I’ve gone through and taken a hard look at some numbers and possible reference cases that the NHLPA could bring up in terms of defending Kovalchuks’s contract.

I think the NHL has some really good points that will make the case for rejecting this contract, and the numbers can be used to indicate a lot. Now, numbers and facts can be skewed as many ways ’til Tuesday to make a case, but I’ve tried to be somewhat objective looking at these.

For the comparison cases I looked at Franzen, Zetterberg, Luongo, Lecavalier and Hossa (these seem to be the names that come up the most, although looking at the numbers, Franzen doesn’t seem to be a very good comparison).

Here’s what I did:

I looked at the percentage value paid before a SIGNIFICANT salary decrease (I went with 30% as an arbitrary minimum cutoff – NOTE: Bobby Lou takes a 32% paycut from year 1 to year 2 of his deal, but I ignored this as he then spends the next 7 seasons at this amount).
I looked at the percentage value paid before the GREATEST percentage salary decrease.
Age at expiration
Age at salary reduction (again, SIGNIFICANT vs. GREATEST percentage decrease)
Percentage value of lowest year vs. highest.
Years at reduced salary (significant vs greatest).

[b]Franzen:[/b]
82.76% paid (s – 30.00% cut)
95.40% paid (g – 50.00% cut)
37 years old(s) and 38 years old(g) at decrease.
18.18% (l vs h)
4 and 2 years left (s vs. g)

[b]Zetterberg:[/b]
92.67% paid (s – 52.14% cut)
97.26% paid (g – 70.15% cut)
38 years old(s) and 39 years old(g) at decrease.
12.90% (l vs h)
3 and 2 years left (s vs g)

[b]Luongo:[/b]
89.06% paid (s – 49.63% cut)
94.35% paid (g – 52.16% cut)
40 years old(s) and 41 years old(g) at decrease.
10.00% (l vs h)
3 and 2 years left (s vs g)

[b]Lecavalier:[/b]
92.35% paid (s – 52.94% cut)
97.06% paid (g – 62.50% cut)
37 years old(s) and 38 years old(g) at decrease.
10.00% (l vs h)
3 and 2 years left (s vs g)

[b]Hossa:[/b]
87.36% paid (s – 49.37% cut)
93.68% paid (g – 75.00% cut)
38 years old(s) and 39 years old(g) at decrease.
12.66% (l vs h)
5 and 4 years left (s vs g)

[b]Kovalchuk:[/b] [i]proposed[/i]
93.14% paid (s – 46.15% cut)
96.57% paid (g – 78.57% cut)
36 years old(s) and 37 years old(g) at decrease.
4.78% (l vs h)
7 and 6 years left (s vs g)

The figures that I thought were significant were the percentage values from highest to lowest years, years remaining after salary decrease and the percentage pay cuts these guys were taking. Most of these guys’ contracts (Luongo, Hossa and Kovi [i]excluded[/i]) expire at 40 or younger, and there are typically only 2 or 3 years remaining when the player takes a big paycut.

Significant Paycuts are similar (45-50% range), Greatest were anywhere from 50-78%.

From the numbers, Kovi takes the greatest single paycut at 78+%, and he’s got the most years left after that point. That could be huge (While Hossa’s paycut is similar, he has less years). The craziest number was seeing that Kovi’s low vs high pay amount was under 5%. None of the other players were below 10%.

The other thing that could be a big tipping point for the NHL over the PA is the fact that the Kovalchuk deal is the [i]ONLY[/i] one where the player is taking less than $1 Million/year in any season. In fact, given how league minimums have risen in the current CBA ($25K increase every 2 years – 2009-10 is first year at $500K) and assuming a similar trend forward, when Kovi gets his first $550K year (2022-23 season), he should likely be making $100K less than the league minimum (“coincidentally” this occurs the season he turns 39). This fact alone could be enough to sewer this for the NHLPA.

Ultimately, I think there are good enough numbers here to really toss the case out with a laugh. Even the precedent setting Hossa deal shouldn’t be enough to carry this one through.

Some pretty good stuff in there, and as mentioned, you get the feeling that ownership pulled the strings on that one, as he doesn’t seem to like the deal. Hearing stuff like this just adds more fuel to my own conspiracy theory about Katz pulling strings on occasion.

I like the idea of contracts having a maximum length or calculated in cap hits of small terms or a pre-set number of years, even if the contract is longer, like Racki suggested.

The one thing I wonder is why is there no league maximum enforced on these contract? i.e. If a team tries this shit, then the league should reject the contract and put this player on a league mandated contact for the maximum cap hit allowed. Kind of harsh and taking away negotiating power, but it will instantly make GMs accountable. The other thing is that the league needs to institute a “marquee player clause” into the next CBA where every team has on player they can designate as their marquee player that does not count against the cap. I believe it’s been done in other leagues but I don’t know how successfully. This way everyone can bid on a free agent of this calibre and not go over the cap. I suppose that could be viewed as either a step forward or backward depending on your view of the current CBA.

I think the solution is likely somewhere in between a maximum term and maximum percentage of cap space. There is no doubt it will be addressed in the next CBA.

@ gr8one; It is interesting that Lou Lam of all people would submit this contract to the league. I really did wonder when I saw that structure. He absolutely knew he was flirty with it being rejected and I wonder if he secretly hoped it would be as well. He’s always been a penny pincher and never waivered from that. It may be his way to force the league and the PA to lockhorns and get a clear ruling on these types of deals, with him obviously falling on the side of the league. I love conspiracy theories, don’t you?

Somewhere Dean Lombardi is telling his ownership “I told you so.”

Racki: The PA might and probably actually will file a grievance (just because they protect their own, even if deals like this fuck over 99.9999999999% of them).In which case, it would be pretty hard for an arbitrator not to rule in favor of the contract being legal, I would think, since the CBA has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

This is a good thought from Spector on the subject:

SPECTOR’S NOTE:
How ironic Devils GM Lou Lamoriello, who was one of the league’s chief negotiators in the last round of CBA talks, who apparently had a hand in crafting the current CBA, who was a hard line hawk against the PA and its former director Bob Goodenow, could now be dependent upon the PA to try and save this contract. If this goes before an arbiter the league will argue Kovalchuk has no intention of playing out the final years of the deal, yet that suggestion might not be easy to argue what with 42-year-old Mark Recchi returning with the Boston Bruins next season, 40-year-old Mathieu Schneider having played last season with Vancouver and Phoenix, and 48-year-old Chris Chelios having played a handful of games last season with the Atlanta Thrashers. So now we wait to see if the PA files the grievance or the Devils and Kovalchuk try to rework the deal.