- TSN: The Ilya Kovalchuk deal was rejected by the NHL because the “NHL does not believe that either Kovalchuk nor the Devils expected the 2004 Rocket Richard trophy winner would be playing near end of the contract and that it is a case of artificially lowering the annual average value of the contract.” Deals must be negotiated in good faith that the player will fulfill the entire duration of the contract. Section 26.3 of the CBA:
(a) No Club or Club Actor, directly or indirectly, may: (i) enter into any agreements, promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind, whether express, implied, oral or written, including without limitation, any SPC, Qualifying Offer, Offer Sheet or other transaction, or (ii) take or fail to take any action whatsoever, if either (i) or (ii) is intended to or has the effect of defeating or Circumventing the provisions of this Agreement or the intention of the parties as reflected by the provisions of this Agreement, including without limitation, provisions with respect to the financial and other reporting obligations of the Clubs and the League, Team Payroll Range, Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System, the Entry Level System and/or Free Agency.
- Darren Dreger via twitter: “If NJ doesn’t refile and the NHLPA doesn’t grieve, Kovy will be a UFA. If the PA grieves, his future is up in the air pending resolution.”
- Greg Wyshynski via twitter: Every source that Wyshynski has talked to (as of late last night) thinks that the Devils will meet with the NHL to restructure the deal, rather than having the NHLPA going to battle with the NHL.
- Jimmy Murphy via twitter: Rejection of deal may be another sign that there might be a 2012-13 season.
- Tim Gulitti of the Bergon County Record: (worth a read, writen before the contract fallout) Lou Lamoriello doesn’t think that contracts like the Ilya Kovalchuk signed should be part of the NHL, but says that everything is within the rules of the CBA.
“I might agree,” he said. “But there is nothing that we have done wrong. This is within the rules. This is in the CBA. There are precedents that have been set. But I would agree we shouldn’t have these. But I’m also saying that because it’s legal and this is something that ownership felt comfortable doing for the right reasons.”
It sounds like Lou may not have been a fan of bringing Kovalchuk back with the huge contract.
So why would he sign Kovalchuk to such a deal?.
“You’d have to speak to ownership about that,” Lamoriello said. “The commitment that ownership has made here, this is a commitment and a decision they wanted to make for this type of a player and all I can do is say whether the player is a player that will fit into the team, can help the team and is not a risk as a player. As far as what the financial commitment is and that aspect of it, that was out of my hands.”