Where Do You Draw The Line?ShareThis
The same contracts are being trotted out by the mainstream media and blog community as examples of salary cap circumvention - basically, there’s the sketchy-factor in the deals of Zetterberg, Franzen, Hossa and yes, even Pronger. There’s Marc Savard and to a lesser extent, Mikka Kiprusoff as well.
Those previous deals, combined with the rejection of Ilya Kovalchuk’s agreement with the New Jersey Devils has brought up two 100% valid arguments:
The Contract is Legit
In short form, if you let the aforementioned contracts slide by, you have to let this one go too. It’s the exact same concept. There’s next to zero footing for the NHL to stand on based on the precedent they’ve set for themselves, so sorry guys, but you’ll have to wait until the upcoming CBA negotiations to close the loophole we can only assume you just want to just go. a-vay.
You Have To Draw The Line Somewhere
Basically, you have to clot the wound eventually, or you’ll die. These deals have bled toward ridiculous since the Kiprusoff camp made the cut, and the other deals were on the edge of feasible. You could talk yourself into maybe there could possibly be a slight chance that the earlier deals would be played out.
They won’t be, of course - the league was getting full-on screwed, but agents and General Managers fed the NHL Skittles and convinced them that they were 99% effective against pregnancy. Now here they are dealing with this absolute abortion of a contract, realizing they probably shouldn’t have let somewhat dishonest men push them as far as they would go in the first place.
While the others were ridiculous as all get-out too, you simply couldn’t muster any “maybe’s” about the Kovalchuk deal - it was written to circumvent a rule. So the league has to stand up for itself somewhere, right?
(Is there a Webby for “most muddled analogies”? I gotta be up for that one, right?)
I think even supporters of camp “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” (group A) would agree that there has to be a line somewhere. I mean, if Marc Recchi signed a fourteen-year deal tomorrow, both groups would be like “oooohhhkay, that’s just a tad TOO silly“. If John Tavares signed a 30-year deal with the last ten years at league minimum, there’s no way any clear-thinking fan could tolerate it.
So to the “The Contract is Legit” group: you agree, there is a line somewhere, right? Or do I need to make a stupid 100 year contract example?
There is a line.
So then! The league decided it had been crossed. At least they’re paying attention.
I agree with the Wyshynski’s of the world coming out guns-a-blazing about other players contracts that do the “nah, I’m not really gunna play those years” dip. They’re shady, they were a touch “too creative” at the time, and they were designed to circumvent the cap.
But they just weren’t so insulting.
And I don’t think it goes much beyond that. Lamoriello, as great as he’s been, just happened to overestimate how far he could push things.
It’s fun that there’s some news to follow going forward, and will be interesting to see what happens next. But the league was put in a tough position here, and I support them not getting rolled over for the umpteenth time, since they were already pretty much pancake-flat from the previous bulldozer-crushings they permitted.
Devils fans can complain that the alarm only went off when they broke in, but “other people already robbed this place” isn’t the best defense for your actions.
I’m gonna leave it there for now, because I have a feeling there’ll be plenty of comment-discussion. Great job yesterday, some readers had some nice insight on the deal.
If you REALLY love this topic and want some more information and discussion, I’ll be participating in a live chat with the boys over at Yahoo! today, so stop on by: