Revenue increased on a per capita basis, TV ratings reached record levels and the NHL conducted business as usual once the Board of Governors unlocked the doors in January, but Owners’ Lockout III did indeed produce collateral damage, with Ilya Kovalchuk serving as Exhibit A.
The tidal wave of condemnation in bidding Kovalchuk good riddance is understandable in the wake of the 30-year-old winger’s betrayal of the Devils organization, his teammates and the New Jersey fan base in order to follow his heart home to continue his career in Russia.
But it was this latest lockout that unlocked the door to St. Petersburg and the KHL for Kovalchuk, a man of independence who was ultimately granted his by Lou Lamoriello as the least of all evils.
There may be owners on the NHL Board of Governors, but 15-year contract notwithstanding, Kovalchuk simply would not cede ownership of his life to these men who had prohibited him from playing under that very contract for more than the first scheduled three months of last season.
It is hypothetical, of course, but the chances are remote Kovalchuk would have left the Devils for Russia if not for the lockout, given the fact the winger endured a circumvention hearing, a nullified contract and the threat of yet another circumvention hearing during the summer of 2010 when the KHL beckoned, offering far more than the $100 million on the table in New Jersey.
On Jan. 4, the day before the marathon negotiating session commenced that would lead to settlement of the lockout in the wee hours of Jan. 6, the NHLPA dissuaded Kovalchuk, Alexander Ovechkin, Pavel Datsyuk and Evgeni Malkin from issuing a joint statement declaring their intent to remain in Russia for at least the remainder of the KHL season regardless of whether or when the NHL reopened.
The Post, which first reported that news, has been told the Players’ Association would have been prepared to support the rights of these players to play indefinitely in a different league under contracts signed during the NHL lockout if the timing had been different and would not have created a significant last-minute obstacle to settlement.
The notion Kovalchuk’s departure from the Devils represents a divorce of convenience that a) was prearranged; b) is mutually beneficial to both parties; c) both of the above, is patently absurd.
The Devils have lost their best player. Period. They have lost their most dynamic player. They have lost the player who played more minutes than any other forward in the NHL over the last three seasons. They have lost a singular weapon, the lone player on the team — other than Martin Brodeur — capable of both putting fans into and then bringing them out of their seats.
And they have lost their best player at the age of 30 at a more than reasonable cap hit of $6.67 million per, and for nothing in return except some perceived benefit five years down the road to the next ownership group and the comfort the club won’t have to face a daunting cap-recapture charge in a decade.
This is and was not a fair trade for the team, for management or for the fans: Kovalchuk in exchange for $6.67 million of cap space. Those saying it’s so will next be saying the Rangers would benefit from the additional $6.875 million in space they’d gain if Henrik Lundqvist were to “retire” to Frolunda of the SEL this summer.
Zach Parise’s departure to the Wild was all about going home and unrelated to Kovalchuk. David Clarkson going to the Leafs was all about a huge contract and unrelated to Kovalchuk. What, did Alexander Mogilny leave New Jersey for Toronto as a free agent in 2001 because of Kovalchuk, too?
Kovalchuk’s exit does not signal the beginning of a trend any more than Scott Niedermayer’s decision to sit out the first half of the 2007-08 season in Anaheim did, and remember the hysteria about that?
This was a singular decision made under a singular circumstance by a singular individual who walked through the locked door once it was opened for him by the NHL.
The Devils are not better for it. Not in the least.