In general, I agree that it’s unlikely Kovalchuk would have made it to the end of that contract. But just for the sake of argument: can we really assume that over the next 17 years, methods won’t be found to extend careers beyond what we currently see? Not everyone can be Chris Chelios, but it’s not hard to imagine longetivity becoming more commonplace going forward as understanding of the body becomes more fleshed out, training programs become more specialized and any number of factors converge to push athletes over the 40-year mark.

I’d even go as far as to say that had Kovalchuk been a Lidstrom/Pronger-like defenseman instead of a speedy sniper, this contract wouldn’t have been questioned. It’s pretty standard opinion that forwards lose what makes them special as they progress through their 30’s, whereas hockey sense and positioning, the hallmarks of Hall of Fame defensemen, stay sharp through their late 30’s and beyond. The same reasons that allow them to play 10+ minutes more per game than forwards preserves their bodies.

I don’t see how, given the comparisons to players stated in the article, the NHL can win this one. Is it an attempt to circumvent the cap? Of course it is. So were the others. Is 44 THAT much more of a stretch than 42? I don’t think so. Kovy’s people can site his attendance record in addition to the contract comparisons. The league doesn’t have to like it, but they do have to live with it.