Notes on “The Contract”

by on July 20, 2010 in League News - 575 Comments

Share

Got some interesting feedback from a couple sources regarding Kovalchuk’s 17 year deal, and its potential impacts on future CBA negotiations.

Source 1:

“These long-term deals are getting ridiculous. How many teams can compete? Kovalchuk only had two suitors due to the number of years he wanted. The league is going to look at both capping contract term and moving toward non-guaranteed contracts in the next CBA.  Contracts signed 1-2 hrs after FA are also going to be looked at and hopefully resolved. The gloves will be off on both sides, but this stuff needs to be done.”

Source 2:

“Kovalchuk may have unwittingly screwed the escrow issue for a lot of players. As more players make more salary than cap hit, payroll figures get inflated and the players end up paying a higher percentage of their salaries back into escrow. Kovalchuk’s salary will be 5.5m beyond his cap hit for five years of the contract, 4.5m and 2.5m above for another two years after that. He’s not the only player whose contract does this, but is the most high-profile given his standing and the absurd length of his deal. It’s going to be interesting to see how this affects negotiations as players will inevitably find themselves fighting opposing fronts — for contract freedoms such as term and front-loading, but against the escrow payments that result from those very freedoms. Advantage: league.”

The interesting part about the escrow concern is Kovalchuk’s salary doesn’t jump beyond his cap hit until the 2012-13 season — the same year it is anticipated a new CBA will be in effect (I believe the existing CBA has been or will be extended through the 2011-12 season). The contract was set up this way by design, and should be considered very telling as to what the focus of CBA negotiations will be from the NHLPA’s perspective.

Update: Some have been asking in the comments why Kovalchuk’s contract doesn’t violate either of the so-called “100%” and “50%” rules. The reason for this is after the jump.

NHL CBA
Article 50.7

The difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in the first two League Years of an SPC cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two League Years. Thereafter, in all subsequent League Years of the SPC, (i) any increase in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed the amount of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, that same amount); and (ii) any decrease in Player Salary and Bonuses from one League Year to another may not exceed 50 percent of the Player Salary and Bonuses of the lower of the first two League Years of the SPC (or, if such amounts are the same, 50 percent of the same amount).

Key Information:

(a) Item (i) in the above excerpt is known as the “100% Rule”.
(b) Item (ii) in the above excerpt is known as the “50% Rule”.
(c) Kovalchuk will earn $6 million in each of the first two years of his contract.
Therefore …
(d) According to the “100% rule” no increase between consecutive years of the contract can exceed $6 million, and …
(e) According to the “50% rule” no decrease between consecutive years of the contract can exceed $3 million.

The largest financial increase in Kovalchuk’s contract occurs in 2012-13, when he jumps from $6m to $11.5m (an increase of $5.5m). The largest financial decreases in the contract occur when he drops from $6.5m to $3.5m in 2020-21 (a difference of $3m), and then to $750,000 in 2021-22 (a difference of $2.75m).

In other words, in terms of getting around the CBA the Devils and Team Kovalchuk negotiated this one perfectly.

Update: Looks as though the NHL is none too happy with the contract, and has rejected the deal on an ethical basis despite its terms fully complying with the CBA as currently written.

Interesting food for thought as — extensions aside — the pending end of the CBA is on the horizon. I’ll be back with some thoughts on the Kaberle situation for you in a bit.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Print article

  • Focker

    yep. wedding and reception both at copetown…OPEN BAR!!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • moimoi28

    About time Bettman and co. grew a pair and said enough with this shit. Should have done it a long time ago though.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • LeafsRyan.

    @ Focker:
    wanna carry your convo to facebook.. that would be sweet

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • the Surreal McCoy

    creasemonkey wrote:

    another 4 weeks of negotiations now, good for the NHL but now they look stupid for not doing anything regarding Hossa

    ..or Luongo, Zetterberg, Franzen, DiPietro, Lecavalier, and, to a lesser extent, Richards, AO, Backstrom, hell, even Savard..
    .
    this could get really messy, and really ugly, PDQ.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • LeafsRyan.

