Aug 13, 2010, 8:00 PM EST
By now you may be well-versed in the reasoning behind the rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s 17-year, $102 million contract with the New Jersey Devils. To review, his deal stuck out as especially bad considering that his deal had six unrealistic salaried years at the end, the deal would take him to age 43 and those final seasons also mysteriously shifted from no-movement clause years to no-trade clause only seasons.
That being said, the NHL’s “line in the sand” seems to be hidden underneath a sand castle somewhere on a metaphorical beach of confusing puck-based legislation. (To complete this zany metaphor, the league’s rules regarding head-shot suspensions are being devoured by sharks.)
SBN’s Devils blogger John Fischer got in touch with NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, widely considered to be the second most powerful league executive behind Gary Bettman. Fischer asked for clarification regarding what exactly determines that “line in the sand.” Read the full article for some context and the full conversation, but here are a few selected bits.
John Fischer: I’ve read and understand the reasoning of Richard Bloch’s ruling that sustained the NHL’s rejection of the New Jersey Devils’ contract with Ilya Kovalchuk. However, between the ruling (p.15-16 in particular) and the broad view of Article 26.3, it is ambiguous as to what the “line in the sand” is now for future SPCs. What would cause a contract to be unacceptable in the league’s view going forward?
I know it was reported two days ago that the league has no issue with Vincent Lecavalier’s contract; so the “line” could be somewhere in between the parameters of both SPCs. However, I’d like your or the league’s opinion on this issue.
Bill Daly: While we do look (and have looked) at each contract individually, your suggested approach is the right one. There are a number of “guideposts” already out there from which Clubs can guide their conduct. No one factor is determinative, but all are important. How long is the contract, what is the player’s age at the time of the contract’s “expiration”, what is the value of the contract in its “back-end” and how does that compare to its “front-end” and its resulting AAV, what are the other relevant structural elements of the contract? All are relevant questions. And while this may sound subjective and ambiguous, its really not that much so. The Clubs are all very familiar with these considerations and know where we draw the line.
At this point I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that we may further discuss with the Union to see if “bright lines” can be established. Absent those “bright lines,” it will be on a case-by-case, with existing guideposts established, the GMs understanding our concerns and sensitivities, and always with the ability of the Clubs to reach out to us to dicuss [sic].
My take is that Daly means “guidelines” or “boundaries” when he uses the phrase “bright lines.” (Or maybe he likes using highlighters.)
While Bettman’s right hand man didn’t get too specific, his answers do illuminate the fact that the NHL’s 30 teams aren’t in the dark about the league’s policies. That being said, it would certainly be interesting if the league was a little more transparent regarding their rules, regulations and decision making processes.
- Update your wallcharts: Rangers confirm Brassard has mumps 4
- Video: Coyotes defeat Oilers with 0.3 seconds remaining in OT 2
- It’s ‘unlikely’ Duncan Keith has the mumps, says Blackhawks coach 3
- Bjugstad scores the winner as Panthers, Capitals make history with 20-round shootout 19
- Yep, Beau Bennett has the mumps 24
- (Video) PHT Extra: Would the Oilers really trade Taylor Hall? 11
- Russia’s economic crisis causing big trouble for KHL 55
- Eakins calls for patience in Edmonton, whether fans ‘like it or not’ 15
- Bruins have to ‘step up,’ starting tonight in Nashville 45
- Welcome Taylor Hall to the trade rumor mill 53