The example of the New Jersey Devils
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 8:00 AM CDT
14 comments
Many have been speculating as to why Lou Lamoriello signed Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year deal. The conclusion that most have come to is that he was trying to work the system. He signed Kovalchuk to a deal that would give the player the money he wanted and wouldn’t put the team over the salary cap.
However, I think there could be something else to the story – another reason why Lou created such an interesting contract structure – and it all comes from his quote of, "We shouldn’t have these [types of contracts]."
It’s no surprise that Lou found the loophole to exploit. He did have a hand in creating the CBA, after all. If anyone knows where the holes are, he does.
And it’s been well documented that he’s been critical of the long contracts that seem to be fashionable these days. He didn’t like the Hossa deal, he didn’t like the Pronger deal, and I’m sure he likely didn’t like the Kovalchuk deal – which is what he said after he signed him (see quote above).
Lou is a very shrewd general manager. I think everyone can agree on that. He’s managed the Devils to three Stanley Cups within ten years – 1995, 2000, and 2003 – which is no small feat. There’s a reason why he had a hand in writing up the current CBA.
I think – and this is all pure speculation on my part – that Lou was trying to make a point about long contracts. In fact, I think he intentionally pushed the bounds of absurdity in order to bring attention to the issue. I don’t think he really expected the NHL to approve Kovalchuk’s contract.
Yes, he was quoted as saying, "We are extremely disappointed that the NHL has decided to reject the contract of Ilya Kovalchuk." He doesn’t say why he’s disappointed, however. People are assuming that he’s disappointed because it didn’t go through, which is the logical assumption.
But, perhaps he was instead disappointed that the NHL would allow the other long contracts to stand when wouldn’t let his lesson in absurdity go through. It’s a fine distinction, but a distinction, nonetheless. Why should they allow Marian Hossa’s, Henrik Zetterberg’s, and Roberto Luongo’s contracts to stand when they won’t let Kovalchuk’s?
And, if that’s actually the case, then Lou may have a point. What really is the difference? There’s no guarantee that any player will continue playing next year, let alone 10 or 12 years from now. Hockey is a dangerous sport, and many players are knocked out of the game every year due to career-ending injuries.
After all, that would’ve been like signing Eric Lindros to a 12-year, $100 million contract when he was 30.
0 recs |
14 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
How else would one make this kind of a point then?
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
It’s not like GM’s are online bloggers; they’ve got a ton of resources at their disposal. If Lou was really that upset at this contract thing (a proposition I don’t buy), then he could get the attention of the league and other GM’s without having to go through all this trouble, whether it’s doing it at a meeting or talking to these guys directly.
Another reason I find this suggestion spurious is that this whole episode has been a net negative for Lou and the Devils. There’s no way Lou feels so passionately about this issue that he’s willing to throw his reputation and career on the line.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Devils ownership pushed hard for the signing. Lou’s comments at the press conference reflect that. He doesn’t like the contracts but there is no rule against them, if it was up to him it wouldn’t be a 17 year deal but Vanderbeek wanted Kovalchuk. Lou obviously wants Kovalchuk but not at the cost of losing Parise so he structured the deal in a way that would making keeping both very likely.
I can totally agree with that.
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
It’s no surprise that Lou found the loophole to exploit. He did have a hand in creating the CBA, after all. If anyone knows where the holes are, he does.
Are you really giving Lamoriello credit for finding a loophole that half the league already found before him?
Anyway, the conspiracy theory that Lamoriello expected this contract would be rejected does have legs. However, if he deliberately tailored the contract this way, I suspect it would be less to prove a point to the NHL, and more to prove one to his owners. I can’t see him risking his team’s fortunes and his own career to prove something to the league – there was always the chance that the NHL would have simply accepted it. But with ownership pushing hard on signing Kovalchuk, tailoring the deal this way gives him an out in either direction. If accepted, ownership gets what it wants and Lou will be retired long before the deal becomes a problem. If rejected, he can tell his bosses he tried while also getting the benefit of criticizing these types of deals.
Just because others used it before he did doesn’t mean that he wasn’t aware of it earlier.
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Unless Lou Lemonjello is trying to place set himself up as Gary Bettman’s successor, this is just too far into the conspiracy realm for me. I dont think he likes the contracts, and there’s no doubt that he would be a shill for the owners’ in the next lockout and argued against these types of contracts. But he would have been that before, and trying to undercut his owner seems too dopey for him. He did exactly what a smart GM would do – try to please his owner, and try to allow himself to build a contending team at the same time. If he didnt think it was the right thing for the Devils, he wouldnt have done it.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a conspiracy theory. I think he was trying to make Kovalchuk and object lesson. Where’s the conspiracy in that?
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
All of it is probably true
at some level. he put himself in a no lose situation. If the contract goes through, he wins. If the contract is rejected, one could argue that he wins in some combination of several ways. First, he makes his point about these contracts. Secondly, he recons for the league and probes the union in advance of the next CBA. Finally, he just might drive Kovalchuk’s price down. It isn’t a conspiracy for one guy to leverage his position like this. Does anyone think Lou isn’t smart enough to have done just that?
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
by SubLime on Jul 22, 2010 10:19 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. Maybe this isn’t the only reason for the contract, but then again it could be. Like I said, this is just pure speculation on my part.
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jul 22, 2010 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
I’ll go a step farther. I think Lou lied through his teeth when he claimed to be disappointed that the contract got rejected. My take since this went down, particularly after finding out that he probably knew that it was going to be rejected before signing it, was that he wanted to make sure that he set a precedent that the league would veto something, somewhere. I don’t know. Maybe I attribute the Evil Genius tag to ol’ Lou too easily, but I can’t help but feel that this has gone exactly the way he wanted it to.
by J. Michael Neal on Jul 22, 2010 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree mostly, but have reservations
Clearly, Lou has great distaste for this contract, and I spotted early on that he publicly said (in essence), “It wasn’t my idea, but the owners insisted.” In other words: “My bosses are idiots.” Only someone with Lou’s stature, or someone who works for people who are so stupid that they would miss the subtext of his remarks, would get away with that.
But to say that he intentionally courted rejection of the contract to make a point… well…. That assumes that he was willing to gamble that the league would not impose sanctions after the contract was rejected — sanctions that would make his life a lot more difficult by reducing the salary cap for his team and/or depriving him of draft picks.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Atlanta Thrashers
- Chris Pronger's contract accepted; why NHLPA could have advantage
- Pass or Fail: When 'Jersey Shore'-level celebs invade hockey arenas
- NHL's ultimatum: Amend CBA or reject Kovalchuk, Luongo deals?
- Report: Matthew Hulsizer is Coyotes' mystery ownership candidate
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
