I Just Learned Something

So Kovalchuk's record deal was rejected by the NHL because the league felt it was a blatant end-around the salary cap. I have to admit that I was initially confused by this since I was under the impression that the Devils would be handcuffed by the contract during the five year period when he was due to make $11.5 million as well as by the extended no-trade clause. If anything, the Devils seemed to be the stupid ones, signing him for 17 years.

And then I learned something. The hit to the salary cap is equal to the average salary during the life of the contract. So there ya have it - teams have been front or back loading deals with a lot of money and allowing the rest of the years to be <$1 million in order to bring down the average salary. With the Kovalchuk deal, the Devils would have owed him $11.5 million in 2012-2016 but would have only had to take an annual $6 million cap hit. The deal was an amazing one for the Devils, even if it did stretch the rules. And if Kovalchuk decided to retired at the age of 40, I'm pretty sure the money would come off the books.

The NHL had warned teams to stop this practice. They let the Ovechkin, DiPietro, Hossa, and Pronger deals goes through, but finally put their foot down. It really is an unprecedented event. As a hockey fan, one must be happy with this because it shows that the league does care - that it doesn't want to be a laughing stock. But obviously as a Devils fan, I'm sad because it probably means he will sign elsewhere (that is of course only if he doesn't have a conscience because a player who says he is truly not after money would be forced into signing another deal to save face).

Now the word from ESPN's Scott Burnside is that Lamiorello knew that the league was going to reject the deal prior to the Devils press conference. The obvious question is then, why did he allow it to go on if he new it was going to be rejected? Burnside wonders outloud "Is it beyond the realm of possibility Lamoriello was hoping to bring Kovalchuk under contract at a more manageable term and dollar?" and calls the entire charade "distasteful". I'm still mulling this one over in my head. Part of me says that Lou is a creep for handling the situation this way. I mean, it is a blatant smack in the face to the fans. But the other part of me says that it was a clever plan that went wrong. In an interview with the Bergen Record's Tom Gulitti, Lou basically said that the financial commitment was out of his hands and that he only focused on whether the player would be a good fit. Could it be possible that Lou was pissed off that the ownership went over his head to make this signing? Could this have been his way to get what he wanted while not pissing off ownership? I mean, think about it...if Lou truly didn't like the deal, and didn't want to clash with ownership, the best case scenario would have been for the NHL to reject it. Then he isn't the bad guy. So in a way, it makes sense that he would try to keep it quiet. The problem is that if the plan didn't work, he would get killed by fans and media. Either way, I think this has to raise questions as to whether Lou and ownership are on the same page. Regardless of what happens with Kovalchuk from here on, I think the most important thing is for Devils ownership and Lou Lamiorello to be on the same side. We can't afford any kind of rift because they never benefit the on-ice product.