When it comes to business, there’s always that fine line that you have to tightrope in your own mind between doing what is morally right and what is right for the organization. I think there’s plenty in the business world that do the honourable thing and always think of morals and ethics when it comes to any big decision made, but I think there’s way more people that think of themselves and their company first with a “win-at-all-costs” mentality.
Lou Lamiorello and the New Jersey Devils organization went in the second direction in order to sign Ilya Kovalchuk to a 17-year, 102 million dollar contract yesterday. The contract would lock up Kovalchuk to play with New Jersey until he’s 44-45 years old and would pay him over 90% of the 102 million over the first 10 years.
Clearly, the Devils don’t expect him to play until he’s in his mid-40’s and the contract is so front-loaded that Kovalchuk could walk away into retirement after 10 years and only sacrifice a tiny fraction of the deal by doing so.
And here we are back to what we talked about right from the start. Is it morally right for the Devils to sign Kovalchuk to this kind of deal? I don’t think so. Everyone knows they are clearly taking advantage of a loop-hole in the CBA that doesn’t cap the amount of years in a player’s contract. By doing so, they are making the cap hit smaller per season and going against the spirit of the rules in place for the salary cap system.
So, they’ve decided to deal with the moral consequences (which are probably none) and do what’s right for the organization. I feel silly even writing about the Devils failing to adhere to the “spirit” of the rules because in the real world, business is cut-throat and everyone is trying to gain an advantage. I just could never equate the business world with “spirit” or “fair play”. It just doesn’t work that way.
So, what does Gary Bettman and the rest of the NHL brass do in a situation like this? Do they even have the power to do anything about contracts that are morally wrong, but completely legal and right when it comes to the writing within the CBA? I don’t think they can really do anything, but there has to be a line somewhere, don’t you think?
Why can’t a team sign someone to a 20-year deal next year? Or even 25-30 year deals? What’s the cut-off age in which Bettman would finally step in and say, “You can’t realistically pay an X-year old to play hockey at an NHL level.” The problem with that statement is that he’s in no position to stop that. If an owner wants to pay a 70-year old to play hockey, he’s within his right to do so.
Fitting that a Devil would force us to look closely into the question that we all struggle with, “Do what’s fair or do what wins?”