Free Agent Frenzy

[static70]

And who knows if Rivet will be ready for the start of the season

Why, according to Darcy of course. He stated in the presser he expected Rivet to be ready for training camp.

[thesportsbuff]

And who knows if Rivet will be ready for the start of the season

 

There has never been any question as to whether or not Rivet would be ready... where do you people come up with this stuff? Spare some kind of fluke setback, Rivet will be ready for the start of the season-- just like he has been projected to be since the day of, or possibly before, his surgery.

[carpandean]

There has never been any question as to whether or not Rivet would be ready... where do you people come up with this stuff? Spare some kind of fluke setback, Rivet will be ready for the start of the season-- just like he has been projected to be since the day of, or possibly before, his surgery.

Actually, the recovery time for his surgery was projected at 4-6 months, meaning that he might miss the start of the season. However, Darcy stated that he was pretty confident that he would be ready, though it may "pull him back" during pre-season.

[static70]

Actually, the recovery time for his surgery was projected at 4-6 months, meaning that he might miss the start of the season. However, Darcy stated that he was pretty confident that he would be ready, though it may "pull him back" during pre-season.

Come on now. We've got tons of D men now. Lets run Rivet into the ground and just throw another body out there when he's finally broken down enough to where he can't play. I mean, after all, its his last season under his current contract. :blink:

[static70]

Capgeek has Butler eligible to be sent down while Weber isn't. If any of the CBA CPA want to step in at this point and clarify things, that would be great.

 

 

http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement13.asp

 

 

So, Bulter just finished up his 2nd season having played a total (including playoff games) 106 career games and the column for skaters states 60 games at 2 years from signing.

He has to clear waivers according to section 13 of the CBA. Is this correct? I am reading that correct, right?

[shrader]

And can't they send players down from Portland to portland's farm teams?

 

They don't specifically have one, but they can loan a player to the ECHL at any point if they want to. I think they'd rather avoid that if possible though. There will be next to nothing for a player to gain from being down there.

 

http://www.nhlfa.com/CBA/cba_agreement13.asp

 

 

So, Bulter just finished up his 2nd season having played a total (including playoff games) 106 career games and the column for skaters states 60 games at 2 years from signing.

He has to clear waivers according to section 13 of the CBA. Is this correct? I am reading that correct, right?

 

That's definitely right. I remember checking up on that earlier in the year right as he crossed the games played limit. It was some lucky timing on my part.

[static70]

They don't specifically have one, but they can loan a player to the ECHL at any point if they want to. I think they'd rather avoid that if possible though. There will be next to nothing for a player to gain from being down there.

 

 

 

That's definitely right. I remember checking up on that earlier in the year right as he crossed the games played limit. It was some lucky timing on my part.

So my original post that Weber (due to the 3 year rule) and Butler (described above) having to clear waivers was correct, no?

And Sekera is on a 1 way, no? Even if not, he has cleared the games played as well, no?

 

What I am getting at here is it looks more and more like trade material, atleast 1 of them I would think, correct?

[carpandean]

And Sekera is on a 1 way, no? Even if not, he has cleared the games played as well, no?

One-way vs. two-way has no effect on waiver status; it simply tells you if the player will make the same (one-way) or less (two-way) if/when he clears. There may be a strong correlation between the players on two-way contracts and their waiver status, but one does not affect the other.

[static70]

One-way vs. two-way has no effect on waiver status; it simply tells you if the player will make the same (one-way) or less (two-way) if/when he clears. There may be a strong correlation between the players on two-way contracts and their waiver status, but one does not affect the other.

Thanks carpandean, but I understood that, I was looking at that from the payroll prespective, not from whether or not it affected the waiver status. He's played 157 games and is well beyond the 2 year limit. He would still need to clear waivers for sure.

 

The point I was getting at with this is if they have to slide any one of these guys up and down they have to clear waivers.

[static70]

Afinogenov to SKA, 5 year deal

http://allhockey.ru/news/81563/

[static70]

Selanne will resign with Anaheim (direct quote from Selanne)

http://www.urheilulehti.fi/jaakiekko...ni-anaheimissa

[static70]

John Madden to the Wild

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=535665

[thesportsbuff]

Afinogenov to SKA, 5 year deal

http://allhockey.ru/news/81563/

 

BOOOOOOO :cry: :cry: :cry:

[ECHL]

Afinogenov to SKA, 5 year deal

http://allhockey.ru/news/81563/

Bye Bye. Dudly lets Macarthar and Afinogenov go. He's going to build a tough team.

[inkman]

BOOOOOOO :cry: :cry: :cry:

Uh...okay.

[thesportsbuff]

Uh...okay.

 

I like Max, I can't believe he couldn't find a team in the NHL. I bet he tears up the K though.

