NHL '10 - '11 Thread

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by GHC_Hambone

Chelios finally retiring?

http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/08/0...03&feedID=3701

[Ahbroody]

bought a pack of cards yesterday.
Antti Niemi rookie card inside. Hmmmmmm

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Ahbroody

bought a pack of cards yesterday.
Antti Niemi rookie card inside. Hmmmmmm

You can retire now!!!

[Ahbroody]

I already did. Then I decided to sell it for hockey fees.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Ahbroody

I already did. Then I decided to sell it for hockey fees.

Wow! How much does Beckett's say it's worth?

[Ahbroody]

Hahahahah no clue.
Was suprised they even made one last year. Shows played 3 games in 08 on the back

Kovalchuck is once again a free agent. LOL I think I kind of called this in the old thread. Glad the league finally decided to stop this as it was getting ridiculous. If the purpose of the K is designed to circumvent an agreement it can be voided.

Clearly I am always wrong.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=535745

[yourchoice]

Al Morganti, a local radio personality here in Philly, that most of you probably remember from espn, suggested this morning that Lou A. offered him the rediculous contract at the behest of the league to give them a reason to deal with, what they are calling, the "loophole". He went on to suggest it could give the NHL the opportunity to review other questionable contracts already in place (in Philly's case, Pronger's). Seems kind of conspiracy theory-esque, but I guess there could be some gamesmanship in the works if there's any truth to it. Amirolla (sp) would be someone I could see trying to do something like that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[yourchoice]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

Amirolla (sp)

O' brother...I wasn't even close! Lamoriello!

That's what I get for posting from my phone.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

it could give the NHL the opportunity to review other questionable contracts already in place (in Philly's case, Pronger's). ]

I can't see how they can possibly void contracts which are already a year or more old....I think Morganti is off base.

[Eleven]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I can't see how they can possibly void contracts which are already a year or more old....I think Morganti is off base.

They may not be able to void those, but I am all for them re-working them to be in line with the spirit of the CBA.

Everyone agreed to the CBA, now teams have found a way to circumvent the actual wording with creative contracts. Its cheating. Plain and simple.

[yourchoice]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I can't see how they can possibly void contracts which are already a year or more old....I think Morganti is off base.

I agree it seems unlikely they could void the contracts, Tom. But the league could review "questionable" past deals and consider cap implications. That's may still be a stretch.

The allegation that he offered the contract with the NHL's blessing seems unlikely too, but the contract certainly made the point of how preposterous it can be.

[icehog3]

It will definitely be interesting to watch this play out.

[Gophernut]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I can't see how they can possibly void contracts which are already a year or more old....I think Morganti is off base.

A quote from the arbitrator who voided the contract is pretty telling though:

"While [those] contracts have in fact been registered, their structure has not escaped league notice," Bloch wrote. "Those players' contracts are being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration."


So he left the door for the NHL to do just that, of course the NHLPA will have something to say about that I am sure. I agree it will be interesting to watch it all play out.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Gophernut

A quote from the arbitrator who voided the contract is pretty telling though:

"While [those] contracts have in fact been registered, their structure has not escaped league notice," Bloch wrote. "Those players' contracts are being investigated currently with at least the possibility of a subsequent withdrawal of the registration."


So he left the door for the NHL to do just that, of course the NHLPA will have something to say about that I am sure. I agree it will be interesting to watch it all play out.

I would have to call on the arbitrator, Steve...I just don't see the League doing anything with past contracts.

[Gophernut]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I would have to call on the arbitrator, Steve...I just don't see the League doing anything with past contracts.

I could see them trying, but I really don't think they'll get very far. The other contracts, aren't as week on the back end like this one is. Also, the NHLPA is going to stand in the way, they are a pretty strong union, and the NHL has a history of looking the other way on these sorts of things.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by Gophernut

I could see them trying, but I really don't think they'll get very far. The other contracts, aren't as week on the back end like this one is. Also, the NHLPA is going to stand in the way, they are a pretty strong union, and the NHL has a history of looking the other way on these sorts of things.

I agree completely.

[Ahbroody]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I can't see how they can possibly void contracts which are already a year or more old....I think Morganti is off base.

Dont be so suprised. If they can show the purpose of the contract was to circumvent the CBA/ Cap then they just might. Lets not forget those two contracts last summer are what lead to this contract.

They may not be able to void it, but they may be able to put something in that says the K must be balanced and if the player does not complete the K then he must give back a percentage of the money he did not earn. I dont think this would happen though. What would be interesting if they did this would be if they could get the arbitrator to rule that the money returned must be determined by taking the amount of the K and dividing it by years of K. In all honesty if this was done and the Players Union took it to court they would have a tough time arguing the players would actually complete these contracts amd what the true purpose was. The courts in the past have shown they will side with the league and give them a lot of say in how business is done. Dont believe me? Look at how the Coyotes Bankruptcy was handled. The League was given control. If they will do it with the NFL they will do it with the NHL.

All and all I am glad this was done and hope something is done about last years contracts. Its Shiet for teams and players to do this. It violates the whole purpose of the cap and trying to introduce parody giving more teams a shot. I think most of us have had enough of certain teams buying players. Its nice to see teams struggle now that the cap has taken effect.

[357]

Originally Posted by Ahbroody

Mike I have never moved the target or changed the argument. I have stated the same things since last year. I wont be getting back on topic as I never left. I am not the one putting thoughts and words not written into your posts. It has become painfully obvious that no matter what I write be it direct quotes from a coach or stats we are not going to agree. I have no intrest in continuing this as I fear it will result in Tom having to get involved. I appreciate my friendship with Tom too much to put him in that situation. So I will for the second time in a row post. Lets just agree to disagree.

OK. I was being civil; I wasn't calling names or mocking anyone. You kinda dogged my team. I disagreed with you. Thereafter I was only trying to make a logical argument that supported my opinion. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. We're fans of different teams, we'll never see eye to eye on which team is better. No hard feelings.

[357]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Nah, it was a Detroit Red Wings reference, Mike.....read between the (arguably most potent third) lines.

I know it was a jab at the Wings, and their third line. What I couldn't grasp was how Janet Jackson lyrics were going through your mind.

[357]

Originally Posted by Eleven

They may not be able to void those, but I am all for them re-working them to be in line with the spirit of the CBA.

Everyone agreed to the CBA, now teams have found a way to circumvent the actual wording with creative contracts. Its cheating. Plain and simple.

I disagree. The rules are the rules. The intention of a rule is defined by the wording. If the wording is poor, then it's a bad rule. Fix the wording. Amend the CBA and have the PA approve it. I know that it's not as easy as it sounds, but as you said everyone agreed that the average salary over the term is applied to the cap.

IMO, it's not the GM's fault that they are smarter than the attorneys who wrote the CBA. Every team looks for ways to gain a competitive advantage. It's the teams job to do this; be the best within the rules.