Why Kovalchuk's Deal Was Rejected

I know it's summer and the weather is nice and all that crap, but I can't over the frustration I have with the lack comprehension of why Kovalchuk's deal got rejected. Hockey analysts have apparently Wikipedia-ed "longest NHL contracts," and thrown in references to DiPietro, Luongo, Pronger, and Ovechkin and said (presumably in the voice of a four-year old in a toy store) "their contract didn't get rejected, so why did Kovalchuk's?". Here's a quick breakdown of why these comparisons are wrong, as well as why Kovalchuk's deal is different:

DiPietro: It can be said that the Kneeless One's 15-year deal is what started this madness, but that's actually not true. DiPietro's salary matches his cap number, which means there is NO cap circumvention, only a misguided belief that he was the franchise savior and could command more money if he ever needed to renegotiate a contract. Today, as long as Rick drags his carcass to training camp and onto the DL each year, the Isles are on the hook.

Ovechkin: Similar to DiPietro, Ovechkin's deal was simply to ensure that he's in a Caps uniform for life. His deal, as well as the new one linemate Backstrom signed, actually go UP later in the contract.

Pronger: Pronger's was a deal that actually could have drawn some investigation from the NHL, since the contract has two years tacked on at the end worth only $1.05 million combined. However, the extension ended up kicking in after Pronger was 35, meaning that when Pronger finally gets taken out of the game on a stretcher by the karma train, his $4.291 million cap hit is around for another 7 years.

Luongo: Besides lowering the average cap hit, there are other two reasons those extra years tacked on are so effective. First, it creates a disincentive for the already ridiculously wealthy player to keep playing (this wouldn't work under the NBA, known as the Antwan Walker exception), and second, it creates a more favorable buyout situation. Luongo's contract, I believe, is the latter. If Luongo is bought out after only 8 years, the contract is structured so that buyout will only count for $500,000 of cap space. If the cap keeps rising as the recession fades, 8 years of buyout payments of half a million is peanuts compared to 8 years of a Cup window. Even if he plays out his contract until he's 43, goalies have the potential to play longer than skaters - 392 year-old Chris Chelios is the exception - and especially forwards. Since the lockout, only one forward has made it to 44 - Claude Lemieux - and that was after a retirement in 2003, a five-year relaxation period, followed by 2008 comeback where he netted one assist in 18 games for the Sharks.

Kovalchuk: The key to why Kovalchuk's deal was rejected was his No Movement Clause, which expires after 2016-2017. Once the deal hits the 11-year mark, Kovy makes $750,000 followed by 5 years of $550,000. At that point, with an NMC, the Devils will no doubt stick him in the minors. There's no way in hell Kovy moves up the coast to play in Albany for the River Rats, and he'll only be 38 by then, leaving more than enough time to retire and book it to Russia for another few years and a few more million bucks as a returning Russian hero superstar. None of the other contracts above structure such a blatant no-movement clause like this, and that's the reason the NHL may have some grounds to reject it. I'm not a big city, fancy-talkin' lawyer or nothin', but that appears to be the only grounds the NHL has to stand on.

We're also Canucks fan, so we'd like to say the deal got nixed because it would be really great to get a superstar in the Southern California area. And hey, isn't that where Mike Murphy works? Yeah, that guy. We feel your pain Devils fans, and we have extra tinfoil hats for you.