New Line in the Sand

It is believed by many in the hockey world that the reason the league rejected the Kovalchuk contract, and not others before it, is because the NHL wanted to draw a line in the sand.  Said line will presumably tell teams just how far they can circumvent the salary cap and CBA.  To put it in perspective: the government of your country has decided that it's perfectly okay to kill someone a little bit, but if you kill them too much you're in trouble (and we're talking about pure murder here, not manslaughter or anything like that). That's exactly the type of line that the NHL was looking to draw in regards to long-term, front-loaded contracts that "artificially" lower the cap hit.  Needless to say, they have succeeded. 

Because the arbitrator sitting on the case ruled by what he presumed to be the intent of the contract, and not by the language of the CBA, many are still wondering where the line is.  Based on arbitrator Bloch's 20-page decision, I have been able to form some type of clue about this ever-changing line. 

Where the line has been drawn:

• A Standard Player Contract (SPC) cannot exceed the limit of the Player's 42nd year of age, unless the Player's name is Christopher Chelios or Roberto Luongo.
• After a Player's 42nd year of age, they may only sign one-year deals with any Club, until they decide to retire.
• It is now considered Circumvention to place a Player on waivers or send him to the minors.  This is news to Glen Sather.
• All players who are above the age of 40 must have a No-Movement Clause, just in case any Club mulls over the possibility of dumping the Player in the minor leagues if they refuse to retire.
• Only Chris Chelios can play past the age of 43. 
• It is unreasonable to assume that any Player in the future can expect to play to age 43, except Roberto Luongo.
• It is unreasonable to assume that any Player in the future can expect to play to age 42, except Chris Pronger and Marian Hossa.
• If anything is rare, uncommon, or unheard of, such as a Player that plays in the National Hockey League past the age of 42, it is now considered Circumvention.
• If anything is questionable about the Player's intent, the Club's intent, or the SPC's intent for the duration of the contract, the arbitrator has every right to reject the SPC.  Even if the questions that are raised cannot be answered for at least another 11 or 12 years, such as whether or not the Player intends on playing out the length of the SPC.
• It is okay for Chris Pronger, Henrik Zetterberg, and Vincent Lecavalier to receive 97% of the total salary of their SPCs two years before the SPCs end, for Marian Hossa to receive 94% of the total salary four years before the SPC ends, for Roberto Luongo to receive 94% of the total salary three years before the SPC ends, and for Johan Franzen to receive 92% of the total salary three years before the SPC ends.  But from here on out, 97% of the total salary of the SPC cannot be granted to the player six years before the SPC ends.
• The right is reserved for Gary Bettman and/or any other NHL executive to change the rules as they go along and re-draw any lines however and whenever they feel like it.  The right is also reserved for those listed previously to make those lines as contradictory and scarcely-defined as they can.