• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/34739-Boston-Bruins-acknowledge-NHLs-inves tigation-of-Savard-contract-extension.html

I know this is part of the Kovy thing, but something tells me that teams like Chicago and Boston (two of the major franchises in the NHL) would probably love to have the contracts of Hossa and Savard magically taken away by the league.

Sure we say it will never happen, but may be with these major teams actually probably wanting these contracts off their books, maybe this could happen.

Hell maybe Savard becomes a UFA and the leafs pick him up for cheap.
 
It won't happen. It's going to be pretty hard to argue in favour of voiding contracts, after not uttering a peep about them for a year or more.

The Kovalchuk one was a whole different beast, and they were right to challenge it.
 
You can't go back a year later and try to take action when you did nothing for so long. If the NHl didn't like those contracts, they shouldn't have approved them.
 
I disagree, sort of.

From a legal standpoint, the NHL needed a Kovalchuk like situation before they could have a strong enough footing to challenge one of these deals. Had they challenged the Savard deal, and lost, it would have set a powerful precedent that would have made an arbitrator far less likely to side with the NHL should they have chose to go after a following deal (such as this Kovy deal)

By working backwards though, with precedent in hand, they can look at those contracts through the lens that the arbitrators written decision provides them...and should they see sufficient grounds, based on the arb's decision to go after those contracts, they will.

A lot of where the NHL goes from here with this will be based on the written wording of the arbitrators decision. They will choose their next battle very carefully though, because if they over reach with the next shot (Savard would be an overreach at this point just based on the length and ending age imo) it will hand the PA a strong precedent to do battle with in the future.

My guess is Luongo or Hossa's deal and they'll work their way down the line one at a time if they're going to pursue this, collecting more and more precedent as they go.
 
I dunno how NHL can axe a deal that it approved 1 year ago ... sure Boston and Chicago would love to have these deals axed. It'd be a get-out-of-prison card for them, but NHL's way of 'punishing the teams trying to cheat the system might not exactly be giving them a get out of prison card.

I dunno what the league is gonna do about these contracts, and most probably nothing because they are already a year old. But waiving them might not be the only resolution. Something like a cap penalty is also a possibility.
 
Yeah, I'm assuming that forfeiting draft picks and a cap penalty will also be handed down for cap circumvention should they go that route.
 
Imagine losing a first round pick or better yet having to give back a first round pick....

Hello leafs.

I read somewhere that the NHL may fine Jersey anywhere from 1 to 5 million dollars for trying that deal.
 
Apparently Belanger has signed somewhere, BUT it's not going to be official until that team he signed for completes a trade.

So... does anyone else think Belanger will be our new third line center after we trade Kaberle? I would love that, personally.
 
I had Belanger slotted next to Armstrong and Sjostrom in a hypothetical line-up a while back but a few people claimed that it wasn't possible that Burke would sign both him and Colby. ;)

I would be in favour of that. I've gone back and forth when looking at the arguments but he'd be a nice Perreault-esque type third-liner and provide insurance for the kids if Bozak and Kadri falter. He can chip in with some decent offence and is very strong defensively, and good in the face-off circle.
 
I have been wanting Belanger for a while now.

The perfect 3rd line centre - superfast, gritty, excellent defensively and on faceoffs and on the PK, with a solid Moore-like offensive game as well.
 
JackBurton said:
You can't go back a year later and try to take action when you did nothing for so long. If the NHl didn't like those contracts, they shouldn't have approved them.
Click to expand...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...medium=twitter

According to the collective bargaining agreement, here's the skinny on de-registering a standard player contract from Section 11.6 (assuming this is the applicable section):

(b) Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 11.6, an approved and registered SPC may be subject to subsequent challenge and/or de-registration by the League: (i) in the case of a Circumvention relating to either the Club Upper Limit or the Maximum Player Salary, within sixty (60) days from the date upon which the facts of the Circumvention became known or reasonably should have been known to the NHL, or (ii) in the case of a challenge pursuant to (i) or (ii) below, within fourteen (14) days from the date upon which the SPC was approved by the NHL.

The second part's not valid for these disputed contracts, as they were all approved/ratified months ago (at least that's the assumption). My layman's question on the first part: Can the NHL argue that "the date upon which the facts of the Circumvention became known or reasonably should have been known" was when Richard Bloch upheld the Kovalchuk deal as having circumvented the salary cap and violated the CBA?

-----------

A registered contract does not mean the contract is "OK" under the CBA. You can still go after these contracts for penalties and for de-registration. The league left these investigations open because they DIDN'T think they were OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top