NHL to Void Luongo's Contract On Sept 3rd 2010?

Well, it has been almost 4 weeks since the rumours of the NHL voiding front-loaded, long-term contracts first arose with the Kovalchuk arbitration.

But now, in the wake of the latest NHL/NHLPA discussions over Kovalchuk, it is being reported by Jason Botchford of the The Province newspaper and Larry Brooks of the New York Post that the NHL has set a deadline of 3pm Pacific time on Friday Sept 3rd 2010.

If the NHLPA doesn't agree to modify the CBA by that time, the new Kovalchuk deal will be rejected, and others such as Roberto Luongo's voided as well.

Aside from the head-scratching idea of investigating both the teams in the most recent Stanley Cup finals (Marian Hossa with Chicago and Chris Pronger with Philly) for violating the spirit of the CBA, this is even more troubling for Canucks fans because Luongo was specifically called out by both the arbitrator and in this new ultimatum.

The League is holding the position that Luongo's contract extension (and Marc Savard's and Pronger's extensions) doesn't start until Game 1 of the 2010-2011 schedule.

However, if that is the case, why couldn't any other team make an offer to Luongo on July 1st? I know Pronger, coming off an Olympic gold medal and Stanley Cup final appearance, would surely have gotten offers. But he didn't, because the other 29 teams all believed he was under contract.

But I guess Bettman knows better than the 30 GMs, NHLPA and player agents.

However, even if it is voided, realistically where is Luongo going to go this year?

Luongo likes it here in Vancouver, and Mike Gillis wants to keep him here.

Most likely he would sign a 1 year deal with Vancouver for his expected cap hit (5.3 million) and then work out a new extension that would be palatable to the league. There isn't any other playoff bound team that both needs a goalie and could afford him at this point in the summer. 

But as an NHL fan, I hope the NHL does try and void the contracts on Friday. As I laid out here, this could be the final straw in getting Garry Betman dethroned. 

From the fans perspective, this also wouldn't look good for the NHL. As much as these deals (negotiated by the GMs) might violate the spirit of the CBA, it doesn't seem like fair play to essentially try and blackmail the NHLPA to agree to rewrite the CBA before it expires. 

If a team signs a bad deal, they have to live with it, they can't go to the player and renegotiate in year 3 of a 5 year deal. So why does Betttman get do it?

I'm sure the irony of this deadline coming as Labour Day weekend starts isn't lost on Fehr and the NHLPA either.