[static70]

Chris Chelios retires

 

Takes up a job with the red wings

 

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

 

Man, and he was so young to. :rolleyes:

[static70]

[static70]

Ruslan Salei signs in Detroit

 

http://twitter.com/NHL

 

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=18826

[static70]

Arbitrator rules in NHL favor:

 

KOVALCHUK DEAL DENIED!

 

Per NHL.com

[thesportsbuff]

$20 says Eklund has "Kings back in on Kovalchuk" update within the next 24 hours

[static70]

Interesting wording in Bloch's remarks on his ruling.

 

Basically it was the length to age ratio in conjuction with the last 5 years amount that were of obvious cap circumvention efforts.

Very reasonable ruling.

 

I have to wonder if NJ can afford him at 13 years given the increase in cap hit amount.

 

Should be an interesting week on this subject and could very well change the amount of tradable commodities off of the New Jersey roster. If Lou persues this, I think another player or 2 would have to go, they are already closed to the cap.

 

Excerpts from Bloch's ruling, obtained by Sporting News:

 

[b]"In this case, the record strongly supports the claim this contract is 'intended to, or has the effect' of defeating or circumventing the Salary Cap provisions of the CBA. The overall structure of this SPC reflects not so much the hope that Mr. Kovalchuk will be playing in those advanced years, but rather the expectation that he will not. This is a long contract --17 years -- the longest in NHL history. That, in itself, poses no contractual problem, for the reasons discussed above. But Kovalchuk is 27 years old, and the agreement contemplates his playing until just short of his 44th birthday. That is not impossible, but it is, at the least, markedly rare. Currently, only one player in the League has played past 43 and, over the past 20 years only 6 of some 3400 players have played to 42. ..."

 

 

More from the report regarding finances:

 

"...The dynamics of this SPC, with particular reference to its final six years, are such that there is scarce reason for either Player or Club to continue the relationship. The incentives are strongly to the contrary. By year 11, the Player will have received $98,000,000 of his $102,000,000contract , constituting some 97% of the bargain. One may reasonably ask, as the League does, whether a player who had been averaging some $9,000,000 a year will be satisfied to continue the rigors of an NHL season for a salary that (1) will average slightly more than $550,000 a year, (2) will represent a 95% reduction against previous average earnings and (3) will undoubtedly constitute compensation well below the then-applicable major league minimum. The economic incentives are not limited to issues of the Player's preferences, alone. During the final six years, the comprehensive "No Move" restriction will have been reduced to a "No Trade" clause. This additional flexibility will allow the Club to, for example, place the Player on waivers or send him to the minors. Here again, one may reasonably ask whether this Player would, at that point, accept such repositioning as an alternative to seeking continued employment outside the League or simply retiring."

 

 

The conclusion

 

"...the System Arbitrator here concludes the SPC terms themselves demonstrate this agreement 'has the effect of defeating' the provisions of the CBA, with particular reference to the Team Payroll Range language. For these reasons, the finding is that the League has sustained its burden of demonstrating its actions in rejecting the agreement were in accordance with the bargained authority under Section 11.6(a)(i). Accordingly, the grievance protesting that action will be denied." [/b]

[wjag]

There sure were a lot of naysayers on here who stated that the contract would hold. Glad to see the NHL came to its senses. Nice work Lou..

[Taro T]

There sure were a lot of naysayers on here who stated that the contract would hold. Glad to see the NHL came to its senses. Nice work Lou..

I'm glad that the arbitrator sided w/ the NHL. Didn't expect that he would.

 

It'll be interesting to see where the Devils and Kovy go from here.

[carpandean]

From the letter of the rules, I don't believe that they or any other team has truly violated anything. However, teams have been pushing contracts further into the ridiculous realm in order to bypass the intent of the CBA. I'm glad that the arbitrator ruled with the League, as the trend needed to be stopped (really, it needed to be stopped long before this.)

 

The easiest partial fix would be making the cap hit for anyone over 35 count even if taken off the books (through retirement or demotion) regardless of the age of the player signing. However, I don't know if that would completely fix it as there will always be teams at the league floor who would take a sub-$1 million (actual salary) player with a $6 million cap hit to help clear that hurdle. It would, however, be far riskier for teams, especially when adding those post-40 years. A bigger change would be to put stronger limitations on the difference is salaries over the life of a SPC. For example, no year may be more than 20% from the cap hit. Then, a player with a $6 million hit couldn't have a salary of more than $7.2 million or less than $4.8 million. If a player wants years at $10 million, then the cap hit couldn't be below $8.33 million ($10/1.2) and no year could be below $6.67 million (note: Vanek's contract would not meet this requirement, but could have if they had spread the signing bonuses in the first two years over three years; e.g., $8.5M, $8.5M, $7.4M instead of $10M, $8M, $6.4M.)