for the salary cap.

I think 4 is the perfect number. It’s long enough for teams to still feel the effect of the horrible contracts they offer but yet is short-termed enough that teams cannot attempt to circumvent the salary cap too much & offers them a little protection from themselves.

5/6 year contracts have a tendency to turn into albatrosses either through injury or through age/injury proneness. The NBA’s full of these. They end up being walking contracts where they ride the end of the bench until their expiring year where they are suddenly “valuable trade chips”.

Is it October yet?

Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.

by Alighieri on Jul 20, 2010 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions

But from the players’ perspective, 4 years doesn’t provide enough stability. Part of the reason for all the no-trade clauses that players try to get is that they’re hoping to stick to one hockey season home base for awhile. 5/6 years is just … better … in that respect. And at the same time it’s not completely ridiculous.

Shero gets an A. Burkie gets a checkmark.

by PopRocks on Jul 20, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t understand the mechanics of it but i still think teams are hurt more by length of than by the actual size of contracts… (there’s an adult joke in here somewhere)

The days of seeing guys like Yzerman & Mario sticking to one team for their entire careers is pretty much over. The window for players in their prime is arguably 4 years. Anymore, it becomes a liability for teams & contenders. 6 year contracts can be downright toxic (see: any mid-level contract in the NBA)

As a team, if you want to contend you have to be willing to spend on players in their prime. If a player wants stability in the same market, it becomes his perogative to make that happen. We’ve seen players (Cookie) take pay cuts to stay in a city. If a guy wants to chase a dollar, it’sentirely up to him then.

Is it October yet?

Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.

by Alighieri on Jul 20, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions