NHL 2010-2011 Offseason Thread

[DeToxRox]

Matt Walker and a 4th for Gagne .. Wow. That's not even really much of a salary dump considering Walker makes 1.7.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Per Scott Burnside, he's worded it Kovalchuk will have earned $150M in the NHL, including this contract. He's made about $35M thus far.

$115M over 17 years = ~$6.75M per

Which isn't too bad...outside of that whole 17 year thing.

As questioned earlier, because it's an under 35 contract, if he retires next year, it's all wiped away. Expect these deals to be reviewed in the next CBA. Hossa, at age 30, getting 12 years was bad enough. Now Kovalchuk at 17 years?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Matt Walker and a 4th for Gagne .. Wow. That's not even really much of a salary dump considering Walker makes 1.7.

Texting back and forth with Sak over this.

He believes Walker gets buried in the minors...which means they got a 4th rounder...and the right to pay $1.7M for a player they don't use.

That puts them between $2 and $2.5M under the cap.

[DeToxRox]

I can't see any excusing this. Yzerman's wife better get to Tampa fast because Yzerman is fucking Holmgrens ass pretty regularly.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I can't see any excusing this. Yzerman's wife better get to Tampa fast because Yzerman is fucking Holmgrens ass pretty regularly.

But, don't forget they improved their D by adding Mez....wait.
They did upgrade at wing dumping Gagne and adding Zher....hmmm, ok.
Well, at least they went out and replaced Leigh...

Forget it.

[stevew]

17 year deals are really fucking stupid. Sounds like something someone would try in FOF multiplayer just cause they could.

[stevew]

How does a 17 year deal work? I'd assume that the salary counts against the cap at the average of the total deal, but the practical value of this contract is roughly 8 years and 90million?

Anyone care to explain.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Matt Walker and a 4th for Gagne .. Wow. That's not even really much of a salary dump considering Walker makes 1.7.

Stevie Y strikes again.

Gagne is in the last year of his contract, so Yzerman can see how well he fits in with Tampa. If things go well, that could give the Lightning an inside track on an extension and, if not, well, it really only cost them a 4th rounder.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Per Scott Burnside, he's worded it Kovalchuk will have earned $150M in the NHL, including this contract. He's made about $35M thus far.

$115M over 17 years = ~$6.75M per

Which isn't too bad...outside of that whole 17 year thing.

As questioned earlier, because it's an under 35 contract, if he retires next year, it's all wiped away. Expect these deals to be reviewed in the next CBA. Hossa, at age 30, getting 12 years was bad enough. Now Kovalchuk at 17 years?

Seeing $102M over 17 = $6M flat

So very good cap hit, but still hate these shitty 12+ year deals. (Until Crosby signs a 15 year, $87M deal in 2014)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by stevew

How does a 17 year deal work? I'd assume that the salary counts against the cap at the average of the total deal, but the practical value of this contract is roughly 8 years and 90million?

Anyone care to explain.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

They do it to spread the cap hit out across the duration of the deal. A 10 year $100 million deal would mean the Devils take a $10 million cap hit every year over the life of the deal.

A 17 year, $100 million deal means the cap hit is $5.8 million over the course of the deal, thus leaving them more room to sign or re-sign more players.

Also, the deal is likely structured so he gets more money up front and less on the backend, so, in terms of real dollars, when Kovie is in his late 30's he will be making less money (though the cap hit will remain the same).

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Since he signed the contract before he turned 35, I believe if he retires all or at least a portion of the contract will be off the books. I forget the exact rule at the moment.

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Per Scott Burnside, he's worded it Kovalchuk will have earned $150M in the NHL, including this contract. He's made about $35M thus far.

$115M over 17 years = ~$6.75M per

Which isn't too bad...outside of that whole 17 year thing.

As questioned earlier, because it's an under 35 contract, if he retires next year, it's all wiped away. Expect these deals to be reviewed in the next CBA. Hossa, at age 30, getting 12 years was bad enough. Now Kovalchuk at 17 years?

There you go. It was all there right in front of you the whole time...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Seeing $102M over 17 = $6M flat

So very good cap hit, but still hate these shitty 12+ year deals. (Until Crosby signs a 15 year, $87M deal in 2014)

I am not a fan of them either. And to think how roundly the Islanders were mocked for their mega-long DiPietro deal. Granted, they were right to be mocked, but they were ahead of the times in a way.

I really think anything longer than 6-7 years, tops, is too long. Too much can happen over such a long period of time. Players change, they get hurt, break down, the game changes... The NHL in 1993-94 was nothing like it is now or was between, say, 96-05.

I know Ken Holland is to blame for a lot of this stuff, since he was the first one to sign these long term, front-loaded, cap friendly deals, but...

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by stevew

How does a 17 year deal work? I'd assume that the salary counts against the cap at the average of the total deal, but the practical value of this contract is roughly 8 years and 90million?

Anyone care to explain.

Cap hit is total contract / total years. If the player is under 35 at the time of the contract, then the entire length of the contract counts against the cap.

In this case, if/when he retires, it's off the books.

Last number I saw is $102M over 17 = $6M per.

Kovalchuk is 27 now...say he plays 10 more years, the last 7 years vanish.
Most likely, he's earning something like $8 or $9M for the first couple years of the deal, and by year 15, something like $500,000

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

There you go. It was all there right in front of you the whole time...

yeah, thanks.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am not a fan of them either. And to think how roundly the Islanders were mocked for their mega-long DiPietro deal. Granted, they were right to be mocked, but they were ahead of the times in a way.

I really think anything longer than 6-7 years, tops, is too long. Too much can happen over such a long period of time. Players change, they get hurt, break down, the game changes... The NHL in 1993-94 was nothing like it is now or was between, say, 96-05.

I know Ken Holland is to blame for a lot of this stuff, since he was the first one to sign these long term, front-loaded, cap friendly deals, but...

Also, sorry I ever doubted Stevie Y earlier in this thread!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Also, sorry I ever doubted Stevie Y earlier in this thread!

Apology accepted.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Apology accepted.

Now if you'll kindly ask him to never, ever call Ray Shero...

[Suburban Rhythm]

HFBoards - View Single Post - Confirmed Trade with Link: [PHI/TB] Simon Gagne to Tampa Bay for Matt Walker and a fourth-round pick (2011)

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

HFBoards - View Single Post - Confirmed Trade with Link: [PHI/TB] Simon Gagne to Tampa Bay for Matt Walker and a fourth-round pick (2011)

[Pyser]

rumors of kovalchuk money breakdown:

The deal is reportedly worth $102 million in total over 17 seasons, which carries an average salary and a cap hit of $6 million per season. According to Dmitry Chesnokov of PuckDaddy, the contract will pay Kovalchuk an average of $10 million over the first eight seasons and an average of $7.5 million per season for the next two seasons after that. That would leave $7 million to be spread over the final seven seasons of the deal, which will conclude when Kovalchuk, now 27, is 44 years old.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the breakdown is this: $6 million for each of the first two seasons, followed by five seasons at $11.5 million per season, one season at $10.5 million, one season at $8.5 million and another for $6.5 million. That first 10 years adds up to $95 million. The remaining $7 million is spread over the last seven seasons as follows: $3.5 million/$750,000/$550,000/$550,000/$550,000/$550,000,$550,000.

[Danny]

Shows what a joke the NHL salary cap is. That said, I was hoping the Kings would get him.

[bhlloy]

There's a lot of GM's ready to jump off a cliff right now. A fourth rounder for a year of Simon Gagne? And dumping 1.7 million of salary as part of the deal leaving you with a 3.5 million cap hit for said year of damn good player?

Flyers painted themselves into a corner but really, they couldn't get Brian Burke to give up a first rounder or a decent prospect? Hell they could have thrown in Carcillo and the rights to Cote and Burkie probably would have given up an entire draft

[MrBug708]

I might have become more of a Kings (and hockey) fan had they managed to land Kovalchuk. Sounds like the agent was just using them as leverage. I'm just glad they didn't have to overpay for him and watch them cost them some of their young kids

[BishopMVP]

So how do the other leagues deal with this? In the NFL you can maximize the bonus to give the player more initial money than his yearly cap hit, but can't drop salary from any one year to the next. They also calculate each players cap hit yearly instead of averaging over the course of a deal. In the NBA they don't allow contracts longer than 6 years I believe. I don't know if MLB has exact rules on it - I do know the RS have signed deals where the last year is cheaper than the previous one, but that's always been phrased as a team or player option. I also remember the Mets signing a deal where compensation was deferred far into the future. Of course, only the Yankees have had to worry about the Luxury Tax threshold lately, so 29/30 teams don't need to pull off accounting tricks.

So it seems there are three reasonable options for the NHL to adopt - either don't allow salaries to decrease year to year, cap contract length at 6-7 years, or calculate cap hit each individual year. Knowing the NHL though, they'll try to get complicated by tweaking the over 35 rule into something where the contract has to expire before the player turns 40 or something.

[bhlloy]

Simplest way to me would be to make all years over 35 guaranteed, regardless of when the contract was signed.

The NHLPA is going to hate that because it's going to cost veterans who can still play some money, but tough. I wouldn't be opposed to going to 37 or 38+ in that case. That would still shut the loophole effectively enough.

The real issue here is being able to get out of the cap hit. If they had to eat the average cap hit until Kovy was 44, no way this deal gets done.

[JPhillips]

Here's what I don't understand. If you're going to game the system with a seventeen year contract, why not twenty-five or fifty years? Hell, make it a 102 year contract and have it count as a million per year.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's what I don't understand. If you're going to game the system with a seventeen year contract, why not twenty-five or fifty years? Hell, make it a 102 year contract and have it count as a million per year.

No player would accept such a deal. There are some limitations in place to prevent this under the CBA. I believe there is a rule that from one year to the next there can't be more than 50% decline in actual monies paid, not cap money. I think that would nix the 102 year deal, unless a player was willing just to accept $1 million a year for a long time, as opposed to getting the major cash up front.

[Pyser]

kovie deal official:

2010-11: $6 Million
2011-12: $6 Million
2012-13: $11.5 Million
2013-14: $11.5 Million
2014-15: $11.5 Million
2015-16: $11.5 Million
2016-17: $11.5 Million
2017-18: $10.5 Million
2018-19: $8.5 Million
2019-20: $6.5 Million
2020-21: $3.5 Million
2021-22: $750,000
2022-23: $550,000
2023-24: $550,000
2024-25: $550,000
2025-26 $550,000
2026-27: $550,000
Total
17 seasons: $102 million

[chrisj]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's what I don't understand. If you're going to game the system with a seventeen year contract, why not twenty-five or fifty years? Hell, make it a 102 year contract and have it count as a million per year.

If I recall, there are rules as to reasonable-ness of the length (i.e. would he be playing at 125?). Given that a few players are playing into their 40's now, the NHLPA could argue that the length is reasonable.

edit: actually, I might be wrong. I think there was some talk that there could be an investivation that some teams are circumventing the salary cap by doing this, but because the contracts go into the players early 40's an arguement could be made that they are legit as the player could still be playing. But there is no specific rule about it.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No player would accept such a deal. There are some limitations in place to prevent this under the CBA. I believe there is a rule that from one year to the next there can't be more than 50% decline in actual monies paid, not cap money. I think that would nix the 102 year deal, unless a player was willing just to accept $1 million a year for a long time, as opposed to getting the major cash up front.

That's close.

It can not drop more than 50% of the value of the average of the first two years of the deal.

Which is how we end up with...

Originally Posted by Pyser

kovie deal official:

2010-11: $6 Million
2011-12: $6 Million
2012-13: $11.5 Million
2013-14: $11.5 Million
2014-15: $11.5 Million
2015-16: $11.5 Million
2016-17: $11.5 Million
2017-18: $10.5 Million
2018-19: $8.5 Million
2019-20: $6.5 Million
2020-21: $3.5 Million
2021-22: $750,000
2022-23: $550,000
2023-24: $550,000
2024-25: $550,000
2025-26 $550,000
2026-27: $550,000
Total
17 seasons: $102 million

THAT!

First two average $6M, 50% would be $3M, the max salary can drop between any two seasons.

Explains the jump up to $11.5M in year 3...which I am guessing will coincide nicely with Brodeur's salary being cleared.

So what happens to Parise next year?

[Maple Leafs]

Apparently the NHL does have a clause in the CBA that allows Bettman to strike down any deal that is intended to circumvent the spirit of the rules (similar to what the NBA has). The league hasn't used that clause on other long-term deals, so it probably explains why they did 17-years instead of going even more extreme.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Apparently the NHL does have a clause in the CBA that allows Bettman to strike down any deal that is intended to circumvent the spirit of the rules (similar to what the NBA has). The league hasn't used that clause on other long-term deals, so it probably explains why they did 17-years instead of going even more extreme.

IMO, knowing the rule posted above regarding 50% of first two year's avg = amount any two years can change by...

jumping to $11.5M for the next 5 seasons after, sure seems like circumvention to me!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

IMO, knowing the rule posted above regarding 50% of first two year's avg = amount any two years can change by...

jumping to $11.5M for the next 5 seasons after, sure seems like circumvention to me!

Why would it matter in that case? If they went 11.5m/per the first two years, then couldn't they drop it by 5.75m in a single year instead of 3m/y?

Not that this contract doesn't seem like blatant circumvention to me either.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Why would it matter in that case? If they went 11.5m/per the first two years, then couldn't they drop it by 5.75m in a single year instead of 3m/y?

Not that this contract doesn't seem like blatant circumvention to me either.

Yeah, good point, not thinking right now.

Just suspicious in the salary jump.

Hossa's deal

Contract History

He's paid the biggest salaries up front, then reduced.

Kovalchuk's is designed, IMO, to allow the Devils to retain Parise next season, as well as kick into high gear at the same time Rolston and Brodeur's contracts end, freeing up over $10M.

I guess some would say smart business, using those freed up cash flows in a way, and Kovy was willing to forgo those salaries for 2 years...

Still, something seems "off" about it.

[Pyser]

crazy interview with lamoriello



Devils GM Lou Lamoriello admits Kovalchuk contract shouldn’t be part of NHL

While saying the Devils did nothing illegal in signing Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year, $102 million contract, general manager Lou Lamoriello admitted that such a deal was bad for the NHL and should be eliminated in the next CBA.

I asked Lamoriello what he would think if someone brought up Kovalchuk’s contract in the next round of CBA negotiations (in two years) and pointed to it as a flaw.

“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 was clear that ownership—headed by Jeff Vanderbeek—was behind this particular contract. Not that Lamoriello didn’t endorse bringing Kovalchuk back.

Still, Lamoriello said he “absolutely” rolled his eyes when the Islanders signed Rick DiPietro to a 15-year contract in 2006 and when Washington signed Alex Ovechkin to a 13-year contract in 2008. He also said he “absolutely” rolled his eyes when Kovalchuk’s contract was completed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The details of this article aside, I could have written this myself. A couple of months ago.

Are the Lightning set to turn things around in a big way? - ProHockeyTalk - Hockey - NBC Sports

Here are some excerpts.

What general manager Steve Yzerman has done this year is nothing short of amazing.

--------------------

He then signed franchise star Martin St. Louis to a four-year extension and brought back defenseman Pavel Kubina while also signing away former Avs defender Brett Clark. Not bad. Yzerman then brings back the aura of success by sprucing up the decor with photos from the Lightning's Stanley Cup season and all of a sudden the shape of the Lightning starts to look stunningly good and it's all on the new GM for getting it done.

--------------------

Is Yzerman's work finished? No. But in two months on the job, he's shown almost everything you could expect of him: His moves have been savvy, shrewd and balanced between long-term goals and short-term success. Maybe most impressively, he's got players, coaches and fans believing in him and his plan.

---------------------

Just think, this overhaul of what was a miserable team the last few years took just a few months under Steve Yzerman. If the results pan out in reality the way they appear to be set to on paper, Yzerman will be a legend in two cities rather than just one.

[Dr. Sak]

I really didn't expect to get much of anything for Gagne...everyone knew the Flyers were over the cap and were going to give them crap for him. So that's pretty much what they got in return.

I know some think the Meszaros trade was bad but I don't think getting him for a 2nd rounder is that bad especially with what goes down at the trading deadline.

With all those who wanted Carter traded instead of Gagne, I think they are crazy and would've flipped my lid if that happened.

[bhlloy]

I don't think the Meszaros trade was too bad on paper but when you look at 4million a year for a second (third?) pairing defensemen for a team with salary cap issues already - not good. That basically made the terrible Gagne trade inevitable. Flyers have 22 million plus tied up for the next 2 years in defensemen, with no starting caliber goalie and very little depth at forward. I just don't understand the direction the Meszaros trade took them in.

And then taking back salary in the Gagne deal is also bad. Whether they bury Walker in the AHL and he counts against the cap or not, they still got bent over on that part of the deal. Plus a fourth isn't enough for a player of Gagne's caliber, no matter how desperate you are to get rid of him (especially when you painted yourself in the corner with your earlier moves). I think you have serious rose tinted specs on these deals. I think the Flyers made themselves an infinitely worse team. You are right on Carter over Gagne though.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I really didn't expect to get much of anything for Gagne...everyone knew the Flyers were over the cap and were going to give them crap for him. So that's pretty much what they got in return.

I know some think the Meszaros trade was bad but I don't think getting him for a 2nd rounder is that bad especially with what goes down at the trading deadline.

With all those who wanted Carter traded instead of Gagne, I think they are crazy and would've flipped my lid if that happened.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I don't think the Meszaros trade was too bad on paper but when you look at 4million a year for a second (third?) pairing defensemen for a team with salary cap issues already - not good. That basically made the terrible Gagne trade inevitable. Flyers have 22 million plus tied up for the next 2 years in defensemen, with no starting caliber goalie and very little depth at forward. I just don't understand the direction the Meszaros trade took them in.

And then taking back salary in the Gagne deal is also bad. Whether they bury Walker in the AHL and he counts against the cap or not, they still got bent over on that part of the deal. Plus a fourth isn't enough for a player of Gagne's caliber, no matter how desperate you are to get rid of him (especially when you painted yourself in the corner with your earlier moves). I think you have serious rose tinted specs on these deals. I think the Flyers made themselves an infinitely worse team. You are right on Carter over Gagne though.

Agree that Meszaros <-> 2nd rounder is not awful. But it didn't make any sense. 30 mins before FA starts, a day or so after giving Coburn $3.2M...just doesn't add up. Savard at $4M is a steal of a contract, but I wouldn't expect Pittsburgh to go after him with Crosby-Malkin-Staal down the middle already, there is just no fit. It's the same here. If one of Coburn or Carle didn't exist, I can understand it.

And it compounded, or created I guess, I the issue with Gagne. I can't imagine too many people were beating down Tampa's door to get him at $4M after 3-4 below average seasons. Then signing O'Donnell, Shelley, Zherdev and Carcillo to make it so a player HAD to be moved was the problem (along with, allegedly, Gagne choosing TB as the only destination he'd waive for)

To me, the Flyers needed to add a goaltender, a 3rd pair defenseman, and maybe another checking line guy after letting Asham walk.

Instead they spend another nearly $7M on D, downgrade at wing from Gagne to Zherdev...and still need a goaltender.

Just doesn't add up at all.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Dola

Other than Gagne being 30 and entering the last year of his deal, and Hartnell being 27 (I think)...why was Gagne the one that had to go?

[Dr. Sak]

I didn't like the Shelley signing especially when they signed Carcillo. Keep one or the other. Not both. As far as O'Donnell, I really don't know enough about him to make a comment on what he brings to the table. But I'm willing to bet that a O'Donnell/Meszaros 3rd pairing is >>>>> greater than the Bartullis/Krijack one they played with the the finals. That pairing was terrible...everytime they were on the ice bad things happened.

They did make themselves a bit weaker at the forward position but last season he missed a chunk of time cause of the broken toe and the two years earlier he had concussion issues. I am not throwing him under the bus because Gagne has been on of my if not favorite Flyer since he came to the big club in 1999.

No offense SR but Leighton did have a good year...saved the team a few times and played steady minus the games in Chicago. 16-5 in the regular season with a 2.48 GAA and a 92% save percentage....not too shabby. In the playoffs he was 8-3 with a 2.46 GAA and 91.6% save percentage in the playoffs. I would love for them to have another goalie but I am glad they didn't trade for Tim Thomas, or over pay for Nabovkov. I am still hearing they might go after Turco but I'd rather them wait and see how the season starts. Plus with Giroux's entry level deal up after this year and Carter's deal ending (Still will be a RFA) they will have to be careful on the contacts they give out.

The Flyers got hosed on the Gagne deal with Tampa...I won't argue that. But I didn't expect much back in return.

Personally I feel a lot better going into the season with the team they have this year instead of the one they had last year.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Dola

Other than Gagne being 30 and entering the last year of his deal, and Hartnell being 27 (I think)...why was Gagne the one that had to go?

Gagne has had a history of injuries and shying off coming back from those injuries. As I said he's had a broken toe, concussions, groin injury, and sports hernia all in the past 3 years.

I'll defend Hartnell's play last year because he was going through a divorce...his play in the playoffs picked up. Plus Hartnell has a NMC.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Agree that Meszaros <-> 2nd rounder is not awful. But it didn't make any sense. 30 mins before FA starts, a day or so after giving Coburn $3.2M...just doesn't add up. Savard at $4M is a steal of a contract, but I wouldn't expect Pittsburgh to go after him with Crosby-Malkin-Staal down the middle already, there is just no fit. It's the same here. If one of Coburn or Carle didn't exist, I can understand it.

I don't agree with your analogy at all. If you don't have a top notch goalie, why not bolster your defense to compensate...it is much different than you talking about having too many centers IMO.

I wouldn't be surprised if Carle gets moved to be honest.

[stevew]

kovalchuk deal got tossed? Am I reading a tweet correctly?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by stevew

kovalchuk deal got tossed? Am I reading a tweet correctly?

Yep, the NHL rejected the deal.

[Danny]

Wow, Bettman has some balls after all. Good decision, these long deals to circumvent the cap are terrible and need to be done away with.

[DaddyTorgo]

Good

[bhlloy]

Hossa good, Kovalchuk bad. Got it. Oh well, I'm sure Hossa wasn't even on a good team last year, it won't matter right?

Right decision, but I'd love to hear Bettman's detailed analysis on why Hossa was allowed and this wasn't. Just another day in a league where the exact same play can get you suspended one day and not another.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Hossa good, Kovalchuk bad. Got it. Oh well, I'm sure Hossa wasn't even on a good team last year, it won't matter right?

Right decision, but I'd love to hear Bettman's detailed analysis on why Hossa was allowed and this wasn't. Just another day in a league where the exact same play can get you suspended one day and not another.

1. Lou came out today and just about admitted this was cap circumvention. That makes arbitration really easy for the NHL.

2. Hypothetically, Hossa is making 8 million in his last 5 years total, including a low of a million. Kovy has *six* years at 550k, which will probably be below the minimum contract by 2025.

3. Kovy's contract goes to 44, an age where the # of players that have played at that age can be counted on one hand.

The fact that the league "investigated" the Hossa deal last year probably should have been seen as a warning shot across the bow. This far,and no further in your absurdity.

[Pyser]

holy hypocrisy. i mean, where do they draw the line?

id love to see this go to court, chelios played at 48. messier at 45, i believe?

reading lou's quote i posted above though...he is for the contract, but against the spirit. very intesting