    My question is, why would they tell the Devils AFTER the press conference? LOL.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • LeafsRyan.

    the Surreal McCoy wrote:

    creasemonkey wrote:
    another 4 weeks of negotiations now, good for the NHL but now they look stupid for not doing anything regarding Hossa
    ..or Luongo, Zetterberg, Franzen, DiPietro, Lecavalier, and, to a lesser extent, Richards, AO, Backstrom, hell, even Savard..
    .
    this could get really messy, and really ugly, PDQ.

    yup

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rustynail

    LeafsRyan. wrote:

    My question is, why would they tell the Devils AFTER the press conference? LOL.

    My question is why would NJ have a press conference before the deal was league approved? The league does have 5 days to approve a contract.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • LeafsRyan.

    rustynail wrote:

    LeafsRyan. wrote:
    My question is, why would they tell the Devils AFTER the press conference? LOL.
    My question is why would NJ have a press conference before the deal was league approved? The league does have 5 days to approve a contract.

    true

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Focker

    @ LeafsRyan.:
    fuck you buddy…can’t handle an unrelated post or two in the middle of july then piss off, mind your own business and skip over them. seriously wtf

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Focker

    @ LeafsRyan.:
    assclown

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://checkingfrombehind.com danvertising

    Kovalchuk, Hossa, Zetterberg, Luongo, Keith….
    .
    How many of these contracts should have been rejected? 12 years is just as ridiculous and circumvents the cap just as much as 17

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rustynail

    @ danvertising:
    How many of them have 6 years under 1 million dollars per?

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • KeviN

    @ danvertising:

    @ the Surreal McCoy:

    I think it might have to due with the 95 million in the first 10 and only 7 million the last 7…..I could be wrong, but I dont think the dropoff is that bad with the others, again I could be wrong.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cactus

    I don’t think the length is the problem, just the attempt to lower the hit with throwaway years. The contracts of Backstrom, Ovechkin and Dipietro are totally fine, while those of Savard, Hossa, Luongo, Kovalchuck, etc, are clearly circumventing the cap.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://checkingfrombehind.com danvertising

    @ rustynail:
    @ KeviN:
    Does it really matter? It’s the exact same concept used in the 12 year deals… taper off the last 3-4 years to lower the average… Kovalchuk is just an on steroids comparison both in terms of term and dollars… But the exact same concept of circumventing the cap has been used for a couple years now and applies to those other contracts as well.
    .
    It’s a loophole that never should have been allowed… but can they really justify rejecting it now all of a sudden? I mean, c’mon… Officially change the damn rules first.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • CarltontheBear

    lol I wonder if by the time the contract was supposed to expire would 550k be under the salary minimum.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://www.mapleleafshotstove.com Schenn

    @ danvertising:
    I agree, what he league should have done was allow the deals made last summer, but change the rules so any similar deals made after those wouldn’t be allowed.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • http://checkingfrombehind.com danvertising

    Then again… It’s the NHL…. Can’t be surprised with more inconsistent enforcement of any discipline

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rustynail

    Lou might have been better not to have commented on the deal and admitting that it would be a problem at next CBA etc.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • rockydundas

    CarltontheBear wrote:

    I wonder if by the time the contract was supposed to expire would 550k be under the salary minimum.

    God…what will the minimum be in 2027….5 million per year? LOL! I guess you could ask…what was the minimum in 1993? (17 years ago)

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Richard-Steven Williams

    Of course if Jersey take this to court the NHL is going to be manhandled. Phoenix/Bettman vs. Balsille/Hamilton last summer. Bettman vs. Lou this summer, as the Habs fan on HB said, time to reset the domino’s.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • gravyface

    DarrenDreger

    Kovy’s deal was rejected because the NHL doesn’t believe either the player or the Devils expected he would be playing near end of deal.

    Hello KHL.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • light’em up

    @ CarltontheBear:
    entirely possible

    also he turns 38 during the 20-21 season which is the last season he earns real NHL money from 21-22 on 1 year @750000 then 6years @550000

    20-21 3.50 NHL
    21-22 750 NHL
    22-23 550 NHL
    23-24 550 NHL
    24-25 550 NHL
    25-26 550 NHL
    26-27 LY 550 NHL

    There is no way he is going to play for 750000 let alone the following 6 years for 550000 until he is 44.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Richard-Steven Williams

    Really don’t buy into the Kovy to KHL theory. Even the KHL will be at a stretch to meet those kind of wage demands. And no way that league is secure for even an two year term, nevermind, 8.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cactus
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)