Compared to other sports, it is very common in the NHL or any hockey league to have arbitration cases. For example, in the past year there have been as many as 20 players that have had arbitration cases. Ilya Kovalchuk's case may have been the most influential meeting that the NHL has ever seen. In the past only the best of the best (Rick Dipietro, Roberto Luongo, Marian Hossa and Alexander Ovechkin) have had contracts that last over 10 years, but Kovalchuk stepped pasted the line by receiving a 17 year deal. Thats the longest contract in major sports history. The New Jersey Devils owner, Lou Lamoriello, apparently knew that the contracted he had offered to Kovalchuk, who was an un-restricted free agent at the time, was going to be rejected by the NHL. Kovalchuk was represtented by the NHLPA (players association) and they filed for an arbitration case, and the arbitrator, Richard Bloch, was a well-known one who also had worked with NFL star, Terrel Owens case in Philadelphia. The interesting thing abuot 
Kovalchuk's deal was that during the first 10 years Kovalchuk would be paid 95 million, but the last 7 years he would only get paid 7 million. The intention was that since Kovalchuk would be about 40 years old during the final stretch of his contract he would have retired before the minimum salary came into play. Although Kovalchuk's case was huge, he wasnt the only big arbitration case of the 2010 off-season. Vincent Jackson, wide receiver for the San Diego Chargers, had been holding out for determining how long his suspention from play is because he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy. All in all, the arbitration case was a lose-lose situation for both Jackson and Kovalchuk. The Devils were forced to give up draft picks and pay numerous fines for the ridiculous conract. About afew weeks after the NHL rejected the deal, Kovalchuk and the Devils restuctured the contract and this time the NHL favored it, but the rejection earlier was "a shot heard round the world of sports". What I wonder is, if Kovalchuk's deal was so ridiculous, and with the salary cap raising each year, where does the NHL draw the line? Kovalchuk wasn't the first and certainly won't be the last of this type of case. Even the union had to get involved in this deal, but was all of this hype and pressure for the deal to get done a sign of warning throughout the league? The real question is who lost more. Yes, maybe the Devils had a short term blow to their success with the forfeting of their draft picks, but what will stop other players to do what Kovalchuk did? Once the salary cap exceeds a certain amount the NHL will almost be forced to accept deals like Kovalchuks in the near future. The NHL had already hit rock bottom in 2006 with the lockout, will it happen again? Arbitration seems to be common in the NHL, they do know how to deal with these deals every year. Arbitration only pitted two common foes once again (NHL and the NHLPA), and this time the NHL won. If the union was forced to get involved in this ordeal,
will arbitration in pro sports still be a common occurance? The answer is yes, it has to be. Without arbitration clauses, sports would be reduced to constant lockouts and such. They need arbitration to commence deals that normal contracts wouldn't solve. Anti Niemi, was awarded 2.75 million deal for it. The NHL is a business, and the Devil's organization understood that. What Kovalchuk and the Devils wanted to do was truly a Devilish Deal. Kovalchuk knew the risk of the deal before it was made as well as Lamoriello, so I completely disagree with the what the Devils organization tried to pull by creating this contract. There was absolutely no way that the NHL would have accepted this deal, and it costed the Devils draft picks, money and most importantly it was an embarassment to the organization. The NHL made the right decision by rejecting this deal, but soon enough the players will be asking for more money during a larger expansion of time. This may just be the calm before the storm.
Kovalchuk's deal was that during the first 10 years Kovalchuk would be paid 95 million, but the last 7 years he would only get paid 7 million. The intention was that since Kovalchuk would be about 40 years old during the final stretch of his contract he would have retired before the minimum salary came into play. Although Kovalchuk's case was huge, he wasnt the only big arbitration case of the 2010 off-season. Vincent Jackson, wide receiver for the San Diego Chargers, had been holding out for determining how long his suspention from play is because he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy. All in all, the arbitration case was a lose-lose situation for both Jackson and Kovalchuk. The Devils were forced to give up draft picks and pay numerous fines for the ridiculous conract. About afew weeks after the NHL rejected the deal, Kovalchuk and the Devils restuctured the contract and this time the NHL favored it, but the rejection earlier was "a shot heard round the world of sports". What I wonder is, if Kovalchuk's deal was so ridiculous, and with the salary cap raising each year, where does the NHL draw the line? Kovalchuk wasn't the first and certainly won't be the last of this type of case. Even the union had to get involved in this deal, but was all of this hype and pressure for the deal to get done a sign of warning throughout the league? The real question is who lost more. Yes, maybe the Devils had a short term blow to their success with the forfeting of their draft picks, but what will stop other players to do what Kovalchuk did? Once the salary cap exceeds a certain amount the NHL will almost be forced to accept deals like Kovalchuks in the near future. The NHL had already hit rock bottom in 2006 with the lockout, will it happen again? Arbitration seems to be common in the NHL, they do know how to deal with these deals every year. Arbitration only pitted two common foes once again (NHL and the NHLPA), and this time the NHL won. If the union was forced to get involved in this ordeal,
will arbitration in pro sports still be a common occurance? The answer is yes, it has to be. Without arbitration clauses, sports would be reduced to constant lockouts and such. They need arbitration to commence deals that normal contracts wouldn't solve. Anti Niemi, was awarded 2.75 million deal for it. The NHL is a business, and the Devil's organization understood that. What Kovalchuk and the Devils wanted to do was truly a Devilish Deal. Kovalchuk knew the risk of the deal before it was made as well as Lamoriello, so I completely disagree with the what the Devils organization tried to pull by creating this contract. There was absolutely no way that the NHL would have accepted this deal, and it costed the Devils draft picks, money and most importantly it was an embarassment to the organization. The NHL made the right decision by rejecting this deal, but soon enough the players will be asking for more money during a larger expansion of time. This may just be the calm before the storm.
No comments:
Post a Comment