Mark Spector

Mark Spector is a columnist for sportsnet.ca

While the Kovalchuk-Devils deal might be good for both parties, it's bad for the market as a whole.

It is the expected reaction in a sport with a labour history as acrimonious as the National Hockey League. Today, across the hockey world, the impending scrap over the Ilya Kovalchuk contract is being framed as a crucial juncture for the NHL Players' Association to draw a line.

And we couldn't agree more.

But the line that needs to be drawn by the NHLPA is not one that preserves the see-through, 17-year retirement contracts like the one the New Jersey Devils and Kovalchuk cooked up this week.

The time has come for the union to stand up for the 98 per cent of players who are adversely affected by these deals, rather than protecting the right of the two per cent who skew the market place so teams can -- as in the Kovalchuk contract -- turn a $9 million cap hit into a $6 million cap hit.

What does a contract like Kovalchuk's 17-year, $102-million deal do to the market?

"It's like a big balloon. It sucks the air right out of the market," agent Steve Bartlett told sportsnet.ca. "It totally deflates it."

Look, this isn't an argument about whether this contract circumvents the collective bargaining agreement, or if the toothpaste that was first squeezed with Miikka Kiprusoff's contract back in 2008 can now be put back into the tube by the NHL.

Those CBA issues, frankly, bore us to tears. The NHL missed this loophole when it negotiated the last CBA, and now they are paying dearly for it.

And we get the fact that individual players and their agents should not be thinking of the macro economy when negotiating their own, personal contracts. It is the NHLPA's job to look after the greater membership, and that is where this column comes in.

The Kovalchuk contract is good for the player, but bad for the market as a whole.

"I truly believe it is," Bartlett said. "The problem is, when the dollars are used up so long term, and there is so little flexibility left, every year there are less buyers because there are so many dollars spent before July 1. The supply and demand ultimately starts to work against the players as a whole.

"And for teams, sometimes the time comes when you need to turn your team over with new exciting players. What do you do with a 40-year-old player who you signed 14 years ago who is still on your roster?"

In the deal the NHL rejected, nearly 97 per cent of Kovalchuk's money -- $98.5 million -- would have been paid in the first 11 years of the 17-year pact. But in the final six seasons -- when Kovalchuk is aged 38-43 -- the actual salary averages $583,333. As you know, the annual cap hit is averaged out over the term of the contract, so those extra six seasons turn a $9 million cap hit into a far more manageable $6 million.

We talked at length with agent Allan Walsh on Wednesday and he argued that the elongated deal actually helps the market, leaving the Devils $3 million more to spend each season over the term of the contract.

My reply: if the Devils couldn't stretch this deal out it would never be signed. If they were willing to handle a $9 million cap hit right now, they would do it. And what about the six years at the end, when Kovalchuk might be vastly overpaid?

Yes, there are "outs" that may occur. Like sending Kovalchuk to the minors, or he retires. But if we know that today, then perhaps this deal is bogus after all.

It is no way to build a hockey team, and even Devils GM Lou Lamoriello sounds like he knows it.

"This is within the rules. This is in the CBA," he said Tuesday before the NHL nixed the deal. "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 should be shut down for the good of game," Bartlett said. "To hold together a market place without giving out these ridiculous long-term deals."

Sounds like an agent who wishes he had the big free agent? Don't worry -- Bartlett has had his share of big names over the years.

What Bartlett's voice represents is a rare entity that is looking out for the greater good of the game. Not just ownership, not only elite players, or a single free agent.

Everybody.

And isn't that how unions -- or associations as in the case of the NHLPA -- are supposed to work?

The PA is certain to grieve this situation.

I wonder, if they held a vote, would the players agree?